The problem of evil.
Posted on: August 7, 2007 - 5:43pm
Offline
The problem of evil.
It's simple.
I want a good theistic response to the problem of evil.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/
Basically the problem of evil seeks to refute the position of the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent being by citing the existence of evil.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
- Login to post comments
By invoking omnipotence , omnibenevolent, and omniscient, I assume you mean a classical Christian theistic response.
If you're interested in other theistic ideas I might offer up something.
My Artwork
As long as it's logically consistent,
(or at least very near so to the point where it only fails upon great investigation),
I'll hear you out.
I was more pining for someone who believes in the god with those three attributes, as I personally believe the problem of evil is the ultimate debunk for that particular god. I was hoping someone could logically solve the problem of evil without some circular, meaningless free will bullshit (unless they could defend it).
But I digress.
Say what you mean.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
Post script.
can I say bullshit in this forum?
Fuck no.
Shit.
Ass, shit. Now we're off topic.
Evil is whatever we don't like. A word like "bullshit" is evil.
Good is whatver we do like. Like the word "fuck."
Now we are back on topic.
Perhaps you should have some idea of what my theism encompasses. I consider omniscient and other omni properties terms that are next to useless because the create insurmountable problems with logic. I tend towards materialism so for me supernatural is either meaningless or a lazy way of saying phenomona beyond our understanding.
An analogy I use for good and evil is a light source in the dark. Good is anything that brings you closer to the light. Evil is anything that takes you further from the light. God did not create evil. Evil is an action taken by us that moves us away from the light. One could argue that in creating the conditions that allow for evil actions that god created evil, but the potential for an entity to distance itself from god exists regardless if an entity exists. An evil act harms the innocent by definition. If the innocent were not effected it would not be evil. Evil actions are allowed by because for an entity to have awareness of god it must also have an awareness of good and evil and be able to act on that awareness.
Note that by my definition, atheists that are doing good are drawing nearer to the god that I believe in. And religious people that commit evil are moving away. It is far more important to me tha a person is genuinely concerned with learning truth than any particular labels we put on it. One of my core beliefs is that in all likelyhood, most of what I consider "real" is either hopelessly incomplete or just flat wrong.
My Artwork
Ok, just as I expected, we don't really have a dialogue on the problem of evil. The nature of your deity means that it is impervious to the problem of evil. The fact that it has no "omni" attributes immediately opens up the possibility of evil existing (as god could want it, make it happen, not know about it, not care about it, not be able to stop it, etc.). And so the discussion is irrelavent. Note that when I bring up the problem of evil, I am not bringing up the (slightly philosophically questionable) same question as the public face of atheism would, which is simply, "why does evil exist?". When I speak of the problem of evil, I'm speaking of the philosophical argument that evil can not exist alongside an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient god. (I could lay the argument out, but again, I feel it irrelavent regarding your views.)
I'm having a hard time figuring out how you arrive at your conclusions.
So your god is the "light" in your analogy? And we all sort of have a position on the continuum of closeness to your god based on good actions vs. evil actions?
I have a few questions, just out of curiousity...
1) what is it that you consider god? is it Spinoza's god? An unseen natural force? the same as "good"?
2) Who is "innocent"?
2b) how do we know who is innocent and how are we expected to act on that knowledge? What abotu philosophically questionable actions?
3) is "doing good" the meaning of life (and thus getting closer to god) in your worldview?
4) on what do you base the belief that most of what you believe is incomplete or wrong?
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
I'm not sure I understand. Most of the omni-attributes that people speak up.. usually lack any relevance in logical discourse at all-- except, perhaps, in passing. But certainly not an "issue."
For instance.
How can an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, atemporal, immaterial, God by omnibenelovant, at the same time allowing there to be such thing as evil.
Easy, because he's omnipotent.
Circular yes.. but I don't understand why anything else would be needed?
The same logic that is used to make the statement:
If omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, then COULD HAVE created a world without capacity for evil but not contradictory to an omnibenevolant character.
Therefore, since evil, IF omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, God, then not omnibenevolant creator.
Can lead to this:
If omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, then COULD HAVE created a world with capacity for evil but not contradictory to an omnibenevolant character.
Therefore, since evil, IF omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God, not necessarily omnibenevolant or not omnibenevolant.
OF course.. I'm with wavefreak.. I don't really find these words all to necessary for a description of God (perhaps I've misread you wavefreak)-- however, if they prove useful to someone, so be it.
I'm not really sure what you're arguing for here.
The whole point of the problem of evil is to show the logical inconsistency of the three common "omni" attributes that many theists still hold on to, to this day. Saying "because he is omnipotent" doesn't solve the problem of evil at all.
If god is omnipotent, then god could have prevented the existence of evil. If god is omniscient, then god would have known how to prevent it. If god is omnibenevolent, then god would want to prevent it. Ergo, no evil would exist with this god.
I know there are people who still hold this view on god, but sadly I can never get a philosophical discussion out of them.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
Of course he could have. But the issue isn't whether or not this God could have or could not have prevented evil.. but on whether or not he could have created WITHOUT being contradictory to an omnibenevolant character.
This isn't even necessary.. considering that God is "all powerful," he could have just said "no evil" and there would be "no evil."
This is the issue.. and also the fault, IMO, of the argument. This statement has some implicit elements to it:
Benevolence necessitates not wanting evil or its capacity.
Evil is what we think it is.
This is why I would construct my argument by stating "creating a system in which evil exists and yet is not contradictory to his omnibenevolant nature."
OR, that what we view as "evil" would not be contradictory to his "omnibenevolant nature."
"Omnipotent" means "all powerful":
Omnipotent means can do X, whatever X is.
Therefore, there is no "necessary limitation" to its character, therefore one could never say something like this (implicitly or explicitly):
"An omnipotent God cannot create a world with evil or allows evil and be omnibenevolant at the same time."
Ahh, but you're discounting the obvious. While i agree that omnipotence perscribes the ability to immediately abolish evil, without omniscience, there remains the possibility that god just doesn't know about it/where it is/ etc.
We could argue that in order to have omnipotence, god then MUST have omniscience logically. Because, in order to be able to abolish evil wherever it is (omnipotence would mean the power to do anything, anywhere, at any time) god must know about it.
Another way to look at it:
1) A being Y can do any and all X (where x is a set of actions)
2) Omnipotence is the ability to do any and all X (irrespective of time or space)
3)(from 1,2) A being Y is omnipotent.
omniscience is containing all knowledge, Z.
4) We can conceive of X as a set of actions that requires knowledge Z to complete.
5) (from 3, 4) In order for being Y to be able to do X, it requires knowledge Z.
6) For any Z, we can imagine an action X which requires knowledge Z to complete.
7) (from 3, 5, 6) in order for being Y to be omnipotent (to be able to do any X), it must contain all knowledge Z (as we can always imagine an action X which requires some knowledge, Z, to complete).
9) A being Y which is omnipotent must then also be omniscient.
Then we basically agree
except on the issue of omniscience.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
Wow. Any of these questions could be an entire thread. How about pick a favorite and I'll start with that.
You should also understand that I believe it is necessary to accept that part of our understanding of reality is intrinsically irrational. We are both rational and irrational beings. Some of my answers may not be entirely rational or logical
My Artwork
2) Any and all X.
4) X requires knowledge Z.
I don't think these two work together.. they would jsut create a never-ending regress.
For instance:
X1="X without knowledge Z."
In essence, according to 2:
Omnipotent can do "X without knowledge Z."
Well.. if I used your limits I would have to say:
"X without knowledge Z" requires knowledge Z1.
Well then:
X2: "X1 without knowledge Z" without knowledge Z1."
And so on.
If anything.. I think the only knowledge necessary for an omnipotent being to do anything, is merely that he/she knows him/her to be omnipotence.
We agree that the "problem of evil" doesn't preclude a omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, God?
Because that's what I said. :P
See.
I believe the "problem of evil" is merely one of understanding God if he exists, not one that precludes his logical existence.
(edited my argument for clarity, bold/italicized the changes)
You're proving my point. I think you interpreted my argument wrong, probably because it was unclear in that point. As I said with premise 6) For any Z, we can imagine an action X which requires Z to complete.
In using X, I am not using X to represent any and all actions. Each "X" is an action. So we must use "any and all X" to represent "any and all possible actions"
The same with Z. "Z" doesn't represent all knowledge. It represents some knowledge, or a piece of information if you will.
So, if action "x1" requires knowledge "z", then in order for the being to be omnipotent, it must have knowledge "z". Otherwise, the being would be unable to do "x1" and would fail to meet the requirement of being able to do "any and all x".
Saying that a being can be omnipotent with only the knowledge of him/herself being omnnipotent is the same as saying there is no action X for which some Z is required. Unless Z is, "the knowledge of self omnipotence".
Basically, if you don't know everything: There will be something you don't know how/what/where/when to do. Therefore, you can't be omnipotent.
My whole point is that omnipotence isn't saying Being Y can do any and all X without knowledge Z. The whole point is that any Being Y that can do any and all X must then have all knowledge Z. There will always be some action X which inherently requires some knowledge Z to complete, for any Z.
For example, a being could not edit my dna without the knowledge of
1) how to edit DNA
2) Me
3) specific things such as where I was at the point in time the editing would take place
It's absurd to claim a being can be omnipotent and have basically no knowledge.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
Absurd.. perhaps.. but "omnipotence" is pretty absurd logically.
Question.
Can an omnipotent do (insert).... yes. Anything.
Absurd or not.
IMO that is the problem with any argument which considers necessary ANY condition with regards to an omnipotent being.Yes but why? What do you base this assertion on? Even if part of our understanding of reality will always be irrational, does this preclude almost absolute certain knowledge?
Of course every human has human bias and a different set of beliefs and rationality, education, experiences, etc.
However, we can always make certain assumptions that get us closer to what, at the very least, appears to be true.
For example: while it may be a possibility that there is a persistent mass delusion (the cause of which could be an infinite amount of things) on the subject of 2+2, we are very reasonable to concede the answer is 4.
In asserting this I assume that the universe exists and that there is no implanted neural joke in every human that causes us to fail the experiment of counting, reliably, every time.
These assumptions may be untrue but I don't feel they are irrational. They are as very near to the truth as we can assume without conceding that we can never "know" anything.
Religious belief is obviously not even close to appearing to be an absolute truth (on either side), since we can't use verifiability to test claims.
However, if we rely on assumptions and ideas which all regress back completely to almost certain truth (as science does), then we've done no more harm than we did with the original assertions such as 2+2=4. (these are ideas such as "personality is part of the neural set-up in the brain, therefore personality shouldn't outlive the brain"
Again, the entire framework in which we understand those facts could be universally inherently illogical. I guess what I'm saying is that the chances of that being true don't seem very likely and the implications of it not being true seem prima facie to be not applicable to our current state.
I know we just have a subjective fight that I don't see a real end to. It feels like the objective vs. relative fight. The nature of any premise entered relies on the conclusion.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
I know that's not your point. My point is that the condition doesn't make any sense with regards to an omnipotent being. At the very least.. it would create an infinite regress.
"Can do X without Z1" without Z2" without Z3" without Z4" without Z5" withoud Zn."
I'm not sure you can make any argument that an omnipotent character is limited by anything, even knowledge.
To state it another way.
Is an omnipotent God limited by logic? No.
IMO, this is just how I see it.
Any argument which limits omnipotence with any condition is illogical IMO.
Of course, I realize, that if an omnipotent being is not constrained by logic then this:
Can an omnipotent being create everything without him being? Yes!
The humanity. :P
Ok so the difference is that I assumed the set of all Xs to be possible.
In other words, only things that are intrinsically possible are included in "any and all X". I think this is the charitable way to read the viewpoint.
Of course we can have the "can god make a rock larger than is possible for himself to lift?" discussion, but
1) the theist doesn't need to claim that god can do intrinsically impossible things (be it logically impossible/epistemelogically impossible/etc.). So in light of those arguments, we fail to encompass the most charitable interpretation.
2) That's not the debate I was hoping to stir with the original thread.
However, feel free to logically prove that it's impossible for a being to exist that subverts logic. I'm not interested in such discussion.
Also, I retract my earlier statement about the invalidity of your infinite regress. Again I didn't explain myself clear enough and I completely agree that omnipotence is a logical impossibility if we include in the set of actions "x" things that are logically impossible.
For example, performing action "x1", which requires knowledge "z", without knowledge "z". My fault.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
Can an omnipotent being change the truth of the premise of his own existence?
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
GAH!
This is why I make no attempt to include omni anything in my theism. It just gets too crazy for my peanut sized brain.
My Artwork
The answer to this question is: "God could make a rock infinitely big and lift an infinitely big rock."
Since "infinite" has not practical basis.. my answer doesn't really mean anything. Which is the problem with the question. It suggests that the questionee must answer "yes or no"-- but, obviously, that's not the case..
Fair enough. But then.. isn't this limitation merely narrowing the question into such a way that there can only be one answer? The only necessary premise is "omnipotence means all powerful," which is in accordance with the prescriptive definition. From where does the "all powerful only entails those things which are intrinsically possible" premise come from?
Certainly it is not self-evident. IMO.
You're right. It wasn't. I perfectly left "a set of actions" up for interpretation. So my argument wasn't perfect. I formulated it in about 10 minutes. I think this is my third apology. Sorry.
But I also never said "all powerful".
I said "any and all x" where "x" is a set of actions.
While there are sets of actions that can be conceived of that are logically inconsistent, I just made the assumption that we weren't considering those for the sake of the argument.
If we assume an easy to dispute position, then we've accomplished nothing to debunk it. That's the very definition of strawman arguments. It's always best to interpret the position charitably.
Even if the person who made the argument chopped it together like shit the first time around.
Are you meaning to say that the entire dispute is useless because any omnipotence is logically inconsistent? Then why did you entertain the argument at all?
If the theist has conceded that omnipotence is logically inconsistent, and instead retreats to what amounts as "a very high amount of power", then the POE is useless to begin with.
Perhaps that's the route more intelligent theists should take.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
I entertained it because the arguement is used, a lot of times, like this:
"An omnipotent God can't exist and being omnibenevolant in this world."
That's just untrue. I would say that omnipotence is merely a place holder.. like infinite.. I'm not sure any practical application can exist with either of these words as still applicable.
That is exactly what the argument is trying to do... and I was taking exception.
However, being charitable to the argument, let me try.
An omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolant God created a world "with the capacity of evil," not "with evil," because "capacity of evil" is logically necessitated by "capacity for good."
These words are comparitive... they exist because we consider things both evil and good.
According to the axiom of identity (someone correct me if I'm wrong here)... for there to be X, there must be a not X. For there to be "good," there must be a "not good." "Not good" = "evil."
Logically necessitated.
No "not good" would mean no "good" because "good" would not exist.
So.. if omnipotence is limited by the intrinsically possible.. then he MUST have created a system with the capacity of evil if he was to create a system with the capacity of good.
I dont think that's a good route to take.
It starts to hinge on your conception of good vs. evil.
Here's a little motivation in the opposite direction: You exist. is there a "not you"? There's no need for the concept because "not you" is ubiquitous. Without you existing in reality, everything would be "not you". You dont need to exist in reality for whatever we call "not you" to exist. You could be a concept. God exists as a concept, but if we deny the premise, then everything that actually exists is "not god"
In the same way, if you encompassed everything, if you were everything, "not you" would be a useless concept because it wouldn't exist in reality, anyway. To say that "for any P there exists a ~P, therefore since good exists, 'not good' exists." equivocates on the idea of existence. It may be true that any premise has a logical opposite, but that is a conceptualization and not necessarily a reality.
The universe exists, is "not the universe" necessitated to exist as well? Barring recent cosmological development and assuming the universe is all that exists, for the sake of demonstration:
We can conceive of things existing that are "not the universe", so they exist in concept. But that doesn't mean they are true/exist in reality.
______________
Some other motivation, aside:
some people (not me, because I don't have use in my worldview for the concepts of good or evil, but am going to discuss them for the sake of this argument) would argue that evil exists now in the world in the form of natural disasters, animal suffering (incl. humans), etc.
This can be seen as evidence against the "capacity for evil" argument because an omnibenevolent god who created the capacity for evil would still seek to reduce it to miniscule amounts (and I would argue would have no use for free will because it is too big of a gamble). An omnipotent god would be able to reduce/prevent it so much that it would be practically unseen.
Even if we accept that Evil is everything "not good"(whatever good is), the nature of a god that is powerful enough to do everything supposedly done by this god would be powerful enough to reduce evil to almost undetectable amounts.
The existence of both P and ~P doesn't necessitate them being in near-balance.
So to keep acceptance that god is omnibenevolent (or as near as can be within logical possibility) and all-powerful (again, as near as can be). We must accept that evil exists in almost undetectable amounts in our world (the vast majority of our world is good.) or doesn't exist at all. Or, since we've basically stripped the "omni-" qualification from god every which way, we must concede that god is either powerless to stop, careless to stop, or not in knowledge of the evil that does exist.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
Yes. It is not an entity but it is definiable.
No. I believe the axiom is reversable. If there is a "not you" then there is a "you." In order to talk about something you must infer the "not something." And vise versa.
In other words.. How could you say "Not X" without implying something as definiable, "X."
We're not talking about premises. We are talking about "things".. whether conceptual or material.
Things which are "identifiable."
"Premises" apply to much more than just the indentifiable.
Well.. "the universe" provides an interesting thing because, by definition, it means "everything."
Therefore, in essence, "not the universe" merely means "nothing."
Does nothing exist?
Hmm.. unsure how to answer that. Yet, still, since "good" and "bad/evil" are conceptual.. I'm not really sure this needs to be settled at the moment.
Whose to say? Since he can do only what is "intrincisically possible," perhaps the amount of "evil" (with regards to natural phenomenon) is the lower about of "evil" that is "intrinsically possible."
Besides.. natural phenomenon, in and of themselves, do not make a disaster, but merely lack of knowledge when and where they will hit as well as a geo-political structure which keeps certain people in more dangerous areas than others.
As for the "intrinsically possible," I would venture to say that even evolutionist would conceed that the world we have now is one of an astronomically large number of possibilities in which our particular anatomy could have survived.
True. Yet.. and I know you didn't want this.. but that is the essence of freewill-- that, to whatever is physically possible, effect that balance between one and the other.
I do not feel that "evil" will necessarily be manifested throughout eternity.. I feel that the balance must sooner or later turn towards the "good".. but I'm not sure I would conceed that an omnipotent, omniscient God, limited by what is "intrinsically possible" could arbitrarily change that balance without directly running contrary to the concept of freewill (whatever that means.)
The tooth fairy exists as a concept. The tooth fairy does not exist in reality. Everything that exists in reality is "not the tooth fairy".
Evil exists as a concept. Evil does not exist in reality. Everything that exists in reality is "not evil" (good).
So..your point is irrelavent in the good/evil discussion. Replace "premise" with "things" and re-word:
"It may be true that the existence of a thing necessitates there being a thing which is "not" the original thing, but it need not exist beyond being an idea/concept; it need not be true."
This was just another example I threw out, and given the difficulty it presents, I dont think any further discussion of it would bear fruition.
"Whose to say?"... It's inferred directly from the attributes of this deity. As I said earlier, you equivocated on the idea of existence, and still haven't provided any evidence that because the concept of evil is necessitated by the concept of good, that evil must exist at all in the universe.
I'm holding on to the idea that there's no reason to believe that the existence of evil is in any way necessary, nor does it leave any good reason to believe in an "all-powerful" "all-good" god.
If natural disasters were evil, an "all-powerful" "all-good" deity would warn us of them, try to prevent them, snap them out of existence, put them in places there are no living things, etc.
So, people are still there, and people still die (as well as other animals), and people (and other animals) still suffer because of it. Only a non-benevolent (not necessarily "malevolent"
It's special pleading to say "we just can't know", when we know that the deity we have agreed on is "all-powerful" and "all-knowing" and "all-good" within logical possibility.
Especially if we agree that natural disasters were evil or that suffering was evil. There's no reason that this deity would be logically restricted from knowing certain things that happen or being able to stop them.
Think of any given war. It doesn't entail a logical impossibility that every bullet ever fired could have missed.
It doesn't entail a logical impossibility that every human that ever lived died in their sleep, painlessly.
It doesn't entail a logical impossibility that the dinosaurs never had to go extinct, that animals didn't have to be designed to kill each other for energy, or that tornadoes never have to form.
It makes no sense to speculate that we live in a world that is the "lower limit of evil" if we concede that there is any evil at all in animal suffering.
What do you even mean by this?
The essence of freewill, "to whatever is physically possible, effect that balance between one and the other."? Huh?
1) the temporal argument of evil doesn't work in the framework of an "all-powerful" "all-knowing" "all-good" god. A god with these three attributes would have no vested interest in the existence of evil, and would therefore prevent it.
2) This same god would have no vested interest in free will and would therefore never create it. In order to create free will, evil must be created/allowed. This is the essense of the POE. You present the argument as if it is a decision to be made now. "should I destroy evil? no. that ruins free will."
However, the god presented wouldn't have allowed evil to exist in the first place. It's that simple. There would be no reason to give us free will if it meant we would bring evil into the world. There's no reason for us to look back and postulate this within the given framework. It's just inconsistent.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
Where do concepts exist if not in reality?
My Artwork
I didn't conceed because I felt I couldn't make reasonable arguments.. I conceeded because I have to study for torts and contracts finals.
..horrible horrible finals.
I guess.. now that I'm out of class.. I'll make one final point.
Evil exists as a real concept. It may, arguably, not be material. Nevertheless..
The axiom of identity is not one of existence but one of conception.
Just because the word "evil" necessitates a concept of "not evil" doesn't not mean that "not evil" manifests itself materially.
So.. while I did say that "not evil" = "good".. tis true. Conceptually. Since conceptually is all that matters when speaking of conceptual things (good and evil). I am not saying that "evil" MUST materially exist or even that "good" MUST materially exist.. merely that if we have a concept of one we necessarily conceptualize the other.
When one becomes aware of one concept, he/she necessarily becomes aware of the other.
This is not to say that one must always be acted upon or manifested or materially exist (since it is merely a concept).. but conceptually they will always exist.
Whether they are continually manifested or acted upon, is a different issue.
Unless it's not "intrinsically possible." Whose to say it is? Whose to say it's not?
Unless by creating the universe he made it "intrinsically impossible" to stop the natural phenomenon.
See.. this "intrinsically possible" limitation on an omnipotent figure makes the argument close to meaningless as well. Unless you can show how an earthquake can be taken out of our system without negatively affecting it.. how can you say it is?
A positive assertion that, IMO, is not valid.
When have you established that it is logically possible to do it?
Without messing with the generally applicable rules of physics? or mind-controlling an individual into being a bad aim? I would say its not unreasonable to say that it is logically impossible.
It does if the reason people don't die in their sleep is because of generally applicable rules which cannot be affected without affecting the methods by which our anatomy evolves and adapts.
(There is also an element to freewill in here.. and while I think it is often used haphazardly.. I do believe the contenders do have a point when they say "If man, as a whole, has pushed God a way as a rule God could not help without forcing a choice onto them."
It makes no sense to speculate that we live in a world that is the "higher limit of evil" if we have nothing to compare it to.
I was counter-arguing something before it was stated. Some say "free will" is "to do whatever you want" and therefore we don't have it because we can't fly. So now I always have to qualify it.. because that is not how I define free will.. "free will" is the freedom to "will" not the freedom to "do."
(Another counter-argument that I'm going to try and cut off before it comes. One may argue that "God could limit what we could do and not our free will," tis true. But then, through what means? Through micromanagement? Meaning... I can swing my arm with a knife in X way except when I am meaning to kill someone? Or through generally applicable rules? Like, you can't fly.
If the former, then I could see even the most simple of simpletons findings some oddness to having "free will" whatsoever. If the latter, then to eliminate murder you would have to eliminate through generally applicable rules, any motion which murder could be caused by.)
In anycase.. if there is good and evil, then we can will whatever evil we want, we cannot do whatever evil we want. And vise versa.
Affecting the balance by whatever we will and choose to do. On is not necessitated to be willed or manifested anymore than the other.
(Although.. I think there is a valid argument that says "good" must exist as long as "things" exist.)
I don't like the term "vested interest" but I will use it nonetheless.
Unless he had a "vested interest" in a freewill temporal being, who by nature of his freewill conceptualized evil.
"Evil" is not something to be "destroyed" it is a concept. It is derived through "free will." To "not allow/create" evil would be to "not allow/create" that thing which allows its derivation, free will.
Why God would have a "vested interest" in "free will" is another question-- which I believe is the importance of the "omnibenevolant" attribute in this argument. Every benevolant character wants company.. otherwise.. how is he/she to be benevolant?
Merely a conclusion based upon, what I feel, to be a invalid argument. But.. I remain open-- I will read carefully as the argument is expanded or clarified.
Rhad is right. Materialize is a better word to use in that instance. Months out of school have dulled my attention to word choice.
this is closer to the idea i was meaning to portray.
I apologize for the lack of attention to detail on the tooth fairy/evil argument.
this is the statement I was trying to rebuttal with my entire argument that evil need not materialize; a statement which has evolved with our argument and on which we increasingly disagree.
While "capacity" for evil must be true, it makes no statement on how much evil must 'manifest'.
That's my whole point. If we agree on this deity, we've agreed that it's "intrinsically possible" for the deity to have created the universe. You're attacking the idea of "intrinsically possible" as if it says nothing at all. While there may be questions of whether it's going to create a greater balance of good or evil, there's no reason to believe that certain things are not "intrinsically possible".
"scientist finds conclusive evidence of a hurricaine that will hit New Orleans in two weeks."
"Engineer predics bridge will collapse within two days"
"Psychologist identifies and treats mentally disturbed kid with plans of shooting classmates"
There is no logical contradiction here.
Why must these things happen at all?
This is the beginning of the "free will" discussion. But a bridge doesn't have to collapse for free will to exist, and it's possible within human engineering to safely have kept it up. If we can do it, a being which is capable of creating the world should be able to do it.
The ultimate positive assertion is that an "all-powerful" "all-good" "all-knowing" (as nearly as possible) deity created this universe, despite of evidence to the contrary. No evidence has been provided beyond "how do you know he wouldnt?" to prove that a deity with these characteristics would make the universe this way.
Sure, it may not be possible to "stop" earthquakes and floods and soldiers shooting each other within the framework of physics and a weather system that demand such things, but then why make such a system?
Even if we must have free will (a positive assertion with no evidence), why don't we live in an idyllistic heaven-like world with free will?
Your argument is basically saying, "it may be intrinsically impossible for god to stop/reduce the amount of evil which is present in the world because god set it up in such a way that there can't be any less"?
Why didn't god set it up in such a way that there is less evil?
You might say, "free will makes (a certain amount of) evil necessary"
and I would say "why didn't god leave out freewill, if god wanted to reduce evil?"
"intrinsically possible" doesn't mean "there's no way for us to know".
?
We can speculate all day on what's intrinsically possible.
a) does it entail a logical impossibility?
b) does it entail a contradiction to the nature of the being making the action (which we have perscribed as being "all-good"
c) is it beyond the power of this being? (which has been given an "all-powerful" speculation.)
I never made that claim. I made the claim that, whatever the limits of evil, we can be sure that (if animal suffering can be considered evil at all.) our system is poorly designed in such a way to accomodate a lot of it.
Yes but you can see I'm not interested in arguing the nature of free will at all because I don't feel it's a well-supported idea within the framework of an "all-powerful" "all-knowing" "all-good" god.
It's simple.
Free will allows more evil than is necessary.
If the god was that interested in reducing evil, actions would be predetermined (at least).
This is just another unsupported positive assertion.
It's a logical contradiction to both assume that this god would have interest in reducing evil whenever possible, and creating a being which can conceptualize and act in such a way to create more evil. The argument "we can't know" what this god would do or want fell apart as soon as we qualified the god as being "all-good". We know that this god wants maximum good and minimum evil. If you want to hold on to the concept that we "dont know" what this god wants to do or can do or will do, then there's no reason to qualify the god with the aforementioned attributes and the POE has succeeded.
and if you want to hold on to the assertions that god is "all-good" and still made free will, in full-knowledge that it would make more evil, then there has to be support for how free will fits into an "all-good" framework.
One could argue that without free will, there really is no good because a world with beings that just "play themselves out" naturally would lack suffering/happiness. I would say, we could be a world without free will and we just wouldn't realize it. This is not a self-evident assertion, and there can still be suffering/happiness with/without free will.
Then I go back to a previous point. Why would an "all-good" god make something like free will, which allows and inherently increases the amount of evil in the world?
In the original POE, the making/prevention of evil is questioned in the framework of this god. All you've accomplished with this argument is to make freewill the thing that god did when god failed to prevent evil.
Also-animal suffering can exist with or without us conceptualizing evil.
Every benevolent character wants good.
It remains inconsistent to believe otherwise.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
Sorry to jump into the middle of this and take this slightly off the original topic, but this is one of may favorite examples of the omni debates.
If God can create the rock in your example and lift it and that's it, then he can't create a rock heavy enough that he can't lift. The attributes of the rock are rather irrelevant.
I agree this isn't the best question. A better question is "can God contradict his own omnipotence". I think it stands to reason that an omnipotent being cannot have its power contradicted but it could contradict the power of any other being, including itself.
Every wholly benevolent character. I can be both benevolent or malevolent depending on my mood. And I certainly am a character.
One problem I have with benevolence and especially omnibenevolence is that I am not convinced that any human is capable of determining what is actually a good act on the scale of a godly entity. I don't assume that an action by god would appear benevolent to me. Our notions of benevolence are hopelessly anthropomorphic.
My Artwork
No, it's good other people are reading this post. I've been hoping that somebody would come in and shake us up a bit.
I know we have a lot posted, so I haven't really expected it.
If you read a bit more in-depth you'll see that I asked the original rock question in jest to shw that I didn't want to have that discussion at the time because I didn't feel it was relavent.
I think we both agreed that strictly "omnipotence" is just impossible, given all the logical flaws.
I think I ended up asking,
"could god change the truth of the premise of his own existence?".
We could play that game all day long
I agree that whatever concept we create about good/evil is hopelesly anthropomorphic. I personally don't use the concept in my own worldview, but am willing to discuss it for the purpose of the proposed "god". The point you are making is exactly why I am constantly qualifying evil during this argument by saying "if we agree that animal suffering has any evil in it at all".
If the theist wants to hold on to the belief that we can't know what is and what isn't evil, then we still must either believe that the world has no evil (in the framework of the deity we are discussing), or that there is a good reason that this deity would have for creating it (which would require support because it is contradictory to the "all-good" qualification already put on the deity). This seems to be where theists bring up free will.
Also, if we don't know what is and what isn't evil, how do we know what is and what isn't good? How do we know anything about the all-good deity? The deity becomes a useless concept if we dont know anything about its nature. (how do we know that the deity is all-good if we don't know anything about what "good" is? The theist would have to support this assertion.)
As for your argument of "every wholly benevolent" character: I see what you're saying, but we're also discussing a god which is purported to be "wholly benevolent". This is the whole beginning of the POE. If the theists wants to argue that god could have been malevolent in creating/allowing evil, then the POE has succeeded in releasing at least the "all-good" qualification.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
To say that we can't know good and evil over-reaches, IMO. All I am willing to state is that while I may have a general sense of what is good or evil on a human to human basis (rape, murder, etc), I cannot know what considerations from a deity's perspective might result in actions that appear to not be good. A contrived example is having a child killed in a car accident. This does not seem good to me but it could be that god knows something about the future that requires the child's death for the greater good. Again, this is contrived, but if in my finite and limited imagination I can create such contrived scenarios it seems to me that a vastly superior being would understand the consequences of allowing the death of the child.
My Artwork
Which is why I base many of my arguments of the idea that "there is some evil in animal suffering" (rape, murder, many other scenarios).
We can bring in a consequentialist or even utilitarian viewpoint on what is morally good and what is morally wrong and replace "morally good" with "good" and "morally wrong" with "evil" and have some discussion on the fact that the evil that does exist exists to create a greater good, if that's what you're suggesting.
I would respond that there's no reason to believe, especially in certain instances, that there is any greater good being served. While it could serve a greater good, there's no evidence to believe it does, so this becomes an ad hoc assertion meant to support the original assertion of the deity with these attributes.
The non-theist can invoke events that seem to serve no greater good: Babies that die slow agonizing deaths of cancer, animals dying slow agonizing deaths in forest fires, thousands die from a tsunami, etc.)
These appear to serve no greater good. You're right, they might, but what reason to we have to believe that they do? The only reason we could possibly have to assume that they do is that we are trying to prove the existence of an all-good god. That's an ad hoc.
If we're using a consequentialist framework to discuss the righteousness of the actions of the deity, then we can easily view the aforementioned actions in terms of a non-zero sum game (with evil being a negative quantity and good being a positive quantity).
While it may be true that the only way to have maximized good this entire time, in terms of non-zero gameness, is to have necessarily created all this evil along the way, there's really no evidence that this is the case. (how did hurricane katrina produce maximum good utility? how did Hiroshima? How do babies that die in their first 3 months provide an overall positive result? Animals that die in forest fires (you might say the fire made the forest grow back, etc., but the fire could provide its good without the deaths of the anmials)?)
We might have boiled the argument into a subjective debate where the theist will simply claim that the deity has done every action to create maximum "good" in the world, and all evil has been a necessary side effect. (because there is no way to prove this amount of evil wasn't necessary.)
Here the problem of evil shifts into one of chance, similar to the basic atheist view on the overall theist viewpoint: Is it likely, or is it supported by evidence that an "all-powerful" "all-good" "all-knowing" god inherently must allow all the evil present in the world in order to maximize the amount of good?
I think the non-theist has a stronger limb to stand on here, because they can invoke numerous situational problems that seem very likely to produce a net negative utility, and the theist must continually claim that they just somehow were necessary to create extra good. (babies that are born that die slow agonizing deaths due to cancer, animals dying slow agonizing deaths in forest fires).
Also, if there is any sufficient evidence to believe questionable cases such as this have properties that provide good utility in such a way that we don't even know, then there is equal chance that they provide negative utility in such a way that we don't even know. And there's no reason to inherently believe that the good utility must be greater, unless it is required to prove a previous assertion, ad hoc.
From an evidence standpoint, the theist claiming that all series of events have been engineered in such a way to provide maximum good is as close to an ad hoc as you can get.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
You lose me as soon as you invoke maximum good. I suppose that theoretically we can talk about something called maximum good, but I really have no idea what that is. Absolutes in general give me trouble, whether theistic or otherwise. Maximum good for who? Humans? Antelope? Amoebas? God? I have a sense of good and evil, but I doubt there exists a description of good and evil in any human language that encompasses all the complexities of existence. So I don't try for a complete, consistent "theology" of good and evil. I just accept that it is there and deal with it as best I can.
My Artwork
That's not that point.
in a consequentialist or utilitarian framework, the best option is the one that provides the most utility (good).
So when viewing options, the best course of action is the one that provides the "most good" (which I probably said "maximum"
It's not an absolute at all.
In the result of "most" good, somebody can still lose, which is how the theist accounts for evil. This is why I invoke game-theory.
In game theory there are such things as "non-zero sum" games. Essentialy, it means that there is a net positive or negative result.
Saying that god has made the world to maximize good is saying that every action taken by god has produced the most positive net result of good in every possible circumstance. That's simply what I meant by "maximum good".
Your question is essentially why I think good/evil has no real place in modern thought. "good for whom?"
However, it doesnt' matter for the purpose of the argument of the problem of evil, because the existence of evil is, as we established earlier, inferenced by the existence of the 'all-good' god.
We can speculate all day on the nature of evil in this framework, but the theist seems to have to (as stated earlier) either accept that the god is not "all-good", has made existence without evil (it doesn't manifest at all; in which case animal suffering is not evil), or has made existence in such a way to maximize good (in a sort of queer consequentialist framework, for which I suggest we have no evidence).
it's important to note that I am not debating your deity. The purpose of the POE is to show the logical inconsistency or irrationality with believing in the "all-good" "all-powerful" "all-knowing" god.
You can hold any other (crazy) idea and it can be completely devoid of having to face the POE.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
Am I allowed to hold ideas that are not "crazy", or is it presumed because of my thiest tag that I am crazy by default?
My Artwork
I put it in parentheses to qualify that they could or could not be crazy.
I didn't presume anything at all.
I know next to nothing about your ideas.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
I'll try to cut down the points a bit. Bring us a bit more focused.
Agreed. Question is.. If God chooses to infuse "free will" into something, can he stop the manifestations without violating "free will"?
That is our issue and disagreement now.
To eliminate all evil? Yes, it is a question of whether or not it can be done.
The "lesser" or "greater" distinction is just an extension of that. IF we assume that God can make it lesser or greater, why would we assume anything less than none or total?
I know that's what you're getting out (I think). But still, I don't know HOW we can assume that.
To put it this way.. and I'm going to be oversimplifying it to the nth degree but:
Universe = x+x1+x2+x3+x4+x5+x6+x7+x8.........+xn
We say.. "God, take away x2 so we will have less evil."
Universe2 = x+x1+x3+x4+x5....xn
What is Universe2? How do you know universe 2 would have more or less evil?
Each conceptual variable (e.g. freewill, capacity for good, capacity for evil, evolution, law of thermodynamics...) does not affect the world in its own mutually exclusive way.. but they all affect eachother.
We cannot assume that the removal of x2 is "intrinsically possible" to do without making the sum total being a manifestly more "evil" or "less good" universe. (Universe 2).
I'm not saying that I can prove the contrary.. I'm saying its ridiculous to assume either side.
Unless someone can contemplate EVERY single relationship that one variable (conceptual variable.. not action) has with another.. then one cannot say what affect it will have without it.
I do not believe one can make a valid logical argument that necessitates that God can eliminate a particular manifestation of evil without affecting freewill-- if I concede to that it would be the same as if to say God can eliminate all manifestations of evil without affecting freewill.
The only way to affect the manifestations of evil is by affecting freewill-- is an assumption, even as:
A way to affect the manifestation of evil is through some other means other than affecting freewill--is an assumption.
I do not see any logical argument that supports either of these assumptions-- they are both positive claims based on some qualified concept of "omnipotence."
And? A person who wishes not to listen to the other scientist will not leave New Orleans. I already previously stated that any "warning" that could be given could be implicitly rejected by individual people and people as a whole.
I do not see that as an illogical inference. Proof? Definitely not. But since we are speaking of "God" the concept we are attempting to see if he can be "rationalized" NOT "proved."
Same.
The question is NOT whether the bridge NEEDs to collapse.. but whether GOD can do it without taking out a variable, a concept, a rule, that he put into place.
The way people "provide" evidence for "how do you know he wouldn't?" is the same way people "provide" evidence for "how do you know he would?"
Stating a premise, deducing from that.
The only problem is that both sides "assume" that the premise is necessary.. when it's absolutely not on either side.
Because, perhaps, it's not "intrisically possible" to do otherwise.
Don't know. I have no idea what variables are involved with regards to earthquakes and what other another system would look like and whether "all things would be the same except for earthquakes."
Neither.. pray I say.. do you.
Don't know. Does it? Prove it.
Don't know. Does it? Prove it.
IF we were using "all powerful" in the purest sense.. then YES, he could do-- but we are not.. we are using the qualification "intrinsically possible."
This requires for you to, according to your elements:
1) State the way our world works.
2.) State all the way in which the world is affected by earthquakes.
3.) State, logically deduce, that earthquakes can be removed without affecting 1.) to such a degree as it is worse off.
I don't think you can state to me (1), much less (2).
Still. Poor compared to what? What it could be? What's that? You can't just say "a world without animal suffering" because that does not logically follow from any established alternative that is "intrinsically possible."
If GOD wanted "less evil" more than "free will" then YES, I think I would accept that there should be no "free will" and NO evil if God was real and had all the same attributes.
But where does that premise come from? Whose to say that this next premise is incorrect:
If GOD wanted "free will" more than "less evil" then YES, I think I would accept that there should be both "free will" and "less evil."
"less evil" = some indescrible limit.
And what do you think this is?
You're assuming there are ONLY two variables. That is the only way, if any, you can assume there is a logical contradiction.
Eh?
You keep on using this "more evil" "less evil" stuff.. I keep on saying.. you can't say that.
Little is self-evident.
Because "free will" is a necessitated creation for "all good" God.
I don't know. Why would it not be?
Naked assertions are great.
Sure.
I never said he didn't want good.
Is he willing to force its absolute manifestation?
Of course he can.
Omnipotence means the power to be illogical.
Interesting...
Agreed.
But the position that "a greater evil is being served" is also an ad hoc assertion meant to support another assertion.
There is nothing wrong with the position of "don't know" with regards to this.. in fact.. the whole book of Job and Ecclessiastes are related to this concept.
Bad happens. Good happens. We merely act to mitigate the evil manifested by others and to enhance the good of others.
I'm tired.. I really gotta start studying for finals.
1) we got a nice discussion going here
2) wavefreak, read my last post. I apologize if you misread the (crazy) statement. I didn't mean anything by it.
3) I don't have time to respond to your whole post right now, so I'll either get on later tonight or tommorrow. I'll probably just edit this post (if I can), so watch for it.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
Cool. No harm no foul. Things get a little testy around here sometimes and it's hard to judge the tone of a statement from the writing alone. My apologies for seeing something that wasn't there.
My Artwork
The world needs Truthfulness, Compassion, Tolerance.
Falun Dafa is good.
Well that may be true but it just pushes the issue back another step. Can God do these things and do it in a logical framework?
Can God limit his own abilities to do actions?
I know. That's why I said to use "omnipotence," IMO, merely creates a non-discussion.
Based upon the definition of "omnipotence," I can justify any conclusion merely by restating the word.
That is why the OP set the condition.. much like, I think, you are now.
"Intrinsically possible," "Logically possible," etc.
Which is fine-- I'm willing to go with it-- but one must remember that they will need to establish that something is "intrinscially possible" before I accept that it is.
Of course.. I really don't take a solid position either way on what is or is not "intrinsically possible" since I don't feel it one can fully comprehend the universe, our world, individuals, and the affects variables within these things have on one another.
Chaos Theory.. or what not.
Fair enough.
Absolute omnipotence, IMO, is an impossible attribute because, essentially, it has to be able to contradict itself which nullifies the attribute in the first place! I don't think logic is essential to the sitatuation anyway. I'm sure an omnipotent being could do many things that are illogical, but when you start talking about the very aspect of omnipotence, something has to give.
That's not to say you can't call it omnipotence and mean something else. A "logical" omnipotence if you will. It's not absolute omnipotence but it's still some form of supreme power.
But once you've got something, some reality, that inhibits or limits the omnipotence of a being, that reality is in some way controlling the being, at least in part. There is a level of power above the omnipotence, whatever that may be. It could be logic.
I think what you're getting at is something along the lines of this:
Omnipotence, logically, is irrelevant or paradoxical because it, by definition, is without limit.
Therefore, if we are to speak of it, we must fictionally limit it.
Since we are beings of logic and cannot really understand/comprehend anything but things within the realm of logic, we will limit "omnipotence" by logic whenever the world is used.
I wouldn't call this "logical omnipotence" so much as "nonparadoxical omnipotence."
Because logic can be paradoxical.. an the paradoxy of the matter is all that present the problem IMO.
And.. therefore, we are back to square two. Still, we find difficulty in discussing what a "unparadoxical omnipotence" can practically do.. since, for the most part, we can only know what we can practically do and not do (humanly impossible v. omnipotently impossible).