Logical deduction (religion, the PoE)

[Koldo]

That is an excellent point. I am a parent, but it doesn't quite work if the child is immortal.

It does, because there is hardly any risk of dying by merely touching a hot stove.

Then the proper analogy is, when a child is learning to walk, it's important to let them fall. There's also the famous ( somewhat famous ) moth analogy. You cannot help a moth out of its coccoon, or supposedly it will never survive.

Those analogies are not proper because:

1) Your first analogy presumes a powerless parent that can't do anything other than let their child fall so they can learn how to walk. This is not the case when it comes down to God.
2) Where is the suffering in being in a coccoon?

If the child is immortal, then the burn from the hot stove, is just like a bump and scrape. It's temporary, and it heals.

The pain from beating a child with bare hands is also temporary and the marks, if any, also heal. Does that justify beating children if there is another method, readily available, to teach them something ?

 

[Koldo]

Sure. The idea is, as my daughter says, "Everything happens for a reason." So if someone has suffered greatly, or is suffering, then I'm saying that the suffering is needed. Further, I'm saying that they volunteered for this, they consented to it, and cannot remember. That's pretty awful.

Particularly because there is no evidence for that. Let's put aside whether your answer actually provides a proper possibility to solve the problem of evil. In essence, by believing that possibility to be the case, to be what actually is going on, despite any evidence pointing on this direction, what you are telling to others is that you prefer keeping your beliefs even if it comes at the cost of baselessly accusing others of being directly responsible for all their suffering. What does this say about you?

 

[Trailblazer]

Perhaps suffering and evil is a necessary part of the equation, when thinking about current existence. But what if we can transcend into a higher existence, one where suffering is not necessary?

That is exactly what the next life will be line, no more suffering, if we make it to Heaven.

 

[dybmh]

I say, suffering doesn't happen for a reason, since it is possible to end it collectively. We are pointlessly suffering. Well, maybe if we suffer enough people will start considering the idea that suffering is not inevitable... Hey there's a thought anyways maybe that's the only point of suffering, to tire people of it.

Sure. That's "the greater good" approach. All of that suffering was for some greater good. I like that, but at best the divine authority is only part good.

 

[Trailblazer]

I say, suffering doesn't happen for a reason, since it is possible to end it collectively. We are pointlessly suffering. Well, maybe if we suffer enough people will start considering the idea that suffering is not inevitable...

If you look at the reasons that people suffer, they are all either because of having a physical body and physical needs and other things associated with the material world, such as accidents and injuries and diseases. Other reasons that people suffer are owing to bad relationships with other people or loss of loved ones to death.

Which ones of those can we put an end to collectively? People will always have physical needs as long as they are living in a physical body. People will always have accidents and injuries. People are mortal so we will always lose loved ones to death. We can reduce the number and severity of diseases by nutrition and medical science, and maybe we can even eliminate diseases completely, and we can learn to gte along better with one another, but those are the only causes of suffering we can change while living in the material world.

In the next life, which is a spiritual world, none of these causes of suffering will exist except relationships with other souls, which is why it is so important to learn to coexist in love and harmony with other people while we are living in this earthly life.

 

[dybmh]

Particularly because there is no evidence for that. Let's put aside whether your answer actually provides a proper possibility to solve the problem of evil. In essence, by believing that possibility to be the case, to be what actually is going on, despite any evidence pointing on this direction, what you are telling to others is that you prefer keeping your beliefs even if it comes at the cost of baselessly accusing others of being directly responsible for all their suffering. What does this say about you?

I'm not saying they are directly responsible, only that they consented to it, and there is a purpose, there is reason, it's not suffering in vain for nothing.

Regarding the lack of evidence, that only means that I have brought a highly unrealistic answer to a highly unrealistic question. In order to talk about God at all, a person needs to suspend their disbelief. God-talk is highly unrealistic, so, bringing an unrealistic answer is appropriate for the context.

 

[Trailblazer]

What are logical deductions of the Problem of Evil?

One is that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God cannot exist, due to the current state of the world.

Those attributes of God certainly can coexist in the current state of the world.

You are making assumptions, facts not in evidence. You are assuming that if an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God existed there would be no suffering in the world because an omnipotent God could eliminate suffering and an omniscient God would know how to eliminate suffering and an omnibenevolent God would want to eliminate suffering.

An omnipotent God could eliminate suffering and an omniscient God would know how to eliminate suffering, but there is no reason to think that an omnibenevolent God would want to eliminate suffering. It makes no sense that an omnibenevolent God would want to eliminate suffering. Since God is the One who created the world with the potential for suffering, there must have been a reason for doing so, so suffering must serve a purpose for humans.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As much as the Problem of Evil interests me, I have a really hard time trying to figure out how one can fully read the Old Testament and reach the conclusion the Abrahamic God is omnibenevolent.

Then leave omnibenevolent out. But continue to examine the problem of evil.

And then, if you can't come to even the necessity of any theodicy at all (which is most likely, I think), ask yourself whether the god you're left with is something you should care about -- or fear. Worship, or revile.

 

[an anarchist]

Which ones of those can we put an end to collectively?

In my predictions, it should be possible to completely end suffering. So yes, all the examples you listed can be dealt with permanently. You think heaven is waiting for you in the next life. I disagree. Heaven is a possibility for this plane of existence. I don't have an opinion yet on what happens once you are dead.

People are mortal

In my theory, we can transcend mortality collectively. I'm not sure if it is possible for us to know the exact mechanics of what I call the "collective enlightenment". It is not possible for us to know yet because of the depths of our immorality, both individually and collectively. It should be clearer to successive generations if we become more morally evolved as time goes on. But there is no guarantee that we will develop in that trajectory.

 

[an anarchist]

You are assuming that if an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God existed there would be no suffering in the world because an omnipotent God could eliminate suffering and an omniscient God would know how to eliminate suffering and an omnibenevolent God would want to eliminate suffering.

Well... Yes!

An omnipotent God could eliminate suffering and an omniscient God would know how to eliminate suffering

So, we agree...

but there is no reason to think that an omnibenevolent God would want to eliminate suffering. It makes no sense that an omnibenevolent God would want to eliminate suffering. Since God is the One who created the world with the potential for suffering, there must have been a reason for doing so, so suffering must serve a purpose for humans.

Now we disagree!

Omnibenevolence would mean having the intent to bring an immediate end to all of suffering. I'll debate you on this point if you want.

You are assuming an omnibenevolent god is necessarily omnipotent as well.

An omnibenevolent god and an omnipotent god cannot be one in the same.

We can perhaps become this omnimax God that you think exists. Have to think on it more I guess

 

[Trailblazer]

In my predictions, it should be possible to completely end suffering. So yes, all the examples you listed can be dealt with permanently.

Can you explain how?

In my theory, we can transcend mortality collectively.

Can you explain how?

 

[Trailblazer]

Omnibenevolence would mean having the intent to bring an immediate end to all of suffering.

Can you explain why omnibenevolence would mean having the intent to bring an immediate end to all of suffering?

 

[an anarchist]

Can you explain how?

If you processed the rest of my reply, you would see that I said -

I'm not sure if it is possible for us to know the exact mechanics of what I call the "collective enlightenment".

And then I explained why.

It is not possible for us to know yet because of the depths of our immorality, both individually and collectively. It should be clearer to successive generations if we become more morally evolved as time goes on.

But, if you must know...

Collective Morality and Anarchism.

I don't think this thread is the place for me to explain more in depth. Threads tend to get derailed around here at times, and I'm not trying to derail my own thread on page 2

 

[Koldo]

I'm not saying they are directly responsible, only that they consented to it,

If they consented to it, they are directly responsible for it. This, of course, assuming that without their consent they wouldn't have experienced their suffering. If you gave your informed consent when signing a contract you are directly responsible for the consequences of signing it.

and there is a purpose, there is reason, it's not suffering in vain for nothing.

Even if there is a reason, it has to be an unnecessary mean to achieve a goal if God is omnipotent. For omnipotence entails skipping this limitation in power.

Regarding the lack of evidence, that only means that I have brought a highly unrealistic answer to a highly unrealistic question. In order to talk about God at all, a person needs to suspend their disbelief. God-talk is highly unrealistic, so, bringing an unrealistic answer is appropriate for the context.

The probability of the answer doesn't matter much as far as answering the problem of evil goes. I mentioned it because believing in it is the issue here, given what it entails.

 

[Koldo]

Can you explain why omnibenevolence would mean having the intent to bring an immediate end to all of suffering?

It would actually prevent all suffering that it possibly could. I am not sure if this is your contention. But it is easy to explain why omnibenevolence would entail that.

Omnipotence entails that you can not imagine something any more powerful than what omnipotence means. This doesn't mean, obviously, that omnipotence is limited by your imagination. But if you can imagine someone more powerful than a given person, even if it doesn't exist in reality, then this given person is not omnipotent. This is the bare minimum to call someone omnipotent.

It is the same with omnibenevolence. If you can imagine anyone that could be, even if this person doesn't exist, more benevolent than any given person, then this given person is not omnibenevolent. Do you accept that someone that prevents some suffering in the world is acting benevolent when doing so? I can imagine someone being even more benevolent because he prevents even more instances of suffering. The utmost I can imagine would then prevent all suffering.

 

[dybmh]

It does, because there is hardly any risk of dying by merely touching a hot stove.

The relative suffering is less.

Those analogies are not proper because:

1) Your first analogy presumes a powerless parent that can't do anything other than let their child fall so they can learn how to walk. This is not the case when it comes down to God.

Do you have kids? You can absolutely hold their hands and help them walk the entire time. You can put them in little walkers...

2) Where is the suffering in being in a coccoon?

Coming out of the coccoon does not look pleasant. I said, if one helps them come out, then they do not survive.

The pain from beating a child with bare hands is also temporary and the marks, if any, also heal. Does that justify beating children if there is another method, readily available, to teach them something ?

If you take a look at what I have said, all I said was that there is a reason. Each event, episode, period of suffering might have its own reason. In general, they make an impression, not only on the individual but on all who know them and care for them.

 

[dybmh]

If they consented to it, they are directly responsible for it. This, of course, assuming that without their consent they wouldn't have experienced their suffering. If you gave your informed consent when signing a contract you are directly responsible for the consequences of signing it.

Nope, informed consent agrees to a potential for harm. It doesn't mean that the individual caused it to themself.

Even if there is a reason, it has to be an unnecessary mean to achieve a goal if God is omnipotent. For omnipotence entails skipping this limitation in power.

And this is where the crux of it. I agree. And it might be where the conversation ends. This becomes very complicated. And even if I explained it, I doubt you would beleive me. It's so complicated that I would probably make a few mistakes along the way, and then when i correct myself, naturally, you would think I was just making things up on the fly to cover up for my own ignorance. And, sadly, if I don't proceed very carefully, what I am explaining can be misunderstood to justify all manner of heinous acts even though the person committing them would be unaware of the harm they are doing to themself. And that would be on me. And all of this ignores the numerous cascading IFs which will, no doubt, make the entire concept sound contrived.

Maybe, I could be convinced to try to explain. But, honestly, it's probably better for me to just concede God is not omnipotent. Not the way people imagine it.

The probability of the answer doesn't matter much as far as answering the problem of evil goes. I mentioned it because believing in it is the issue here, given what it entails.

Understood. But if the claim is, God can't be ... then all that's needed is imagination to defeat that argument. if the claim shifts to Why should I believe that God isn't ... That's a totally different conversation.

 

[an anarchist]

Maybe, I could be convinced to try to explain.

I triple dog dare you... convincing enough?

But, honestly, it's probably better for me to just concede God is not omnipotent.

Well, that'd be my first debate win on RF! (Sorry @Koldo , as OP, the credit is mine)

 

[dybmh]

In my predictions, it should be possible to completely end suffering.

... if we all become saints. Different types of saints of course, but saints none the less. Evil would be completely annihilated, subjegated, or trapped. Internally, each person doing it in their own way. But from the outside, all of us would be essentially doing the same things, and avoiding the same things. Doing the same things, avoiding the same things, but all for different reasons.

 

[dybmh]

I triple dog dare you... convincing enough?

A triple dog dare? Hee.

I don't know. Let me think about it. Maybe we should discuss it via PM.

Well, that'd be my first debate win on RF!

Yup. You and Koldo are both winners on this. The PoE is the strongest Atheist / Bible critic argument that I am aware of. It's virtually impossible to defeat.