Logical deduction (religion, the PoE)

[PearlSeeker]

That evil can be directed into something good.

It can but does this always outweigh preventing or stopping it? If so, then let's follow God's example - don't stop the child rape, don't vaccinate children, cancel hospitals, police and courts...

 

[Trailblazer]

It can but does this always outweigh preventing or stopping it? If so, then let's follow God's example - don't stop the child rape, don't vaccinate children, cancel hospitals, police and courts...

Follow God's example?

 

[ratiocinator]

Sure. The contradiction is the word "creating". Nothing is being created in the example you have brought.

Nonsense. God exists, god creates a perfect world, separate from itself. There is simply no logic that says it has to be different in every respect to be separate and a new creation. That is an absurd assertion.

It means you don't understand these concepts.

Very easy to say. How about some actual logic to back up your claim?

God is infinite.

So what? That doesn't make god creating a perfect world anything like the mathematics of transfinite numbers.

You don't know what a domain is?

I know what it means in several different contexts. None of them make what you said make sense.

Here's what I said, if you want to have a serious discussion, put on your thinking cap.

If you want to have a serious discussion, stop making vacuous claims of superiority and start properly and logically explaining yourself.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Follow God's example?

What is God doing to prevent it or stop it?

 

[Koldo]

Humans are held accountable for the consequences of their actions because they have moral responsibilities, but God is not accountable to anyone for the consequences of His actions because God has no moral responsibilities. Have you ever see God go on trial in a court of law?

You are confusing moral responsibility with legal accountability.

I did not say that the point of suffering is not to remember God. I said that God does not enable suffering to make humans remember Him.
One reason for suffering is so that we will remember God and turn to God.
Another reason for suffering is to attain spiritual growth.

If God does not enable suffering to make humans remember him, then remembering God (and turning to God) is not one reason for suffering

That would depend upon which of these is most important to you - speed, cost, or looks.

Great. And if it is indeed possible to achieve speed, cost and looks, all of them together, then there is no debate to be had about what constitutes the best way to paint a wall, right?

I never said that decreasing the well-being of humans is good for them.

What is well-being?

Well-being has been defined as the combination of feeling good and functioning well; the experience of positive emotions such as happiness and contentment as well as the development of one’s potential, having some control over one’s life, having a sense of purpose, and experiencing positive relationships [23]. It is a sustainable condition that allows the individual or population to develop and thrive. The term subjective well-being is synonymous with positive mental health. The World Health Organization [45] defines positive mental health as “a state of well-being in which the individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to his or her community”. This conceptualization of well-being goes beyond the absence of mental ill health, encompassing the perception that life is going well.
Well-being is more than happiness and life satisfaction: a multidimensional analysis of 21 countries - Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Well-being is the experience of health, happiness, and prosperity. It includes having good mental health, high life satisfaction, a sense of meaning or purpose, and the ability to manage stress. More generally, well-being is just feeling well (Take this quiz to discover your level of well-being.)

Well-being is something sought by just about everyone because it includes so many positive things — feeling happy, healthy, socially connected, and purposeful. Unfortunately, well-being appears to be in decline, at least in the U.S. And increasing your well-being can be tough without knowing what to do and how to do it.
What Is Well-Being? Definition, Types, and Well-Being Skills

To suffer is to experience pain and distress. Think of the moment you were happiest in your life, were you feeling distress? If not, why not? Isn't it because experiencing suffering would have reduced your well-being and therefore that wouldn't have been the happiest moment in your life?

You can say what you 'believe' is good for you, but it may or may not actually be good for you.
Case in point: An alcoholic might believe that drinking is good for him, but it isn't good by any health standard.

This directly contradicts what you have said before. You have said that people would know for a fact if something was good for themselves. I thought you would indeed take that back. So, how do you figure what is good for anyone? Or, rather, what is good for anyone if not maximizing their well-being?

I thought we were finished with what God could have done differently, and since God did not do it in some other way God is not omnipotent?
That is completely illogical.

You really don't understand, do you? It is BECAUSE God is omnipotent that God did not choose another way.
An omnipotent God only does what He chooses to do, not some other way that He did not choose.

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 209​

What we see is what we get. We do not question how God should have done it differently since God is sovereign.

“Say: He ordaineth as He pleaseth, by virtue of His sovereignty, and doeth whatsoever He willeth at His own behest. He shall not be asked of the things it pleaseth Him to ordain. He, in truth, is the Unrestrained, the All-Powerful, the All-Wise.”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p, 284​

​

You misunderstood me. You have said that "The more people suffer the more developed is their character, the stronger and more resilient they are."

If God needs to make suffering possible because he can't make us stronger without suffering then he is not omnipotent.

If God can make us stronger without making use of suffering but chooses not to then he is not omnibenevolent.

 

[Koldo]

Know that the suffering that is permitted in the here and now is diminshed on account of the scale of being immortal compared to being mortal. The analogy is God is the parent permitting their child touching a hot stove. If God is the parent and knows the child is immortal, then God knows that the suffering encountered in the here and now is, forgive me, like scrapes and bumps for an immortal being.

I am not sure I understand. If that is what you believe, why wouldn't you allow children to touch a hot stove?

There is no other way for the suffering to be converted into something good. Preventing it in real-time with God-magic ( miracles ) is not the same as evil being directed into good. And that's a better outcome. Then all of creation is good, not a mix of good and bad.

That would presume that ALL of evil is converted into good. What's the basis for believing in this? How is it Chaos, for example?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Follow God's example?

Any evil that exists is an evil that - if God were real - God chose to allow.

 

[Koldo]

Ah! No problem. Chaos did not replace order. It coexists.

If chaos doesn't have to be absolute in 'OTHER' then it can be minimal, which would in practice allow for suffering to never happen.

That gets complicated. There's multiple reasons why people are tempted to do harm. I'll skip the details for how and why, but it is included in this "otherness" which is required for the material to exist.

But a chaotic universe doesn't require the existence of an actualized state of affairs where it is possible to harm someone in the first place.

Now, God could wave its magic wand and eliminate that temptation. But that is less favorable, because, then the evil is never converted into something good. And, as we agreed, it could be that there is some God-magic ( aka miracles ) happening that are correcting some of this temptation in the here and now. But in order for God to be omnibenevolent, this "otherness" needs to be directed into something good. In order for that to happen, some of this temptation needs to remain. Some of the harmful acts need to occur, at least temporarily, so that the these actions can result in something good.

That's the idea.



OK. I'm trying to share that and be as forthcoming as I can without writing a manifesto.

What constitutes 'goodness'?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Humans are held accountable for the consequences of their actions because they have moral responsibilities, but God is not accountable to anyone for the consequences of His actions because God has no moral responsibilities. Have you ever see God go on trial in a court of law?

God, if real, has fled to a jurisdiction with no extradition treaties.

 

[Trailblazer]

What is God doing to prevent it or stop it?

Why should God prevent it or stop it?
Give me one good reason.
(Hint: Because God is omnipotent is not a reason)

 

[Trailblazer]

Any evil that exists is an evil that - if God were real - God chose to allow.

So what? Choosing to allow good and evil comes with allowing free will.

 

[Trailblazer]

God, if real, has fled to a jurisdiction with no extradition treaties.

That's true. There are no extradition treaties in heaven.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

According to my beliefs evil is caused by two correlating issues: (1) Entropy and (2) the lack of acknowledging the divinity of those who are able to change reality for the better. Since both of these issues are still extremely crucial to the problem of evil, and have not been fully resolved yet, we now see that evil still exists. And God in fact does either directly or indirectly cause all the evil in the world, as God is omnipotent. Most theists are uncomfortable with a position like this, but if God and evil are separate things, then God cannot be omnipotent, and the problem of evil goes unresolved.

 

[Trailblazer]

And God in fact does either directly or indirectly cause all the evil in the world, as God is omnipotent.

Can you explain how you think God directly or indirectly causes evil because God is omnipotent?

Most theists are uncomfortable with a position like this, but if God and evil are separate things, then God cannot be omnipotent, and the problem of evil goes unresolved.

Why can't God be omnipotent if God and evil are separate things?

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Can you explain how you think God directly or indirectly causes evil because God is omnipotent?

Entropy is part of my Godhead. Entropy causes evil by not recognizing the good that humans are able to perform. Viruses, heart attacks, strokes, cancer, even public shootings are all caused by some variant of entropy. God, allowing the free will of entropy, and it's lack of concern for extropy and good in the world, ultimately causes everybody to die. Your genetics don't change throughout your life but your epigenetics do, and because of entropy, epigenetics can be damaged, and cause people to develop mental and physical disorders as such. This is why schizophrenia and bipolar are typically not developed until a person reaches the age of maturity. Entropy and extropy are always at odds with each other. Entropy causes chaos and disorder, whereas extropy tries to maintain order throughout reality. Because of this conflict we see to it that there is evil. God is omnipotent, containing all entropic and extropic changes within it. Therefore, God causes not only all the good in the world but also all the evil too. God is not separate from reality, God is reality.

Why can't God be omnipotent if God and evil are separate things?

Because evil is a form of negative entropy and entropy is a force from God, thus making it omnipotent. Plus, if you read all the stories of the Old Testament ... even if your God doesn't cause all the evil in the world, it surely created some of it. Ironically enough though I don't see God as a person however, and therefore has no true intention. When the cancer grows inside a body it doesn't know that it is in fact killing the person host it's residing in. Many evils in society, nature and reality are not intelligent or intentional, they are just byproducts of an entropic, God-like nature, that creates both all good and all evil in the world, because God is reality.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are confusing moral responsibility with legal accountability.

No I am not.

If God does not enable suffering to make humans remember him, then remembering God (and turning to God) is not one reason for suffering

So that we will remember God (and turn to God) is one reason for suffering.
God allows suffering but God does not enable suffering. God does not make us do anything. Turning to God is our choice.

Great. And if it is indeed possible to achieve speed, cost and looks, all of them together, then there is no debate to be had about what constitutes the best way to paint a wall, right?

No, there isn't.

To suffer is to experience pain and distress. Think of the moment you were happiest in your life, were you feeling distress? If not, why not? Isn't it because experiencing suffering would have reduced your well-being and therefore that wouldn't have been the happiest moment in your life?

What's your point, that nobody should ever experience pain and distress? No pain, no gain.

This directly contradicts what you have said before. You have said that people would know for a fact if something was good for themselves. I thought you would indeed take that back. So, how do you figure what is good for anyone? Or, rather, what is good for anyone if not maximizing their well-being?

Sometimes suffering maximizes well-being so it is what is good for someone.

You misunderstood me. You have said that "The more people suffer the more developed is their character, the stronger and more resilient they are."

If God needs to make suffering possible because he can't make us stronger without suffering then he is not omnipotent.

I never claimed that God cannot make us stronger without suffering, I only ever said that God chooses not to.
An omnipotent God only does what He chooses to do. That flies completely over your head.

If God can make us stronger without making use of suffering but chooses not to then he is not omnibenevolent.

It is omnibenevolence that allows suffering because suffering is beneficial for humans since it draws us closer to God.

O Thou Whose tests are a healing medicine to such as are nigh unto Thee, Whose sword is the ardent desire of all them that love Thee, Whose dart is the dearest wish of those hearts that yearn after Thee, Whose decree is the sole hope of them that have recognized Thy truth! I implore Thee, by Thy divine sweetness and by the splendors of the glory of Thy face, to send down upon us from Thy retreats on high that which will enable us to draw nigh unto Thee. Set, then, our feet firm, O my God, in Thy Cause, and enlighten our hearts with the effulgence of Thy knowledge, and illumine our breasts with the brightness of Thy names.

Bahá’u’lláh

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

It is omnibenevolence that allows suffering because suffering is beneficial for humans since it draws us closer to God.

Extropy can be omnibenevolent but it’s pretty limited compared to incredible force of entropy that exudes in the Universe. However, after reading enough of your posts I’d argue that God’s lack of benevolence to your situation has distanced you from God, not bringing you closer to God. You seem to doubt the Baha’i Faith quite a bit due to the power of entropy, which you probably don’t believe is God’s work, but I do. Suffering brings me closer to God because according to myself my suffering is caused by God, whereas your God doesn’t cause or doesn’t want to cause your suffering. This statement seems to be more true for me than it is for you, if the problem of evil isn’t solved by realizing that God causes evil. If evil is caused by God, however, then it would make sense that it would bring you closer to God, and apparently in the Baha’i Faith, God wants this.

 

[Koldo]

No I am not.

Then why were you asking if I have ever seen God in a court of law?

So that we will remember God (and turn to God) is one reason for suffering.
God allows suffering but God does not enable suffering. God does not make us do anything. Turning to God is our choice.

To enable something is to allow it to happen.

No, there isn't.

Great. Making humans achieve the utmost perfection (best outcome/looks) instantly (fastest) would then be the best pathway to make humans achieve perfection for an omnipotent God since there is zero cost involved for him to make it happen (best cost effective). And there is no debate to be had about it, right?

What's your point, that nobody should ever experience pain and distress? No pain, no gain.

Prove that the relation between pain and gain is one of logical necessity then. That gain can only exist if pain does

Sometimes suffering maximizes well-being so it is what is good for someone.

How do you figure that sometimes suffering maximizes well-being? You have said we are not able to determine what is good for anyone.

I never claimed that God cannot make us stronger without suffering, I only ever said that God chooses not to.
An omnipotent God only does what He chooses to do. That flies completely over your head.

It doesn't, but sometimes your answers imply you are not talking about an omnipotent God. You may perhaps not have noticed it.

Let me elaborate. When you say that God would be uncaring and unconcerned about the welfare of humans if he eliminated all suffering (since some suffering is beneficial for human character development), what you are telling me is that there is literally no other way God could make human experience character development without allowing suffering. Since God can not replace suffering with anything else, he would be with his hands tied and there is absolutely nothing else he can do other than allowing suffering to exist.

If, however, God could have chosen to replace suffering with something else that also aids human development, then how would he be uncaring and unconcerned about the welfare of humans if he eliminated all suffering? He wouldn't. Therefore this talk of a God that would be uncaring for eliminating all suffering only makes sense if you are not talking about an omnipotent God.

It is omnibenevolence that allows suffering because suffering is beneficial for humans since it draws us closer to God.

O Thou Whose tests are a healing medicine to such as are nigh unto Thee, Whose sword is the ardent desire of all them that love Thee, Whose dart is the dearest wish of those hearts that yearn after Thee, Whose decree is the sole hope of them that have recognized Thy truth! I implore Thee, by Thy divine sweetness and by the splendors of the glory of Thy face, to send down upon us from Thy retreats on high that which will enable us to draw nigh unto Thee. Set, then, our feet firm, O my God, in Thy Cause, and enlighten our hearts with the effulgence of Thy knowledge, and illumine our breasts with the brightness of Thy names.

Bahá’u’lláh

Imagine there is a being that can cure any given disease instantly. In principle, it is benevolent to cure diseases. He however has the power to cure diseases in either one of two different methods. He can either imagine the person being cured for a second and the person gets cured instantly, or he can punch the sick person right in the nose and the disease also gets healed instantly.

Do you agree that the first method is more benevolent than the second method? If so, choosing the second method means the being in question is not omnibenevolent, right?

 

[Alien826]

The PoE is the strongest Atheist / Bible critic argument that I am aware of. It's virtually impossible to defeat.

Actually not, because it only works when applied to a 3-omni god. Weaken any of the omnis and it falls apart. I'm not sure how many religions actually hold to that assertion. I'd guess that the majority don't.

Anyway, this leads me into something that I use to describe discussions like this. I call it "nailing one foot to the floor". To be kind let's do it without harm to your foot, maybe just through the shoe. If you do that your movement is restricted to a circle that is delimited by how far you can stretch your other leg. You can stand in all kinds of places, but only within the circle.

Now let's apply it to this argument. The foot that can't move represents the idea that God in omnibenevolent, or maybe all three omnis. If you insist on that, all explanations must include that assumption. So, what we get is a series of tortured explanations that involve more and more unlikely "facts" and/or possibilities. Remove the "nail" and suddenly you can consider the option that maybe God is not all those things, which is a very much more likely explanation (given that God exists at all) and considering the state of the world.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then why were you asking if I have ever seen God in a court of law?

God has no moral responsibilities and that is why you never see God in a court of law

To enable something is to allow it to happen.

And so?

Great. Making humans achieve the utmost perfection (best outcome/looks) instantly (fastest) would then be the best pathway to make humans achieve perfection for an omnipotent God since there is zero cost involved for him to make it happen (best cost effective). And there is no debate to be had about it, right?

Comparing human spirituality to painting a wall is the fallacy of false equivalence.
God has no desire to MAKE humans achieve anything. Whatever humans achieve has to be achieved by the humans, not by God.
Did you never hear that God is patient? That means that God is not in a hurry. We have our whole lives to achieve spirituality.

Prove that the relation between pain and gain is one of logical necessity then. That gain can only exist if pain does

That can only be proven if you interview people and ask them about their pain and gain. You might also be able to find studies on the internet.

How do you figure that sometimes suffering maximizes well-being? You have said we are not able to determine what is good for anyone.

Suffering maximizes well-being if it causes is to turn to God. It is good for anyone to turn to God.

It doesn't, but sometimes your answers imply you are not talking about an omnipotent God. You may perhaps not have noticed it.

Your answers imply you are not talking about an omnipotent God because an omnipotent God only does what He chooses to do.
That means that whatever God has chosen to do is what an omnipotent God would do.
That means that any of your ideas about what God could have done 'differently' would never be done by an omnipotent God because God has chosen not to do them.

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 209​

Logic tells us that if God does what He chooses that means that God would not do what God does not choose to do.
Since God chose to create a world that has suffering, that means that God would not create a world that has no suffering.

Let me elaborate. When you say that God would be uncaring and unconcerned about the welfare of humans if he eliminated all suffering (since some suffering is beneficial for human character development), what you are telling me is that there is literally no other way God could make human experience character development without allowing suffering. Since God can not replace suffering with anything else, he would be with his hands tied and there is absolutely nothing else he can do other than allowing suffering to exist.

That is not what I am saying. I am saying that since God did not choose to disallow suffering God did not want to disallow suffering.
I am not saying that God could not have chosen to disallow suffering, but that could only have happened if God had wanted to do that.

If, however, God could have chosen to replace suffering with something else that also aids human development, then how would he be uncaring and unconcerned about the welfare of humans if he eliminated all suffering? He wouldn't. Therefore this talk of a God that would be uncaring for eliminating all suffering only makes sense if you are not talking about an omnipotent God.

It doesn't matter if God 'could have' chosen to replace suffering with something else that also aids human development since God did not choose to do that.

Imagine there is a being that can cure any given disease instantly. In principle, it is benevolent to cure diseases. He however has the power to cure diseases in either one of two different methods. He can either imagine the person being cured for a second and the person gets cured instantly, or he can punch the sick person right in the nose and the disease also gets healed instantly.

Do you agree that the first method is more benevolent than the second method? If so, choosing the second method means the being in question is not omnibenevolent, right?

No, it does not mean that.