Special Pleading and the PoE (Part 2)

[Trailblazer]

Why would we thank him? You just said he isn't responsible for anything.

God is responsible for the creation in which we exist. We would not exist unless there was a creation in which to exist.

The Problem of Evil is about the discrepancy between claims about God - i.e. beliefs that reside in the heads of certain theists - and reality.

I see no discrepancy about my claims about God and what we see in the world.

I hear you; it's just that when you contradict yourself, you distract me from you telling me that you aren't contradicting yourself.

If you point out what you think is a contradiction I will explain why I think it is not.

I will happily accept any rational argument whose premises are true. If you can't provide this, it's your problem, not mine.

I can only try but It is not my problem if you do not think my argument is rational.

I believe that God isn't so much malevolent as he is non-existent.

That would make much more sense.

Where the PoE comes into play is in that I recognize that the God propose, if he were to exist, would be malevolent.

The huge problem with the PoE is that it is based upon premises that are false and false premises lead to false conclusions. The logic is faulty because it is based upon only two of the attributes of God and it ignores all the other attributes of God. Not only THAT, but it is based upon assumptions that an omnipotent God should do x, y, and z just because He can. That is the epitome of arrogance, to expect God to do what "I want."

According to the Bible, the Qur'an, and the Baha'i Writings God is: Eternal, Holy, Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise, Infallible, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, Sovereign, Immaterial, Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, and Patient.

Atheists base their arguments on only two of God's attributes All-Powerful and All-Knowing. They completely ignore that God is Infallible, which means that whatever God chose to do or chose not to do cannot be wrong.

To base an argument on only two attributes of God is the cherry-picking fallacy.

Cherry Picking

(also known as: ignoring inconvenient data, suppressed evidence, fallacy of incomplete evidence, argument by selective observation, argument by half-truth, card stacking, fallacy of exclusion, ignoring the counter evidence, one-sided assessment, slanting, one-sidedness)

Description: When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.

Cherry Picking

 

[Trailblazer]

Wow. Just wow.

I'm just going to let this comment sit there and let others respond. Unbelievable.

What is unbelievable are atheists who believe that they know more than an all-knowing God about how the world should have been created. There is nothing more illogical than this, nothing.

God created humans so God knew what was best for humans. What you "like" or "do not like" has nothing to do with it because you are not all-knowing or all-wise. This is logic 101 stuff.

 

[Link]

So the Creator made mistakes?

No, this is not what I mean. As a designer, he has to handle things when they go wrong. This world is because things went wrong.

 

[1213]

...
However, one theodicy that is sometimes given as a response to this observation is that perhaps suffering exists for some benevolent reason....

Yes, I think there is a good reason for it, and the reason is:
Humans wanted to know evil. That is the reason why they were expelled to this “Matrix”. Here many bad things can happen, but it is a problem, because nothing of this world can destroy soul, which is the important thing. Body is only like a temporary dwelling for soul, not meant to last forever.

And I think that we have this freedom and chance actually proves that God is good and benevolent. Evil and not benevolent would not have given freedom to us.

But, maybe the problem of evil is really that it is subjective. Evil person think good is evil and evil is good. Therefore, it is quite meaningless word.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God is responsible for the creation in which we exist. We would not exist unless there was a creation in which to exist.

So then God is responsible for creation (and the suffering that you say is inherent to it)?

The huge problem with the PoE is that it is based upon premises that are false and false premises lead to false conclusions. The logic is faulty because it is based upon only two of the attributes of God and it ignores all the other attributes of God. Not only THAT, but it is based upon assumptions that an omnipotent God should do x, y, and z just because He can. That is the epitome of arrogance, to expect God to do what "I want."

Here are the premises of the Problem of Evil, as I see it:

• God is omnipotent
• God is omniscient
• God is perfectly benevolent
• God is the ultimate source of everything in the universe
• Evil exists in the universe (or, when the problem is phrased another way, suffering exists in the universe)
• Evil is incompatible with benevolence (or, when the problem is phrased another way, causing suffering is incompatible with benevolence)

Which of these premises do you think is false?

 

[Koldo]

Benevolence: the quality of being well meaning; kindness.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=benevolence+means

“Consider the mercy of God and His gifts. He enjoineth upon you that which shall profit you, though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings, p. 140

“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath wished nothing for Himself. The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, neither doth its perversity harm Him. The Bird of the Realm of Utterance voiceth continually this call: “All things have I willed for thee, and thee, too, for thine own sake.” Gleanings, p. 260

What is kindness if it doesn't entail preventing harm?

 

[Meow Mix]

No, it does not mean that God intends for there to be suffering, it only means God allows the suffering to exist because there is a big difference between intend and allow; intend is intentional (planned) and allow is not intentional (not planned). God's does not have as a goal that human's suffer just because God allows suffering to exist.

Do you disagree that God is omniscient, @Trailblazer ?

Any circumstance about the world that comes about because of the way it was created can't be an accident if God is omnipotent and omniscient (because this also means God is infallible, as we've already discussed).

If God sets up physics such that suffering will exist, this has to be intentional. Because if it's not intentional, it means God could not have understood the consequences of setting up physics in such a way. Do you understand now?

If God understood suffering would result from setting up physics in the way that He did, then suffering is intentional.

If God did not understand that suffering would result from setting up physics in the way that He did, then God is not omniscient.

Does putting it that way help you understand?

 

[Meow Mix]

I got to thinking. I’m a syncretist. I have not begun studying Zoroastrianism, besides surface level research. However, I intend to one day be a Zoroastrian, on account of my syncretism. It is sometimes called a monotheistic religion.
However, others interpret it dualistic in nature. Essentially, the concept of the religion is this: there is a cosmic battle versus Good and Evil going on, and everybody’s thoughts and actions contribute to that battle, for better or worse. There is the good God, Ahura Mazda, and then the bad God, Ahriman
In the dualistic interpretation, Ahura Mazda is not omnipotent. He is in a battle for control of the universe with Ahriman, and needs our help to overcome evil.
Since I’m a syncretist, I consider Zoroastrian interpretation of God to be accurate. I no longer believe my God is omnipotent, in this sense. I believe He is benevolent, and does not have the capacity to destroy evil on His own.
Side note: the Zoroastrian high priests were the worlds first astrologers. They were called magi, and probably created the zodiac. Three magi were the three wise men who followed the star of Bethlehem to give gifts to baby Jesus. The KJV has created that Christmas decoration idea of three kings following some spotlight towards baby Jesus, but in actuality it was three magi who used astrology. Just to dabble into them intertwining a bit

This would certainly resolve the Problem of Evil. If God wants to destroy suffering, but can't just make it so, the Problem of Evil goes away as there's no longer a contradiction.

 

[Meow Mix]

Yes, I think there is a good reason for it, and the reason is:
Humans wanted to know evil. That is the reason why they were expelled to this “Matrix”. Here many bad things can happen, but it is a problem, because nothing of this world can destroy soul, which is the important thing. Body is only like a temporary dwelling for soul, not meant to last forever.

And I think that we have this freedom and chance actually proves that God is good and benevolent. Evil and not benevolent would not have given freedom to us.

But, maybe the problem of evil is really that it is subjective. Evil person think good is evil and evil is good. Therefore, it is quite meaningless word.

Do you agree with the premise that small children wanted to know evil, such that they asked to be ravaged by bone cancer, suffer horribly, and then die young? Each child specifically wanted to know this?

Because if you don't, I don't think that this response to the problem helps solve the problem.

It's just anecdotal, but I know I didn't ask for my physical suffering, such as my voice disability.

 

[Trailblazer]

So then God is responsible for creation (and the suffering that you say is inherent to it)?

I did not say that God is responsible for the suffering.

Here are the premises of the Problem of Evil, as I see it:

• God is omnipotent
• God is omniscient
• God is perfectly benevolent
• God is the ultimate source of everything in the universe
• Evil exists in the universe (or, when the problem is phrased another way, suffering exists in the universe)
• Evil is incompatible with benevolence (or, when the problem is phrased another way, causing suffering is incompatible with benevolence)

Which of these premises do you think is false?

I agree with these premises:

• God is omnipotent
• God is omniscient
• God is perfectly benevolent
• Evil exists in the universe (or, when the problem is phrased another way, suffering exists in the universe)

But I do not agree with these premises:

• God is the ultimate source of everything in the universe
• Evil is incompatible with benevolence (or, when the problem is phrased another way, causing suffering is incompatible with benevolence)

God is the original source but not the cause of everything in the universe so God is not the ultimate source.

Aside from that, what do you mean by evil? Are you referring to the evil caused by humans or what some call natural evil? Either way, I do not believe that suffering is incompatible with benevolence because suffering has a purpose. Suffering is neither benevolent or malevolent, it just is.

I agree with 1213 who said in #104 that the problem of evil is really that it is subjective. Evil person think good is evil and evil is good. Therefore, it is quite meaningless word.

 

[Trailblazer]

What is kindness if it doesn't entail preventing harm?

That all depends upon how you define harm. What is harm? The answer is highly subjective because what one person might consider harmful another person might consider beneficial.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you disagree that God is omniscient, @Trailblazer ?

Any circumstance about the world that comes about because of the way it was created can't be an accident if God is omnipotent and omniscient (because this also means God is infallible, as we've already discussed).

If God sets up physics such that suffering will exist, this has to be intentional. Because if it's not intentional, it means God could not have understood the consequences of setting up physics in such a way. Do you understand now?

If God understood suffering would result from setting up physics in the way that He did, then suffering is intentional.

If God did not understand that suffering would result from setting up physics in the way that He did, then God is not omniscient.

Does putting it that way help you understand?

I am not going to play word games with you, allow vs. intend. It really does not matter.

Just for the sake of argument, let’s say that God understood that suffering would result from setting up physics in the way that He did and God intended for suffering to exist. So what? You can say that means God is malevolent because suffering is harmful but that is just your personal opinion. I can say that means God is benevolent because suffering is beneficial but that is just my personal opinion.

Can you prove that what suffering is harmful? If not, and you continue to assert that suffering is harmful with no evidence to prove it is harmful then what you have is an argument from ignorance. I can find people who say that suffering has benefited them and you can find people who say that suffering has harmed them, so where does that leave us?

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

 

[Koldo]

That all depends upon how you define harm. What is harm? The answer is highly subjective because what one person might consider harmful another person might consider beneficial.

Okay...
Please explain how phocomelia can be seen as beneficial. Or cleft lip and palate. Or hydrocephalus.
Or an entirely different thing like being raped.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay...
Please explain how phocomelia can be seen as beneficial. Or cleft lip and palate. Or hydrocephalus.
Or an entirely different thing like being raped.

What's your point?

 

[Koldo]

What's your point?

You have said that whether something counts as harm is a matter of perspective, haven't you?
How is any of those not harmful? I want you to explain to me how those can not be regarded as harmful.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have said that whether something counts as harm is a matter of perspective, haven't you?
How is any of those not harmful? I want you to explain to me how those can not be regarded as harmful.

Harm: physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.
https://www.google.com/search?q=harm

Those don't fit the definition of harm. Want to try another word?

 

[Meow Mix]

I am not going to play word games with you, allow vs. intend. It really does not matter.

Just for the sake of argument, let’s say that God understood that suffering would result from setting up physics in the way that He did and God intended for suffering to exist. So what? You can say that means God is malevolent because suffering is harmful but that is just your personal opinion. I can say that means God is benevolent because suffering is beneficial but that is just my personal opinion.

Can you prove that what suffering is harmful? If not, and you continue to assert that suffering is harmful with no evidence to prove it is harmful then what you have is an argument from ignorance. I can find people who say that suffering has benefited them and you can find people who say that suffering has harmed them, so where does that leave us?

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

First of all, I just want to be clear: it sounds like you now acknowledge that, given the premises of omnipotence and omniscience, God did cause suffering. That is progress.

However your response is now "if God did cause suffering, then God is still benevolent because suffering has a hidden purpose."

But this is just the argument addressed in the OP and now the sequel to the OP (Special Pleading Part 2). You have not addressed either of these arguments:
1) That this special pleading (by appealing to hidden benefit) is an epistemic trap that can never be evidenced out of, so it is unreasonable to uphold
2) That this special pleading (by appealing to hidden benefit) goes both ways, and that it could equally be said that apparent good is actually malevolent by the same appeal to hiddenness (maybe it is malevolent in an unknowable way). If one is allowed as an argument, so is the other, so how do you reconcile that?

Furthermore, suffering is harmful by definition. Even in cases where suffering is a necessary means to an end to accomplish some benefit, the aspect of suffering is always attempted to be nullified as much as possible (needles are made with shapes to be as painless as possible, they are sterilized, etc.)

And again, omnipotent beings can circumvent suffering to accomplish any goal. So the problem still exists of why the suffering is there.

Lastly, the argument that suffering benefits people in and of itself: I don't think this argument is justified. As I've said before, suffering benefits people only in ways that prevent or alleviate future suffering: if I touch a hot burner, I benefit by knowing not to touch hot things. But if hot things can never harm me, there is no benefit to learning such a lesson in such a world.

 

[Bird123]

During the other thread, @F1fan brought up a good point I'd like to expound on here.

First, we must play some catch-up for the point presented here to make sense.

The Problem of Evil, as most know, is an argument that points out it is inconsistent for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity to create a world in which preventable suffering exists. In a couple of other posts, I have already gone over just how physical suffering is in fact logically preventable by such a being, so I shall not do that here (I will send links to those posts in the comments if asked).

However, one theodicy that is sometimes given as a response to this observation is that perhaps suffering exists for some benevolent reason that is just unknowable to humans. This was one of the arguments examined in the first Special Pleading and the Problem of Evil post I made: if this reasoning is accepted, it can lead to a trap in which the theodicist can never escape the reasoning, and the deity could literally do any wicked thing and the theodicist would still be able to explain it away: it is a position that's impossible to be evidenced out of, in other words; and in this instance, is a form of fallacious special pleading.

There is another objection to this theodicy that I think deserves attention: the "reasoning" works both ways.

For instance, if it's a fair theodicy to say that any suffering that exists is not evidence against benevolence because it could actually be benevolent in some unknowable way, then (if such reasoning is allowed) it would also be a fair theodicy to say that any good that exists is not evidence for benevolence because it could actually be malevolent in some unknowable way: after all, in neither case is any justification actually offered by anybody since the burden of evidence is shunted into the nebulous realm of agnosticism ("we can't know how this is actually benevolent despite appearances to the contrary").

The person that accepts one but not the other is trying to have their cake and eat it, too: they both have the exact same lack of justification, they're both the same exact kind of special pleading. If a person doesn't accept the latter then they must be able to explain why they reject it, but not the former.

(I submit that we simply shouldn't allow special pleading in the first place and avoid such problems. If something has the appearance of malevolence, it is reasonable to accept it as exactly that [evidence of malevolence], until some justification is explicit and forthcoming for how it actually isn't).

It has never ever been about Good and Evil. The real problem is that people's goal is to have it made.

Why do you think religion is so popular ? They promise eternal bliss. Who will close their eyes to everything to keep the dream? Who embraces the petty things of judging, condemning, and blaming others because the dream has not arrived yet? One must crawl before one learns to walk.

Making judgment calls based only with the conditions of having it made, leaves out so much of the reality that exists. Further, so much religion is based upon feeling since they rely solely on beliefs.

You are right. Making judgment calls ,assuming anything, often leads one away from the facts in favor of what one feels is right. Since people tend to see what they want to see, bias observation is the result. You note the case in point.

If we look at this world and it's people, it's creation reflects genius. A Leopard doesn't change it's spots. If all the physics add up perfectly, so must the people factor. The people factor has many more variables so it will be much more complex.

Goals mean everything. Mankind's goal is to have it made. Is this really God's goal with this physical universe? The pieces of the puzzle are out there staring us all in the face. Should one choose to see only the got it made parts or does one value and search for the Truth? As I said. Goals mean everything.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I was not comparing ice cream preference to First World Problems such as disease, famine, or drought.
Did you see me draw such a comparison? Please cite it if you see it.

We're not going to run this racetrack again. In the post from you that I quoted, you chastise people for wanting your god to "end suffering because we don't like it", and then immediately after give your child whining about ice cream flavors. Nowhere before is anyone leveling criticism of suffering (laid at the feet of your "all powerful god") in such a petty level as mild inconveniences or slights against preference. When people say that your god, if he is "all powerful" and "all good", should be able to end suffering, it is greater things that are being spoken of; such as famine, drought, and disease.

As said, that take is purely asinine. And if you now didn't mean for such a comparison to be made, perhaps next time think about what counter-criticisms you make (though I would relish to see the person that enjoys suffering,) followed by whatever inane metaphors or allegories that will inevitably carry over and be associated with such statements.

 

[Trailblazer]

First of all, I just want to be clear: it sounds like you now acknowledge that, given the premises of omnipotence and omniscience, God did cause suffering. That is progress.

However your response is now "if God did cause suffering, then God is still benevolent because suffering has a hidden purpose."

That was not my response. I said: “I can say that means God is benevolent because suffering is beneficial but that is just my personal opinion.”

But this is just the argument addressed in the OP and now the sequel to the OP (Special Pleading Part 2). You have not addressed either of these arguments:
1) That this special pleading (by appealing to hidden benefit) is an epistemic trap that can never be evidenced out of, so it is unreasonable to uphold.

There is evidence that suffering can be beneficial and it is not even hidden. All you have to do is ask people who have suffered if they were benefited and they will be happy to tell you. Who would know more about these people, you or them?

2) That this special pleading (by appealing to hidden benefit) goes both ways, and that it could equally be said that apparent good is actually malevolent by the same appeal to hiddenness (maybe it is malevolent in an unknowable way). If one is allowed as an argument, so is the other, so how do you reconcile that?

There is no need to go through all these gyrations. Nothing is hidden. All you have to do is ask people who have suffered how it has benefitted them. I listen to Christian radio and I hear these testimonies all the time. Are you going to say you know more about them these people than they know about themselves?

Furthermore, suffering is harmful by definition. Even in cases where suffering is a necessary means to an end to accomplish some benefit, the aspect of suffering is always attempted to be nullified as much as possible (needles are made with shapes to be as painless as possible, they are sterilized, etc.)

Suffering is not harmful only if it has a bad effect on someone.

harmful
Something that is harmful has a bad effect on something else, especially on a person's health.
...the harmful effects of smoking.

Synonyms: damaging, dangerous, negative, evil More Synonyms of harmful

Harmful definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

But who are you to determine what has a bad effect upon someone else? You can only speak for yourself. (Please don’t use mitigating physical pain from a needle as an example because we both know that is not what we are talking about.)

And again, omnipotent beings can circumvent suffering to accomplish any goal. So the problem still exists of why the suffering is there.

That’s right, so the very fact that God does not circumvent suffering to accomplish the goal tells you that is not the best way to accomplish the goal, because an omniscient God would have to know the best way to accomplish His goals of all available options.

Lastly, the argument that suffering benefits people in and of itself: I don't think this argument is justified. As I've said before, suffering benefits people only in ways that prevent or alleviate future suffering: if I touch a hot burner, I benefit by knowing not to touch hot things. But if hot things can never harm me, there is no benefit to learning such a lesson in such a world.

But it is not congruent with reality to talk about things that can never harm you. This is a physical world so there will always be things that can harm you, as physical things cause harm. Not only can the physical body be harmed by accidents and injuries and diseases, but the soul can also be harmed by the choices people make.

As we make certain choices, if we make the wrong choice and suffer from that choice we learn not to make the same choice again and our life gradually improves. For example, I rented to a sex offender and he tried to sue me for damages and made my life a holy living hell for almost two years. I will never make that mistake again. Since that happened I have rented to two different tenants who were/are picture perfect. But I had to suffer to learn my lesson.

I can give you many more real life examples but some of these are too painful to describe. I have made many mistakes and I suffered from them but I will never make those mistakes again. Some things that happened to me that I suffered from were not my mistakes, they were mistakes other people made that caused me to suffer, but those people probably learned from those mistakes.

The primary benefit of suffering in this life in the material world is so we will be free of suffering in the spiritual world (afterlife). Suffering in this life helps mold our character and grow spiritually, and since what we become in this life is what we will carry to the afterlife, future suffering in the afterlife will be alleviated by suffering in this life. The caveat is that we won’t see those benefits until we enter the next life. That is why faith is required.