Special Pleading and the Problem of Evil

[Trailblazer]

God could make the world in such a way where

I still have the same question: Why should God do any of what you think He should do just because He is omnipotent so He could?

Please pay careful attention to this post: #325 Trailblazer

 

[viole]

If the Almighty had desired to prevent them.

#325 Trailblazer

Yes, but you asked if I would have made the world better. I would have, unless you believe that a world with genetic diseases is not worse than a world without them.

But if you believe that this is the best of all possible worlds, then any challenge to make a better one would be pointless. As I said, God would be useless as an explanation of anything, since all She does, or allows to happen, would be tautologically good. Including babies cancer.

And if this is the best of all possible worlds, then if I buy a gun and shoot the first person I see, I would not have made the world any worse than before, right? And the logical conclusion is that there is, de facto, no evil.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Meow Mix]

I still have the same question: Why should God do any of what you think He should do just because He is omnipotent so He could?

Please pay careful attention to this post: #325 Trailblazer

I am not saying what God "should" do. The point of the PoE is to point out the logical inconsistency of an omnipotent, omniscient being that deliberately causes suffering in the world to be called benevolent.

 

[Trailblazer]

And so we get back to the point of my OP: it is possible to fall into an epistemic trap whereby literally anything God does would never be interpreted as possible malevolence because it can always be explained away by appealing to the unknown. If this is your response, then I direct you back to the OP: this is special pleading and this line of reasoning can go on forever, no evidence can defeat it (and that is exactly the problem touched on in OP).

Special pleading: argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
special pleading - Google Search

it is possible to fall into an epistemic trap whereby literally anything God does or does not do would always be interpreted as malevolence because you can always blame God for what I believe He is doing which is unknown. If this is your response, then I direct you back to the OP: this is special pleading and this line of reasoning can go on forever, no evidence can defeat it.

It is special pleading because you are deliberately ignoring aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.

 

[Meow Mix]

Special pleading: argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
special pleading - Google Search

it is possible to fall into an epistemic trap whereby literally anything God does or does not do would always be interpreted as malevolence because you can always blame God for what I believe He is doing which is unknown. If this is your response, then I direct you back to the OP: this is special pleading and this line of reasoning can go on forever, no evidence can defeat it.

It is special pleading because you are deliberately ignoring aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.

That is not a great definition of special pleading, at least insofar as it's used in philosophy to refer to the informal fallacy.

Special pleading is more about taking some set of circumstances that would normally lead you to conclude x, but making a special appeal for some particular case of those circumstances to instead conclude y.

For instance, if humans had magic ray guns that gave leukemia, we would almost certainly prosecute people that gave people leukemia with them as monsters; yet if God does it, a special pleading appeal is made not to consider it evidence of malevolence. That is special pleading.

Wikipedia is actually a better source on this than the dictionary: Special pleading - Wikipedia

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception.[1][2][3][4][5] It is the application of a double standard.[6][7]

Normally if an intelligent being causes other beings to suffer, we don't consider this benevolent: it is evidence of malevolence. There are justified special cases, for instance stabbing someone with a needle to give them an inoculation. However, these are faults of being finite and not omnipotent: an omnipotent being can get the results without having to cause the suffering first.

So the special pleading is this: causing suffering is evidence of malevolence, except when the theist uses special pleading and says that no matter what God does, it's not malevolent, even if we'd say the exact same set of actions is malevolent if anyone else did it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, but you asked if I would have made the world better. I would have, unless you believe that a world with genetic diseases is better than a world without them.

It does not matter what I think because I am not the Creator.

But if you believe that this is the best of all possible worlds, then any challenge to make a better one would be pointless. As I said, God would be useless as an explanation of anything, since all She does, or allows to happen, would be tautologically good. Including babies cancer.

Again, It does not matter what I think.
Whatever happens is God's will and I don't question God's will because I am a fallible human and thus I cannot know as much as God about what is best for humans in the long run, which includes the next world.

I don't know the reason for babies with cancer because I am not God.
But I do know that God does not intervene in this world to prevent or cure diseases, unless He chooses to do so. That us inherent in omnipotence.

 

[Trailblazer]

the logical inconsistency of an omnipotent, omniscient being that deliberately causes suffering in the world to be called benevolent.

Can you prove God did it deliberately? Can you prove suffering is not beneficial for humans?
If the answer to either of these questions is no, there is nothing logically inconsistent.

 

[Meow Mix]

Whatever happens is God's will and I don't question God's will...

And this is the epistemic trap talked about in the OP. If you find yourself in a position where literally nothing could change your mind, that's a problem. If God could do literally anything and you would say it's benevolent, that's a problem. We should always be wary of positions we get ourselves into that we can never be evidenced out of.

 

[viole]

It does not matter what I think because I am not the Creator.

Again, It does not matter what I think.
Whatever happens is God's will and I don't question God's will because I am a fallible human and thus I cannot know as much as God about what is best for humans in the long run, which includes the next world.

I don't know the reason for babies with cancer because I am not God.
But I do know that God does not intervene in this world to prevent or cure diseases, unless He chooses to do so. That us inherent in omnipotence.

As I said, sentences like "God is good" are therefore useless tautologies. They are as meaningful as saying "God is God". And they annihilate the very meaning of what is good and evil, which would vanish.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Meow Mix]

Can you prove God did it deliberately? Can you prove suffering is not beneficial for humans?
If the answer to either of these questions is no, there is nothing logically inconsistent.

I have already covered the deliberateness. Anything that an omniscient and omnipotent creator creates is deliberate by definition: they have the power to make it exactly the way they want it, and they have the knowledge to know exactly what the consequences are. Therefore if they choose child cancer to be a possible thing that exists, they by definition did this deliberately per being omnipotent and omniscient.

The latter half is just more special pleading.

 

[Trailblazer]

Normally if an intelligent being causes other beings to suffer, we don't consider this benevolent: it is evidence of malevolence.

a) God is not 'causing' beings to suffer.
b) Comparing God with a humans and expecting God to behave like a human is the fallacy of false equivalence.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

Characteristics

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: "If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal". d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be used.

False equivalence arguments are often used in journalism[3][4] and in politics, where flaws of one politician may be compared to flaws of a wholly different nature of another.[5]

False equivalence - Wikipedia

 

[Trailblazer]

As I said, sentences like "God is good" are therefore useless tautologies. They are as meaningful as saying "God is God". And they annihilate the very meaning of what is good and evil, which would vanish.

Ciao

- viole

That's right.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have already covered the deliberateness. Anything that an omniscient and omnipotent creator creates is deliberate by definition:

Gd did not 'create' childhood leukemia, it evolved.

 

[Meow Mix]

a) God is not 'causing' beings to suffer.
b) Comparing God with a humans and expecting God to behave like a human is the fallacy of false equivalence.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

Characteristics

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: "If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal". d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be used.

False equivalence arguments are often used in journalism[3][4] and in politics, where flaws of one politician may be compared to flaws of a wholly different nature of another.[5]

False equivalence - Wikipedia

A) Yes, since God creates the world in a deliberate way to include physical suffering, this is causing suffering. Very much so.

B) Malevolence and benevolence operate the same with any kind of being, so it is not a false equivalence. The same sorts of actions that a human would take that would make them malevolent or benevolent are the same sorts of actions that if a god takes would make them malevolent or benevolent. Gods are certainly capable of more actions, but the principle is still the same.

If you are saying that goodness means something else to God than it would for humans, then there is a problem: you would need to define what that means. Otherwise you're saying "an unknowable being has an unknowable attribute in an unknowable way," and it actually has nothing to do with goodness, and you might as well be saying "t'was brillig, and the slithey toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe."

 

[viole]

That's right.

Well, I wonder what Christians think when they find out that all this cosmic drama was caused by two people who acquired knowledge of things which do not exist.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Meow Mix]

Gd did not 'create' childhood leukemia, it evolved.

I'm not sure where you're getting lost in the reasoning, maybe if I number the steps of the reasoning you can tell me where you disagree?

1) God is omnipotent, and can therefore create any logically possible state of affairs.
2) God is omniscient, and therefore knows all logically possible states of affairs that are possible, and knows the consequences of actualizing them
3) If God creates a world, God is in control of how that world's physics and biology and chemistry operate
4) From (1), God can make any logically possible world with any logically possible system of physics, chemistry, biology, etc.
5) From (2), God would furthermore know exactly what the consequences of actualizing any of these possible worlds would be
6) From (5), God would know that making physics this particular way, and chemistry that particular way, and so on, would lead to children developing leukemia
7) It is possible for God to create a world in which this does not happen (from 1), and God knows this (from 2)
8) Yet God chose to create a world in which child leukemia can develop anyway despite being able to do otherwise (by creating a world whose physics, chemistry, biology do not have child leukemia as a consequence)

Do you see how that must, by definition, be deliberate? Where are you encountering trouble with this reasoning?

 

[Trailblazer]

The latter half is just more special pleading.

You are the pot calling the kettle black

because you are special pleading which means deliberately ignoring aspects that are unfavorable to your point of view. It is as if there is only one point if view -- yours.

 

[firedragon]

The argument has been that if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then God could have created the world in such a way that physical suffering is impossible.

Why should physical suffering be impossible from God's point of view? Is it because it creates an emotional response in you? Or is it because of some other issue, moral, evolutionary, universal, physical or/and considering the future of the human race?

 

[Meow Mix]

You are the pot calling the kettle black

View attachment 52857

because you are special pleading which means deliberately ignoring aspects that are unfavorable to your point of view. It is as if there is only one point if view -- yours.

Please point to where I've engaged in special pleading; I've shown yours and shown exactly how. Also, I've already pointed out that the dictionary definition is not a good one and is not how philosophers use it.

Even so, if you think I'm "ignoring" anything, please point it out. I have addressed every point. Points that have been irrelevant I have said why, not just ignored them.

 

[Trailblazer]

7) It is possible for God to create a world in which this does not happen (from 1), and God knows this (from 2)
8) Yet God chose to create a world in which child leukemia can develop anyway despite being able to do otherwise

Do you see how that must, by definition, be deliberate? Where are you encountering trouble with this reasoning?

Sorry, the fact that God could have done otherwise does it make what God did deliberate.
There is no connection whatsoever.
God made it 'possible' for certain things to develop, but God did not deliberately create them.