Special Pleading and the Problem of Evil

[Meow Mix]

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?

The Problem of Evil is a premise-based argument. It only works if the premises are believed to be true.

The premises of the Problem of Evil include God being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. So the PoE shows that this is inconsistent with the world that we see.

It's not an argument that God should be any of these things. It's just a response to people that claim God is these things.

The PoE would not be used against someone that does not hold those premises to be true. For instance gnostics believe the Demiurge is not omnipotent, or not omniscient, or not omnibenevolent, or all three: the PoE does not apply to their worldview. It is a "solution" to the PoE to just say maybe God doesn't have one or more of the attributes targeted by the premises.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

You have deliberately ignored aspects of my argument that are unfavorable to your point of view. That is special pleading.

 

[Meow Mix]

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.

Let's try an analogy. Let's say that I'm an engineer, and I know exactly what kinds of loads a bridge can take before breaking. Let's say that I know very certainly that sustained wind speeds of X mph can bring down my bridge, and let's say that I know for a fact that sustained wind speeds of X mph can and have happened in the area I'm building my bridge.

I build my bridge this way anyway.

Do we blame the wind for my bridge being destroyed? We can. But do we blame me, too? We should! Because I had the knowledge that the way I chose to make the bridge would lead to suffering. It only gets worse if I knew how to make a bridge for the same price that could stand up against the sustained wind speeds, but I chose not to.

Does that make sense to you?

When God created biology, chemistry, and physics, God would have known that leukemia would eventually happen. God had the option to make chemistry/physics/biology differently, in a way that wouldn't let leukemia happen. God went the leukemia route anyway. Do you see how that is deliberate now?

 

[Meow Mix]

You have deliberately ignored aspects of my argument that are unfavorable to your point of view. That is special pleading.

Be specific. Point out where. I've shown specifically where you have engaged in special pleading, and how. What specifically am I ignoring, that I haven't addressed, according to you?

Also, for the third time, that is not the philosophical definition of special pleading. I will not repeat it a fourth if you're incapable of two-sided discussion.

 

[Meow Mix]

Also, for the third time, that is not the philosophical definition of special pleading. I will not repeat it a fourth if you're incapable of two-sided discussion.

You know what, I'm sorry about saying that, that was snippy of me. We can be friendly here. @Trailblazer

 

[firedragon]

The Problem of Evil is a premise-based argument. It only works if the premises are believed to be true.

The premises of the Problem of Evil include God being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. So the PoE shows that this is inconsistent with the world that we see.

Omnipotent and Omniscient is not a premise. It is a nature. It is a premise that you have taken for argument. That does not become a premise for the God character. It becomes a nature. So you are creating a caricature of God for the argument you wish to make against him.

Anyway,

Lets say "omnipotent". Does that mean "no one gets hurt on earth forever"?

 

[Trailblazer]

When God created biology, chemistry, and physics, God would have known that leukemia would eventually happen. God had the option to make chemistry/physics/biology differently, in a way that wouldn't let leukemia happen. God went the leukemia route anyway. Do you see how that is deliberate now?

Deliberate: done consciously and intentionally.deliberate means - Google Search

The only thing that God did deliberately is create the world.
The fact that God had foreknowledge that leukemia would eventually happen is not what caused it to happen.
There is no connection whatsoever between knowing something will occur and causing something to occur.

“Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already accomplished. There is none other God besides Him. His is all creation and its empire. All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy and hidden Tablets. This fore-knowledge of God, however, should not be regarded as having caused the actions of men, just as your own previous knowledge that a certain event is to occur, or your desire that it should happen, is not and can never be the reason for its occurrence.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

 

[firedragon]

You know what, I'm sorry about saying that, that was snippy of me. We can be friendly here. @Trailblazer

You are very pretty, and @Trailblazer has a very gracious and loving nature. So I dont think its a brainer. You are forgiven.

 

[Meow Mix]

Omnipotent and Omniscient is not a premise. It is a nature. It is a premise that you have taken for argument. That does not become a premise for the God character. It becomes a nature. So you are creating a caricature of God for the argument you wish to make against him.

Anyway,

Lets say "omnipotent". Does that mean "no one gets hurt on earth forever"?

It is a premise that "God is omnipotent." Properties can be premises for arguments. The argument doesn't make the case that the premise is true. The argument just shows that if the premise is true, then something follows, or perhaps a contradiction would be entailed (therefore the premises can't be true), and so on.

The PoE shows that there is an inconsistency with the premises that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent and the observation that there is suffering in the world.

As for your last statement, I'm not sure what sense to make from it. Omnipotence is the capacity to actualize any logically possible state of affairs. Omnipotence alone doesn't say anything about whether or not there would be suffering: an omnipotent being could actualize anything it wanted, suffering or no suffering. The problem only occurs when all of the premises are taken together.

 

[Meow Mix]

Deliberate: done consciously and intentionally.deliberate means - Google Search

The only thing that God did deliberately is create the world.
The fact that God had foreknowledge that leukemia would eventually happen is not what caused it to happen.
There is no connection whatsoever between knowing something will occur and causing something to occur.

“Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already accomplished. There is none other God besides Him. His is all creation and its empire. All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy and hidden Tablets. This fore-knowledge of God, however, should not be regarded as having caused the actions of men, just as your own previous knowledge that a certain event is to occur, or your desire that it should happen, is not and can never be the reason for its occurrence.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

If I create a bridge that I know will fail, do you disagree that I caused the bridge to fail?

If I know how to create a bridge that will not fail, yet I consciously choose to create the bridge that I know will fail, do you disagree that I chose for the bridge to fail?

 

[firedragon]

As for your last statement, I'm not sure what sense to make from it. Omnipotence is the capacity to actualize any logically possible state of affairs. Omnipotence alone doesn't say anything about whether or not there would be suffering: an omnipotent being could actualize anything it wanted, suffering or no suffering. The problem only occurs when all of the premises are taken together.

So, how does that translate into "no body gets hyrt"?

 

[Meow Mix]

So, how does that translate into "no body gets hyrt"?

That is a separate argument called the Toy World. The argument is just that it's possible for an omnipotent and omniscient being to create a world in which physical suffering does not exist (because of the way the laws of physics, biology, chemistry, etc. are chosen).

It would be reasonable to think that if a being had omnibenevolence, they would choose to make a Toy World to avoid causing suffering.

The observation is then made that the created world is not a Toy World (there is plenty of suffering), so it calls into question whether the creator was omnibenevolent. It's another formulation of the PoE premises, just with a little more specificity.

 

[firedragon]

It would be reasonable to think that if a being had omnibenevolence, they would choose to make a Toy World to avoid causing suffering.

Dearest MM. I know the argument. Everyone knows this. I dont want you to think I'm pretending not to know the argument.

Why would you assume that endless possibilities are Gods "should have been"s?

 

[Meow Mix]

Dearest MM. I know the argument. Everyone knows this. I dont want you to think I'm pretending not to know the argument.

Why would you assume that endless possibilities are Gods "should have been"s?

I don’t understand the question, could you rephrase it or expand on it?

 

[firedragon]

I don’t understand the question, could you rephrase it or expand on it?

No problem. Sorry. Sometimes I just can't type long sentences due to a world of things happening around me.

You gave a "could have been" scenario of a "toy world" argument. Its probably one of the 100s or 1000s of options one could come up with. Why would that be the perfect option for God? Because it sits well with your personal emotions? This is your emotional position. Can there be an opposing emotional position? What if there are other emotional positions far superior to yours in terms of many other options that you are unable to fathom?

Consider the God of the ontological argument. Forget if the argument proves God or not, but consider that God and think about the question I asked.

 

[Meow Mix]

No problem. Sorry. Sometimes I just can't type long sentences due to a world of things happening around me.

You gave a "could have been" scenario of a "toy world" argument. Its probably one of the 100s or 1000s of options one could come up with. Why would that be the perfect option for God? Because it sits well with your personal emotions? This is your emotional position. Can there be an opposing emotional position? What if there are other emotional positions far superior to yours in terms of many other options that you are unable to fathom?

Consider the God of the ontological argument. Forget if the argument proves God or not, but consider that God and think about the question I asked.

Ah I get it. Ok.

So yes, the specific Toy World I provided is one out if many possible ones. There are a couple of things to touch on to answer the question.

1) Toy worlds can be about preventing varying amounts of suffering: for instance a possible toy world might be one in which there is no suffering at all (because it contains creatures without any free will as one example), or a toy world that only prevents stubbed toes, and so on.

I gave the example I did because it satisfies a lot of conditions people ask for like having free will (it is generally granted as an assumption that having this is better than not), and prevents suffering by category (physical suffering) rather than piecemeal by individual instances of suffering (e.g., preventing stubbed toes only, or preventing stubbed toes and malaria only, or… and so on).

2) It is not argued analytically that the example toy world is the one that “should” have been created; it is only a picture painted to demonstrate that it’s logically possible for God to make a toy world.

Different audiences might want different things out of a toy world, but the example chosen is broadly attractive, hence why it is used as the example.

All that is important is that a world is described that contains less suffering yet maintains free will to pre-empt free will objections. It doesn’t matter which toy world is used to do this; again I just use the one that I use because it is broadly attractive to a lot of demographics. If I used a toy world that just prevented, say, menstrual pain, then that example is only really attractive to about half of potential listeners. But I could use that toy world as the example and still get the argument to work: why does this suffering exist that doesn’t have to exist given an omnipotent and omniscient creator?

So, hopefully that answers your question. The choice of toy world illustrated for the argument is arbitrary. I just choose the “no physical suffering, categorically” toy worlds because they appeal to the most listeners.

 

[firedragon]

Ah I get it. Ok.

So yes, the specific Toy World I provided is one out if many possible ones. There are a couple of things to touch on to answer the question.

1) Toy worlds can be about preventing varying amounts of suffering: for instance a possible toy world might be one in which there is no suffering at all (because it contains creatures without any free will as one example), or a toy world that only prevents stubbed toes, and so on.

I gave the example I did because it satisfies a lot of conditions people ask for like having free will (it is generally granted as an assumption that having this is better than not), and prevents suffering by category (physical suffering) rather than piecemeal by individual instances of suffering (e.g., preventing stubbed toes only, or preventing stubbed toes and malaria only, or… and so on).

2) It is not argued analytically that the example toy world is the one that “should” have been created; it is only a picture painted to demonstrate that it’s logically possible for God to make a toy world.

Different audiences might want different things out of a toy world, but the example chosen is broadly attractive, hence why it is used as the example.

All that is important is that a world is described that contains less suffering yet maintains free will to pre-empt free will objections. It doesn’t matter which toy world is used to do this; again I just use the one that I use because it is broadly attractive to a lot of demographics. If I used a toy world that just prevented, say, menstrual pain, then that example is only really attractive to about half of potential listeners. But I could use that toy world as the example and still get the argument to work: why does this suffering exist that doesn’t have to exist given an omnipotent and omniscient creator?

So, hopefully that answers your question. The choice of toy world illustrated for the argument is arbitrary. I just choose the “no physical suffering, categorically” toy worlds because they appeal to the most listeners.

I know that you choose "no physical suffering". Probably most of us do. But that's an emotional position. These are our wants. Why do we think God should have the same wishes as we would? One assumption is that we are better beings than God and we know better.

But if God exists, do we really know that? Didn't you just give God a quality called "omnipotent"?

 

[Meow Mix]

I know that you choose "no physical suffering". Probably most of us do. But that's an emotional position. These are our wants. Why do we think God should have the same wishes as we would? One assumption is that we are better beings than God and we know better.

But if God exists, do we really know that? Didn't you just give God a quality called "omnipotent"?

It’s a response to the person saying God is omnibenevolent. Again, it’s not saying what God should or should not do. It’s just saying the observed world is not consistent with the assumption made by some theists that God is omnibenevolent. If there is a more benevolent way to make a universe that God did not do, then something must be wrong with the premises that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. That’s all the argument does.

It might even depend on how the theist in question defines “omnibenevolent.”
Most will say “all-good” or something like that. The point is just to show that it is evidence of non-benevolence for God to knowingly create a world with more suffering than there has to be.

 

[Meow Mix]

I know that you choose "no physical suffering". Probably most of us do. But that's an emotional position. These are our wants. Why do we think God should have the same wishes as we would? One assumption is that we are better beings than God and we know better.

But if God exists, do we really know that? Didn't you just give God a quality called "omnipotent"?

Put another way, if God has other wishes than our own such that God doesn’t care if we suffer, then the “omnibenevolent” premise is already destroyed and the Problem of Evil doesn’t apply.

 

[firedragon]

Put another way, if God has other wishes than our own such that God doesn’t care if we suffer

So you have decided that God, if existing, having other "wishes" (which is a word you just inserted), just doesnt care if we suffer. Thats it. No other options like you provided some other options?

Thus, you can provide options when you dont like something, but the God you are speaking about doesnt have another option?