74x12
Well-Known Member
If God is hidden to you; it's because your mind has been blinded.
Well that would be impossible because I didn't pray.
You fall into the 2nd category. You're so sure of yourself.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Special Pleading and the Problem of Evil
- Thread starter Meow Mix
- Start date
There are some responses to the PoE that do assert an omnipotent being couldn't provide both free will and prevent suffering (that is in fact what the Toy World argument is meant to address). Plantinga for instance calls them a "Free Will Defense" rather than a free will theodicy. He also forms an argument called Transworld Depravity, wherein he asserts that an omnipotent being couldn't prevent suffering caused by other people because it's possible that in all worlds, people would choose to cause suffering freely.
However, I find it odd that he argues this (aside from its other problems) because it's an inconsistent use of modal axiom S5, which in its shortest form is a logical rule that <>[] --> [] (that is, "possibly necessary --> necessary").
As Penguin already pointed out, this isn't a one to one analogy.
We trust our friends, but if our friends inject our children with a deadly disease and merely assert they have a good reason for it that they can't tell us, we would be reasonable to revise our beliefs about trusting that friend.
When does this reasoning stop? What could God possibly ever do that would convince someone using this special pleading that God is not benevolent?
The Problem of Evil is a premise-based argument. If the premises don't apply to a particular brand of theism, then the PoE doesn't apply.
Special pleading is a fallacy of inconsistency: where under one set of circumstances, one conclusion might be drawn; while under another, a different conclusion might be drawn.
It is always the case that a person might have knowledge that you don't. If a friend of yours murdered your family and claimed to have a special reason, it is very likely that you'd still find it reasonable to press charges against them unless they are able to successfully defend their actions in some way.
The special pleading is that God could literally do anything and the theodicist would never find it anything other than benevolent: that is special pleading.
No, because in each of these instances, an argument can be supplied for why they have caused the suffering.
Yes, which is already acknowledged in the premises of the PoE. I could be more explicit next time, but this is already what I was saying. Omnipotence and omniscience are still varieties of the general properties of power and knowledge. Clarity is important though, so you're right.
ET could explain such a thing to justify the action, for one. Secondly, the point is that it would be reasonable to hold ET accountable.
I could go stab someone in the foot right now and claim that an incomprehensible chthonian being gave me a good reason to do so that nobody could understand; but it would be reasonable to hold me accountable and special pleading not to in the absence of any good reasons not to.
Does the ostensible relative brevity of suffering really excuse it though?
If I punch a kid in the face, but then give them a college education, I can't claim to be omnibenevolent, even if the latter part was really nice.
Not a good analogy for this reason: God is ostensibly omnibenevolent, and could actualize any logically possible outcome without causing any suffering.
It's also a thing involving words and ideas. It's also something that, when written out, requires punctuation here and there.
What fallacy is it when somebody writes something that's so vague that it doesn't really mean anything?
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what you're talking about.
And if somebody started throwing around metaphors that had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand I would think they were trying to get around having to address my points.
Nope. Depending upon which direction you're going to approach it from, you could call that faith, fanaticism, or gullibility, but I don't see how you can call it special pleading.
Here's what Webster says about special pleading:
"Definition of special pleading
1: the allegation of special or new matter to offset the effect of matter pleaded by the opposite side and admitted, as distinguished from a direct denial of the matter pleaded
2: misleading argument that presents one point or phase as if it covered the entire question at issue".
Not seeing how your scenario fits into either one of those definitions.
And why would you assume that just because ET could explain his actions that he would bother to?
Yet not in your OP.
I still think the omission was intentional and served the purpose I suggested.
Even if it seemed reasonable it would probably be futile, which would sort of render it unreasonable wouldn't it?
Yes you could but that would make you a nut. Just as if someone stabbed someone in the foot and claimed that God told them to, they would also be considered a nut.
Thing is we're not talking about somebody doing something because God told them to, we're talking about God.
Without making any claims about God one way or the other you still have to acknowledge that those are two completely different conversations.
74x12
Well-Known Member
What you're using is equivocation. For God to allow your child to die from a deadly disease is not the same as if your friend injected your child with a deadly disease.
Because for your friend to be judged equally with God; your friend would need to know everything and could even bring your child back to life if they wanted. Then you might ... just maybe ... trust them a bit more.
However, my points stands that there could be a reason even if your friend (a mere mortal) did this. Maybe you can't imagine it but it could exist. The zombie apocalypse is just a metaphor to show how perceptions can be mistaken.
Well that's a loaded question.
We do? Provide the indisputable evidence for these. You sound as if you're referring to them as facts. That's a high degree of certainty, so lay it on us.
Well I'm sure they do. Show us the studies that demonstrate these exist and function as you describe.
BTW, did you know I was going to ask you to prove your claims? No doubt you did, so you must have all the overwhelming evidence and facts I'm requesting. I can't wait.
Oh darn, so you mean you are guessing. Well that's a disappointment. Did you foresee I would be disappointed, but you posted anyway because you are mean?
Yet God does little or nothing to change bad circumstances to innocent people. Is it good if one of your kids was diagnosed with Leukemia? You didn't cause it, it was just the random lottery of life as created by God. So are all the children who lose the lottery of life in God's creation showing us the good about god and what it creates?
The only good is doctors trying to save these lives But doctors aren't God. God creates the lack of good in a cild dying from a genetic disease while the good is doctors fighting the lack of good, which is God's creation, and God itself.
When God gives people reason to reject it since it lacks goodness itself, what choice has God given? It's a duty for humans to reject the agent who lacks goodness, and that is God, despite it's occasional act of goodness.
KJ21
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things.
Hahaha. Well to hell with God trying to set a good example for humans. It can kill the whole planet except 7 and get away with it because it's God. No wonder so many Christians have murdered so many over the millennia, they thought they were doing God's work. See how easy it is to be immoral when your God is immoral?
Thank humans for secular government and law so Christians don't get away with divine murder.
So God can be bad and it cannot be held accountable, so it's good? That don't work.
Huh?.....As soon as I claim to have indisputable evidence I will then own the burden of proof. Until then I present the theory that I find most reasonable all things considered.
I think it is quite clear. Merriam-Webster isn't usually that great with philosophical terminology, though. I would instead use something like this:
Or like this:
For example, if anyone murdered my friend and claimed they had knowledge they could not share that justifies it, I would still be reasonable in not interpreting their action as benevolent. As with the first definition that says "adequate justification," this part is somewhat subjective (the attempted justification is "the reason is beyond your understanding, so I won't even try to give it").
Evidence that this justification is weak is that if it is allowed, it could literally justify any action: literally no action would be enough to doubt it. That isn't a good justifier, and that makes it special pleading.
For clarity, I had something to the effect of, "it is always possible someone has knowledge that you don't."
Au contraire, this is exactly pertinent to what's being talked about. Someone claiming special knowledge is the same abstracted circumstance.
The analogy is pertinent. That you don't accept that doesn't make my argument evasive.
Just including this portion for completeness, this was addressed above.
Perhaps ET wouldn't; but this is about what's reasonable for humans to do.
If you assume the worst of your ideological opponents that's on you, friendo.
For clarity, this is in response to me saying it would be reasonable for people to doubt ET has justification for "benevolent murder" without any evidence.
It would not be futile if we're interested in responsible epistemology and ontology. Even if we couldn't do anything about it, we should still be interested in forming reasonable beliefs and (this is key) avoiding unreasonable ones, such as epistemically uncertain beliefs that literally can't be defeated by any evidence.
The problem with this is that having omniscience isn't evidence of omnibenevolence: these are separate traits, evidenced separately.
Dystheism could be true for instance, where a god is in fact omniscient but is also simply malevolent.
Demonstrating omniscience doesn't demonstrate omnibenevolence in other words. So unless my friend, or God, or Cthulhu, or whatever being can explain to me (even if it's dumbed down) why they did the horrible thing that they did, it would not be reasonable for me to treat it as a benevolent action due to all the evidence to the contrary.
It's meant to show that if this reasoning is used, literally nothing can break the reasoning. God could damn everyone on Earth to eternal, horrific pain just because it makes God laugh, and to everyone that uses this reasoning, "as far as they know," against all the evidence to the contrary, this is still "benevolent."
Last edited:
The end result is a dead child. The difference you put forward is that God can create a child with a fatal disease and be completely unaccountable for that intentional act because it has a moral exemption. The human has to follow the rules.
The major flaw here is that if God kills children for some reason that only it knows, why bother letting it get born at all? There's a huge amount of emotional damage it creates because the God is either cruel and evil, or a screw up. And what of all the evil people that life a life without health problems? It's almost as if this whole scenario is nonsense and none of the popular interventionist Gods exist.
No, you have the burden of proof the moment you make a claim. When you write this:
"For example, we have etheric, astral, mental, bodies interpenetrating our physical bodies. These subtle bodies have senses that the more gifted (clairvoyants) can bring to conscious attention to tell us about more than the physical plane of reality."
you're stating it as if it's factual. You didn't even limit this as being your belief. You made a factual assertion. That means you get to back all of this up with facts and evidence. Or admit you have no idea if any of this is actually true. Or you can concede it's not fact, but you believe all this is true, and you can explain why you believe that.
I take it you mean the definition of theory that means speculation.
And who gets to decide what is and isn't "adequate justification"?
To a believer, "God moves in mysterious ways", might serve as adequate justification.
IMO, the idea that the same standards that we use to judge people might not be adaquite for judging an omnipotent being seems like adequate justification for dismissing those standards.
And this:
"Special pleading is a form of inconsistency in which the reasoner doesn’t apply his or her principles consistently. It is the fallacy of applying a general principle to various situations but not applying it to a special situation that interests the arguer even though the general principle properly applies to that special situation, too".
Whether or not the "general principal properly applies to the situation" is also up for grabs. It isn't something that you have a right as a participant in a discussion like this to decide for everyone else, and it makes your reasoning sound circular.
Except that's not what's being discussed. The position your OP is dealing with is one where someone is saying, "we don't have the information necessary to make this judgment", not "I have information but I can't share it with you".
Remember in your OP you're not arguing with God, you're arguing against someone whos suggesting that there may be some greater purpose that we don't understand that potentially negates the PoE.
See above.
Nope. That's not what your hypothetical answer to the PoE is suggesting at all. Its not saying "I have information but I'm not going to give it to you" it's saying "Neither one of us has the information we need to make this judgment". Its a completely different scenario.
Yes, for someone who believes in God in this way, any action is justifiable, although "justifiable" isn't really the right word, since to someone with that kind of belief nothing would need to be justified. Still doesn't make this special pleading.
We're not discussing someone who's claiming special knowledge.
OK then, how about explaining how your analogy is pertinent, instead of just saying that it is.
No, actually. That part was attempted to explain et's lack of explanation.
Unless it's true.
Reason has nothing with either side of this argument.
But it's fun to watch people trying to convince themselves that it does.
What blinds human minds from the reality of God?
And are you claiming to know a God exists and not one of the blind brethren?
And if this God of yours truly exists, and is hidden because of my mind's blindness, can your God not penetrate this blindness and makes itself known?
So it's your fault that I don't know God. Well don't worry about any divine punishment coming your way. God kills children but it won't hurt you. Probably.
Confidence is easier when you don't have an identity based on a dubious religious claim.
I suspect many theists have a deep insecurity about their identity and faith, but they are committed, and tied to religious communities, so they live in that trap, and can't find a path to freedom.
74x12
Well-Known Member
Okay, but my point is that they might know something you don't.
Okay, I guess from your perspective that could be a possibility.
Now I think we're getting somewhere. You say "due to all the evidence to the contrary" and that's my point. From the perspective of people who talk this way ... there is evidence already of the goodness of God in their lives. They believe God has done good things for them already. So it's much easier for them to trust God in a hard situation.
Only if you ignore all the evidence of the goodness and blessings God gives. Because even the sun can appear angry and hateful when it's covered by the smoke from a fire for example. But it's still the same sun that other people enjoy.
So it's all about perspectives and how they can be mistaken. Is the glass half full or half empty? Is the sun evil because someone dies in the desert? Or is the sun good because it makes plants grow and gives you vitamin D? It's up to you to decide how you see things.
That's what the book of Job is about. How a good person can have bad things happen to them that don't make sense and still retain their faith in God. And in the end that faith is rewarded. And that's our power with God and we do have power if we use it.
And if this was our only life then it wouldn't make sense for God to take your child with a horrible disease but if there is more to come then it might make sense after all. In my belief God is not finished with this creation. He's making everything new. Then the only things that will be left from this old creation will be your accomplishments. The good things you managed to do. So it's not in vain. It's all building a better world and the fact God lets us partake and build something that is eternal is good but it's not going to be easy.
Oh please, you are just wasting time in word play. I could stick the words 'I believe based on my best assessment of all things that....' in front of every statement I make but that's just makes reading posts tedious and nitpicky. People understand I am presenting a theory.
Everyone knows there is no indisputable proof on any controversial topic or there would be nothing to discuss or form an opinion on.