The Problem of Evil

[Koldo]

Well, something retained in your mind convinced no one but yourself. And if its as simple as you say? Why no just do it?

Who do you think you have convinced so far?
Perhaps I have convinced a reader somewhere.
People don't cease to believe in a certain concept of god just because they have read up a debate. You don't see that happening often, if at all. But it adds up eventually. Trust me on this one.

BY all means explain how you achieve certainty in a premise that can never give you any certainty? Love to se that.

You tell me. You are the one who believes in a god.

 

[Willamena]

Nothing is impossible to omnipotence barring logical contradictions. It is true that our world wouldn't work in the same way. We wouldn't even exist as we do. But, what is wrong with that?

Omnipotence is just an expression of "what is," just as omniscience is an expression of "what I know," and omnipresence an expression of "here I am."

 

[Koldo]

Why would he?

Again, omnipotent beings CAN do anything, the question, as I have long stated is why WOULD HE?

Because he is omnibenevolent.
I have answered your question in the past at least once.

And if his desire, as he states, is create being like us that become MORE LIKE HIM, with his principles ingrained in US because they are our experiences, rather than just computer code, then that seems to be what he would do isn't it?

Yes. Although he wouldn't be omnibenevolent.

that there are alternatives to what is possible has no bearing on what is or why it is.

Again, you derive no proof from this at all.

The goal? Just be different from God.

Well the Plan of Salvation and free will give you the chance to do just that. Do whatever you want and explore it, in end, as we have known for thousands of years, you will come to see that God's wisdom is correct ... and when you return to him? That wisdom will now be YOUR wisdom.

By all means, explore the alternatives ALL you want. A Benevolent God has given that opportunity - use it.

Then lets see if it disproves God. Really. Try it.

In other words, if you don't do what god desires in the first place, you will face bad consequences anyway. So, you might not be programed to do only good choices, but you will eventually succumb to doing what he wants.

 

[Koldo]

Well, thank you for clearly indicating that you have no idea what the gist of God's Plan of Salvation is.

Seriously K, that statement rests upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the Plan - which, if you understood it, you would clearly see is not 'broken'.

The very existence of a plan of salvation is a problem.

It a method chosen by God.

Its only flawed because your religion tells you it must be so. You are not God.

Since it is the method chosen by god, it shows how god is not omnibenevolent. That's the point

It is not flawed. It just doesn't belong to an omnibenevolent god.

Once again, you are assuming that experience has no value to either us or God. that is an assumption that is, in and of itself, flawed.

We need to experience bad things. Some of us a lot worse than others. But god doesn't really need to. Right?

 

[Koldo]

Omnipotence is just an expression of "what is," just as omniscience is an expression of "what I know," and omnipresence an expression of "here I am."

I completely disagree.
Omnipotence is an expression of ''what I can do''.

 

[gree0232]

Because he is omnibenevolent.
I have answered your question in the past at least once.



Yes. Although he wouldn't be omnibenevolent.



In other words, if you don't do what god desires in the first place, you will face bad consequences anyway. So, you might not be programed to do only good choices, but you will eventually succumb to doing what he wants.

Yep, because God is right.

he desires HIS wisdom to become OUR wisdom. We become like him.

And as you are clearly adamant about the need to check this out for yourself, a benevolent God has given you the chance to do just that.

"I think you are wrong God!"

"Well, suit yourself, go check it out and see for yourself."

"What!?! You WERE right therefor you are not real!!!!"

You are aware of the unpardonable sin? One. There is ONLY one. That is, even when you know God is right, you have the free will to reject him anyway.

You have been granted even the ability to do that.

Again, I's like to know why your conflicting statement are not merely an argument from absurdity? No matter what is claimed you will deny God ... not matter what.

And yet, we must take any certainty derived from a basis where no certainty at all can be maintained and abandon God because of it?

Again, you are free to explore for yourself. And even when you discover that God is right (like with that disease and health thing), you are fee to reject him anyway.

 

[gree0232]

I completely disagree.
Omnipotence is an expression of ''what I can do''.

No, omnipotence is an expression of what an omnipotent being can do.

'I' has no part of it.

 

[idea]

...No matter what is claimed you will deny God ... not matter what. ....

There comes a point when you stop casting pearls, and use the ignore list ...

 

[gree0232]

There comes a point when you stop casting pearls, and use the ignore list ...

K is ... being entertained ;-)

Its one of the functions of debate, I doubt that he has any serious ill intent one way or another.

And the pearls? They have been caste. They are in there. And as the entertainment value dies down, those pearls will remain ;-)

 

[Willamena]

I completely disagree.
Omnipotence is an expression of ''what I can do''.

And you're not alone; that's where many get it wrong, slaving omnipotence to the philosophical theory of causation.

Edit: Omnipresence means God exists in every moment that ever was and ever will be. God is present in all things, in causation's causes and in its effects. What is the point of making things happen, of forcing things along, when you're already there, in the outcome? There is no point.

God in the omnimax image is a cosmic consciousness, and just like a human consciousness, knowing/being/presence is "me."

 

[gree0232]

Who do you think you have convinced so far?
Perhaps I have convinced a reader somewhere.
People don't cease to believe in a certain concept of god just because they have read up a debate. You don't see that happening often, if at all. But it adds up eventually. Trust me on this one.



You tell me. You are the one who believes in a god.

As I have pretty well stated and stated repeatedly that engaging n a subject where there are no possible conclusions of any certainty, then I doubt anyone will change their mind on either side now will they?

That would be evidenced by religion, despite the atheist view that this is a trump card, has flourished despite the Problem of Evil's existence for millennia (pre-dating even Christianity, which seems to have done well pretty much the entire time anyway).

It would also be evidenced by literally no one on either side of the debate maing any head way.

Your are free to prove me wrong by using the Problem of Evil to convert someone to atheism? In my experience, atheists who found this particularly convincing did so after being well into their decision process or into the reconversion process - where, once again, the giant trump card is displayed in the unshakeable conclusion of ...

Right, no conclusions of any certainty at all are possible. So how can this be effective argumentation? How does, as the OP asks, the Problem of Evil disprove God?

And the answer is: It doesn't.

 

[gree0232]

The very existence of a plan of salvation is a problem.

Once again, you are going to have back things up K.

No one, despite our apparently divine magic, can actually read minds.

And given that you have made several statements that clearly indicate you are not at all familiar with the claims of the Plan of Salvation, to have the leap from ignorance to irrelevance (totally unsupported) would seem to be little more than grasping at straws.

 

[gree0232]

Your claim about god, which you made multiple times, was that god is obvious.
One second while I look back to see where you support your claim...
Nope.

I stated atheism is a response to a claim, and cannot be illogical, unless the claim it is rejecting is shown to be logical..
One moment again, where you show your claim is logical...
Nope.

You told me to refute every apologetic that has ever been, in return, I asked you to show you were willing to do the same, with other religions, or admit it was am absurd request..
One second...
Nope.

You ask for claims to be proven while adamantly refusing to do that yourself,
You ask for tasks to be completed that you refuse to do yourself, you call other people bullies and uncivil while insulting them yourself.
If this is the conversation style christianity facilitates, I'm quite happy staying an atheist.
I believe that old Gandhi quite applies fairly well here...

AF - I will state this again - I have never claimed that God was obvious.

What I have claimed and claimed repeatedly is:

A. Claims must be supported as in BOTH God is probable or real because ... and God is improbable or not real because ...

Both have a burden of proof.

B. That agnostic atheism is illogical.

C. That agnostic atheism is an attempt to avoid the logical requirement of claim A.

D. That if your claims is that you merely reject religion, ostensibly for logical reasons, then you should be able to explain what drove you there AND be able to demonstrate enough familiarity with the subject you reject that you can actually explain the rejection in a sound manner. That is the logical burden of rejection, and, curiously absent from your narrative, is the alternate, repeatedly stated, that one could just say, "I don't believe in God ... because."

The point being that simply following the rules of logic is MUCH easier than following the logically perverted claims of agnostic atheism.

That is QUITE a bit different than saying YOU MUST go through and refute every work of apologetics! You MUST do that, if your case rests merely upon rejecting something, particularly when there are many strong cases, and refuse adamantly to explain how the listed evidence actually better supports YOUR position.

In short, you are deliberately attributing statements to me that I did not make, and are clearly taking what I said out of context and applying meanings to it that are clearly not intended. To do ...?

Now, I wonder what Gandhi, or even Gora of India, has to say about that?

 

[Koldo]

Yep, because God is right.

he desires HIS wisdom to become OUR wisdom. We become like him.

Impossible
Because if that is simply what he wanted, we would instantly have his wisdom.

And as you are clearly adamant about the need to check this out for yourself, a benevolent God has given you the chance to do just that.

"I think you are wrong God!"

"Well, suit yourself, go check it out and see for yourself."

"What!?! You WERE right therefor you are not real!!!!"

You are aware of the unpardonable sin? One. There is ONLY one. That is, even when you know God is right, you have the free will to reject him anyway.

You have been granted even the ability to do that.

Again, I's like to know why your conflicting statement are not merely an argument from absurdity? No matter what is claimed you will deny God ... not matter what.

And yet, we must take any certainty derived from a basis where no certainty at all can be maintained and abandon God because of it?

Again, you are free to explore for yourself. And even when you discover that God is right (like with that disease and health thing), you are fee to reject him anyway.

I see nothing to debate on this post. Just a lot of pointless statements without any substance. No arguments.

 

[Koldo]

No, omnipotence is an expression of what an omnipotent being can do.

'I' has no part of it.

I, on this case, means God.

 

[Koldo]

And you're not alone; that's where many get it wrong, slaving omnipotence to the philosophical theory of causation.

Or perhaps you are wrong.
Yeah...Not much of a meaningful exchange.

Edit: Omnipresence means God exists in every moment that ever was and ever will be. God is present in all things, in causation's causes and in its effects. What is the point of making things happen, of forcing things along, when you're already there, in the outcome? There is no point.

God in the omnimax image is a cosmic consciousness, and just like a human consciousness, knowing/being/presence is "me."

I, for one, would prefer to be present on what I chose.

 

[Koldo]

Once again, you are going to have back things up K.

No one, despite our apparently divine magic, can actually read minds.

And given that you have made several statements that clearly indicate you are not at all familiar with the claims of the Plan of Salvation, to have the leap from ignorance to irrelevance (totally unsupported) would seem to be little more than grasping at straws.

The need for a plan of salvation shows that god prefers to go through some complicated means which actually causes even more suffering to achieve an end, and that something actually got out of hand at a certain point. These are contradictory to an omnimax god.

 

[Koldo]

As I have pretty well stated and stated repeatedly that engaging n a subject where there are no possible conclusions of any certainty, then I doubt anyone will change their mind on either side now will they?

That would be evidenced by religion, despite the atheist view that this is a trump card, has flourished despite the Problem of Evil's existence for millennia (pre-dating even Christianity, which seems to have done well pretty much the entire time anyway).

That's because you can't find many people who believe in an omnimax god, as explained in the problem of evil, and that care about logical consistency at the same time.

It would also be evidenced by literally no one on either side of the debate maing any head way.

Your are free to prove me wrong by using the Problem of Evil to convert someone to atheism? In my experience, atheists who found this particularly convincing did so after being well into their decision process or into the reconversion process - where, once again, the giant trump card is displayed in the unshakeable conclusion of ...

This is funny. Because when I was a christian back then, I was heavily convinced by this very argument, the problem of evil. I am an example of its worthy.

Right, no conclusions of any certainty at all are possible. So how can this be effective argumentation? How does, as the OP asks, the Problem of Evil disprove God?

And the answer is: It doesn't.

It does. Merely claiming otherwise doesn't make it so.
There is no uncertainty here.

 

[cottage]

Are you attempting to make a case? Or merely reject something so that you can adhere to your belief that the Problem of Evil somehow disproves God?

I’ll begin where I left off. Your argument is that omnipotence, while irrational and illogical, means literally the ability to do anything (within, as you put it, ‘a logical framework’).

So the premise is that omnipotence is illogical

God is omnipotence

God is illogical

But if God is illogical no cogent argument can be made to God or to Classical theism for any statement concerning God can be both true and false at the same time.

And crucially, necessarily true statements such as ‘If God is the Supreme Being then God is omnipotent’ can now be false.

It is pure sophistry that must reduce the speaker to uttering absurdities

Omnipotence has nothing to do with the definition of God does it? It has to do with the concept of omnipotence. The ability to anything - and logically, that means ANYTHING.

It the conundrum you waltzed into without actually challenging what you thought. That, "AHA, I have you now," in which atheists think they have us? You don't. Anything you think CAN be done can indeed be done. Anything you think can't be do, CAN be done anyway.

Not so! No matter what illogical spin is put on omnipotence, even if its power is augmented to infinity it remains the case that it cannot make an existing fact a non-fact and my argument is that suffering exists, and therefore no being is omnibenevolent. And if God is not omnibenevolent and his omnipotence fails to make him so then it follows that there is no omnipotent, nor omnibenevolent being. And in which case there is no God of Classical Theism.

You'd be correct, they are circular logic. Which is why applying logical reasoning to them is pointless. Which is kind of the point I have been making for 24 hours now. Are you agreeing with me?

Its not an argument from ignorance, we know what omnipotence is: the ability to do ANYTHING.

It is not only a blatantly fallacious argument from ignorance it also demonstrably and empirically false; there is no omnibenevolence and the problem of suffering cannot be answered by proposing omnipotence to solve the problem. No ‘reason’, known or yet to be discovered, can turn off the toothache that I’m experiencing as I type these words. And ‘reasons’ only seek to justify evil and suffering; they cannot not alleviate it or make it impossible. Further more the definition can only be applied speculatively to the future and has no application to the present. For even if your omnipotent being made pain illusory it remains no less true that I still experience it, imaginary or not. Evil and suffering exist. And if the omnibenevolent being doesn’t have the power to rescind suffering or make it impossible in the present then by definition the being cannot be omnipotent!

Omnibenevolance may rock your mind, but if its true ... your mind being rocked by something that YOU think is wrong that actually isn't?

Welcome to the Problem of Infinity - where you can infinitely waste time attempting to find something that an omni-whatever cannot do ... and then having to conclude he can do it anyway.

Its why Cynthia, in the OP, states that this does not disprove God. Millennia of argument about the problem of evil has done what to disprove God? Nothing.

So, please explain, why do atheists think this disproves God when simply accepted on faith? Have you ever seen someone loose their faith because of the Problem of Evil? Particularly when our faith is littered with explanation for suffering that atheists, in this very discussion, are having to concede the necessity of?

Yes, littered with theodical ‘explanations’, apologetics that attempt to overturn the contradiction while leaving it soundly in place. The Problem of Evil as it applies to Classical Theism has never been answered, not by St Augustine, not by Aquinas, not by Plantinger, not by Swinburne, not by Craig, not by Irenaeus, and not by Tillich. With the exception of Irenaeus, most simply accept the existence of suffering and attempt to justify it or resort to an argument from ignorance (a la Craig). And it is not ‘a matter of faith’ but a matter of truth, deductively demonstrated in logic and inductively evident in general experience. It is perhaps, if the attributes are insisted upon, the one argument that proves the God in that proposition cannot possibly exist

So, exactly how does this disprove God? And as we acknowledge that its circular logic now? You tell me what it means to have the infinite exercise of power? Boundless power with no limitations?

How does that disprove God?

Simply put, it doesn't.

What is proven is that evil and suffering exist and from which it follows that no being is omnibenevolent and all merciful. If omnibenevolence is said to be a necessary attribute of God, then no such God exists.

 

[cottage]

Oh? There is neither good nor evil now?

So the rape/tortures I captured were post moral?

The guys I found rebuilding homes after a battle were also post moral?

Charity and rape are now the same thing?

And what is entirely absent your claim there is what matters about good and evil - choice.

Right back to freewill aren't we? And whether granting it is good or bad? Evil or Moral.

So far, I see no case being made that its 'correct' to deny choice to everyone because some will abuse it.

Indeed, women in the 1950's were ostensibly less sexualized and suffered sexual abuse (particularly rape) than they do now (especially after the sexual revolution).

So, because porn is now addictive, because sexual violence is increasing, should be bar Marissa Myers from being a CEO because giving her that opportunity takes her out of the house where we can no longer protect her?

That is your conundrum.

How this disproves God? No friggin' idea.

Well I’m not really sure what any of this has to do with my reply to Cynthia? (!) For on the view she expressed I explained that there was no contradiction.

But anyway, since you mention free will I’ll be very pleased to give you my views on that subject.

You ask whether granting free will is ‘good or bad’, ‘evil or moral’?

In addition to the logical (contradictory) aspect the free will defence, as an attempt to get around the Problem of Evil, it also fails as a moral argument because it implies that free will has a greater moral worth than the alleviation or prevention of suffering.And on this account God is the champion of free will together with all the nefarious aspects implied by that, rather than being the epitome of love and mercy as befits a supposed omnibenevolent being.

It is also immoral because evil isn't necessary to the concept of free will; there is no contradiction in conceiving free will without the possibility of suffering; therefore an existence without suffering is logically possible. And in fact the Bible establishes the principle of a possible world devoid of any suffering: for if heaven is free of evil and suffering, why not earth?

Also, the supposed free will isn't actually free will at all: it was preordained! We simply did what was known and expected of us by an omniscient Creator. Divine Determinism. [Aquinas]

And this brings us back to the inconsistent triad and the classic argument for the incompatibility between God’s omnipotence, benevolence and the problem of evil. The notion of an omnipotent, infinite, perfect and all-loving being that punishes his finite, imperfect creation for their created faults is an absurdity that stands on its own. But when the Free Will Defence is introduced, the apologetic compounds what is already illogical, since it wants to say that it is better for an omni-benevolent God not to be omni-benevolent than for humans not be able to choose evil. Once again we need a timely reminder that if God exists then nothing exists but what God brings into being. Evil and suffering exists because of God, not in spite of him.

{PS. If there is something I haven’t answered that I should have answered, then please put it to me again and I’ll give you my reply by return)