The Problem of Evil

[gree0232]

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



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

Interesting, that is pretty much exactly what taking fundamentally opposing stances on a subject would be: pointless statements without substance. Its not an argument, its a desire to never be wrong.

 

[gree0232]

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.

Yeah, you can.

You are talking to several of them.

It'd would be nice for you to let other people state what they believe. And because i am logic, as I have been saying from the beginning, you cannot use something that is impervious to logic to make a logical point.

As you peer has pointed out, it becomes circular - and because I understand logical reasoning I can see the circular nature and reality of the REALITY of omnimax and attempting to apply linear logic to it. It simply does not work.

But yes, I believe God can do ANYTHING. I also KNOW that he will NOT DO ANYTHING, and that he has pretty much told us what he will and will not do.

And THAT is where the proverbial proof in the pudding is.

For some reason it is FAR more logical to:

A. fail to concede that point.

B. Assume you understand what others believe.

C. Continuously attempt to reason through circular logic to no avail whatsoever.

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.

That is interesting - because the problem of evil has never been listed as a proof of God in any volume of apologetics I have ever seen. Its never been the subject of a church sermon, save to rebut it - as it is repeatedly in Apologetics.

In short, I think your example here is self serving and not entirely honest.

If that is what convinced you to believe, then you really did not understand the proof of Christianity before you left.

It just not a major part of the intellectual case in support of God or the church. Any church.

These days, because most religious people are quite logical, they recognize circular logic required to entertain the idea and, if they explore it, very quickly realize it impossible to make any way whatsoever with logic alone.

All it does it open the door to a discussion about suffering, and the resulting discussion leaves a far more satisfying answer for religious people than it does atheists ... who are left with the logical paradox of blaming God with the suffering. An altogether unsatisfactory narrative in support of atheism.

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

Simple parroting something back as if you have supported something does not make it so either.

 

[gree0232]

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’).

Actually, I have never stated that. Another poster is making the argument limiting it to logical possibilities.

My very first post on this forum was to point out that these claims are not logical and cannot be solved with logic.

In fact, just a short version.

Anything you decide and omnipotent being cannot do ... he can do it anyway.

You have correctly identified that as circular logic, but that is exactly the point with ANYTHING being possible and why I have routinely stated that what CAN be done and what God has said he will and will not do are two totally different things.

So the premise is that omnipotence is illogical

God is omnipotence

God is illogical

That is a flawed logical proof.

It rests upon the assumption that omnipotent being possessing an illogical power must therefore themselves be illogical.

You know a lot of omnipotent begs upon which omnipotent beings there illogical nature rests upon? After all, just because I recognize insanity when I see it does not mean I am myself insane.

Its the classes misapplication of inductive logic.

All of the swans we have seen are white.
Therefore, all swans are white.

Have you ever seen any omnipotent being? Therefore, you base supernatural powers as the basis of logic or lack thereof? Isn't that an entirely faith based claim?

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.

There are plenty of logical proof for an against God. The Problem of Evil is simply not one of them.

Would you attempt to make circular logic fit something needlessly? Or would you find a better proof? Especially when such proof exist?

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

Apparently you don;t get it. As soon as you say he can't be something ... he can. Or he's not omnipotent. Therein lies the proverbial rub and why this proof is ultimately worthless and has been for thousands of years.

Why do atheists insist on putting stock in a failed proof that only demonstrate stye flaws of the 'Problem of Evil' and wind up with no bearing whatsoever on God?

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

I would tend to agree.

Engaging in circular logic as if it will prove anything at all is quite absurd.

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.

Unless you are omniscient an know all facts, in order to disprove omnibenevolence.

s soon as you arrive at that aha moment of that is definitely not good, in kicks the circular logic. Its OMNIBENEVOLENT, and the best you can achieve is a perspective, without all the facts (unless you are omniscient) - and, if omnibenevolence is there, your perspective must need be false.

Again, engaging in circular reasoning is pretty much insane isn't it?

Which is why I wonder why ONLY atheists seem to put any stock whatsoever in this proof.

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!

It is fallacious.

Its just not religious people who either made it up or put any stock in it.

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

Its been answered thousands of times for thousands of years. That statement, quite unlike the problem set, is provable false.

What the author means is, "proven to MY satisfaction."

Well, that is an argument from absurdity. The maintenance of the belief in a flawed proof until YOU believe its wrong.

How many non atheists are impressed with this proof in the slightest?

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.

[/quote]

Considering that the Bible both acknowledges evil and promises suffering ... while still claiming that omnimax stuff, that would again appear to be little more than a claim based on pure fantasy.

Perhaps, instead of claiming that the problem of evil has NEVER been answered, you might look at the millennia long answers from religion about evil and suffering.

A proof that rests upon the ostrich of denying what clearly is happening is a weak argument indeed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You elevate one definition of omnipotence to the status of truth.
You pretentiously dismiss all other definitions and, thereby, denigrate the well established philosophers who propose them.
You then smugly proclaim victory.

Most Junior High School debates have more substance and credibility.​

 

[Koldo]

Yeah, you can.

You are talking to several of them.

Not really. I think you are the only one on this topic that I have talked to that believes in an omnibenevolent god, to begin with.

It'd would be nice for you to let other people state what they believe. And because i am logic, as I have been saying from the beginning, you cannot use something that is impervious to logic to make a logical point.

What are you talking about?

As you peer has pointed out, it becomes circular - and because I understand logical reasoning I can see the circular nature and reality of the REALITY of omnimax and attempting to apply linear logic to it. It simply does not work.

My ... peer?
So linear logic doesn't work with an omnimax god?
What kind of logic works then?

But yes, I believe God can do ANYTHING. I also KNOW that he will NOT DO ANYTHING, and that he has pretty much told us what he will and will not do.

If a god is omnibenevolent, then it is obvious he would not do some things.
The problem of evil actually depends on that premise.

And THAT is where the proverbial proof in the pudding is.

For some reason it is FAR more logical to:

A. fail to concede that point.

B. Assume you understand what others believe.

C. Continuously attempt to reason through circular logic to no avail whatsoever.

A) What point?

B) Do I need to assume what others believe? Where have I done that?

C) What circular logic? Where is the circular logic in what I have said so far?

That is interesting - because the problem of evil has never been listed as a proof of God in any volume of apologetics I have ever seen. Its never been the subject of a church sermon, save to rebut it - as it is repeatedly in Apologetics.

It is proof against a particular kind of god.
Is the christian god always presented as the omnimax god of the problem of evil? No.

In short, I think your example here is self serving and not entirely honest.

I am being completely honest. Why do you assume otherwise?

If that is what convinced you to believe, then you really did not understand the proof of Christianity before you left.

What denomination are you referring to?
Because there are thousands of them. And each one will have a different take on it.

It just not a major part of the intellectual case in support of God or the church. Any church.

These days, because most religious people are quite logical, they recognize circular logic required to entertain the idea and, if they explore it, very quickly realize it impossible to make any way whatsoever with logic alone.

All it does it open the door to a discussion about suffering, and the resulting discussion leaves a far more satisfying answer for religious people than it does atheists ... who are left with the logical paradox of blaming God with the suffering. An altogether unsatisfactory narrative in support of atheism.

I think you completely misunderstand the problem of evil.
Atheists are not left with blaming god for the suffering that exists.
They are left with the certainty that no such omnimax god exists.

Simple parroting something back as if you have supported something does not make it so either.

What have you done to support ANYTHING you have said so far?

 

[Koldo]

You elevate one definition of omnipotence to the status of truth.
You pretentiously dismiss all other definitions and, thereby, denigrate the well established philosophers who propose them.
You then smugly proclaim victory.

Most Junior High School debates have more substance and credibility.​

A particular definition for omnipotence is used on the argument.
Is it the only one valid definition? No.

But still it is not the word in itself that matters but rather what it points towards when we use it on a given context.

Even dogs can eventually comprehend that when I am pointing towards something, it is not the finger they are supposed to stare at.

Getting lost into a semantic quibble is ridiculous.

 

[Willamena]

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

And you're not?

 

[Koldo]

And you're not?

Nope.

 

[gree0232]

You elevate one definition of omnipotence to the status of truth.
You pretentiously dismiss all other definitions and, thereby, denigrate the well established philosophers who propose them.
You then smugly proclaim victory.

Most Junior High School debates have more substance and credibility.​

Only one can be the truth, correct?

And if the only reason one advocates an alternate definition is so they can attack someone else's faith, then one has to investigate the need for an 'alternate' definition in the first place.

I use the one that is relevant to my faith choice, which is that ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE WITH GOD.

What I proclaim is that deriving certainty from circular logic is insane. If having to concede that point is 'victory' so be it.

No one likes a sore loser, but, as we see, the basic problem remains unaddressed and unconquered by atheists:

Any conclusion you arrive at in which God cannot do something, he can anyway.

... "Well, if we apply this ALTERNATE definition so that we can change the boundaries of the investigation then perhaps it would not be so."

And yet, the faith you think this theorem disproves is apparently not relevant to the proof?

Again, 4,000 years after this supposedly devastating proof was created, and religion is doing just fine.

If this proof is so conquering, then why do we need 'alternate definition' at all? Why is this proof only gaining traction with those who already do not believe in God? Why do religious people repeatedly point out that our religion deals with and provides answers to both evil and suffering and effectively answers the question for the faithful?

Nothing? Save that you have been victimized when religious people insist that you use definition relevant to their faiths if you are attempting to disprove their faith.

That is a simple question of relevancy that a junior high school student would understand.

The victory over the problem of evil was made 2500 years ago when Plato asked it.

And if we are all knowledgeable about Plato, then we would be able to concede that Plato's intent was to induce though ... not provide a lazy answer.

2500 year later, you've managed to prove Plato right that thinking, analysis, and critical reasoning are indeed important - far more important that confirmation bias and attempting to make circular logic fit into a square hole.

 

[gree0232]

A particular definition for omnipotence is used on the argument.
Is it the only one valid definition? No.

But still it is not the word in itself that matters but rather what it points towards when we use it on a given context.

Even dogs can eventually comprehend that when I am pointing towards something, it is not the finger they are supposed to stare at.

Getting lost into a semantic quibble is ridiculous.

Huh, funny ... I actually agree with K on this one. Imagine that

 

[LuisDantas]

Algae?
Is your concept of god so weak that he is unable to make us exactly as we are except without the need to eat?

Speaking as an atheist, yes, it does seem to be.

However, that is only a reasonable challenge to the concept if we are addressing one of the all-powerful (and therefore self-contradictory) conceptions, such as the Abrahamic one.

As an objection to pantheistic or paganist conceptions, it doesn't really work far as I can tell.

 

[Koldo]

Only one can be the truth, correct?

And if the only reason one advocates an alternate definition is so they can attack someone else's faith, then one has to investigate the need for an 'alternate' definition in the first place.

I use the one that is relevant to my faith choice, which is that ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE WITH GOD.

What I proclaim is that deriving certainty from circular logic is insane. If having to concede that point is 'victory' so be it.

No one likes a sore loser, but, as we see, the basic problem remains unaddressed and unconquered by atheists:

Any conclusion you arrive at in which God cannot do something, he can anyway.

... "Well, if we apply this ALTERNATE definition so that we can change the boundaries of the investigation then perhaps it would not be so."

And yet, the faith you think this theorem disproves is apparently not relevant to the proof?

Again, 4,000 years after this supposedly devastating proof was created, and religion is doing just fine.

If this proof is so conquering, then why do we need 'alternate definition' at all? Why is this proof only gaining traction with those who already do not believe in God? Why do religious people repeatedly point out that our religion deals with and provides answers to both evil and suffering and effectively answers the question for the faithful?

Nothing? Save that you have been victimized when religious people insist that you use definition relevant to their faiths if you are attempting to disprove their faith.

That is a simple question of relevancy that a junior high school student would understand.

The victory over the problem of evil was made 2500 years ago when Plato asked it.

And if we are all knowledgeable about Plato, then we would be able to concede that Plato's intent was to induce though ... not provide a lazy answer.

2500 year later, you've managed to prove Plato right that thinking, analysis, and critical reasoning are indeed important - far more important that confirmation bias and attempting to make circular logic fit into a square hole.

You have actually made me giggle.
Do not confuse silence with agreement.
If he hasn't made a sarcastic remark about your posts, it doesn't mean he agrees you. It merely means that his disagreements with you are not his main contention on this topic.
I humbly suggest you don't seek support on his posts.

 

[gree0232]

Not really. I think you are the only one on this topic that I have talked to that believes in an omnibenevolent god, to begin with.



What are you talking about?



My ... peer?
So linear logic doesn't work with an omnimax god?
What kind of logic works then?



If a god is omnibenevolent, then it is obvious he would not do some things.
The problem of evil actually depends on that premise.



A) What point?

B) Do I need to assume what others believe? Where have I done that?

C) What circular logic? Where is the circular logic in what I have said so far?



It is proof against a particular kind of god.
Is the christian god always presented as the omnimax god of the problem of evil? No.



I am being completely honest. Why do you assume otherwise?




What denomination are you referring to?
Because there are thousands of them. And each one will have a different take on it.



I think you completely misunderstand the problem of evil.
Atheists are not left with blaming god for the suffering that exists.
They are left with the certainty that no such omnimax god exists.



What have you done to support ANYTHING you have said so far?

K, you are writing a lot and not really saying anything at all.

The question: how do you arrive at certainty when the problem set precludes certainty?

Omnipotence: Anything conclusion wherein you state something cannot be done, can be done anyway.

Omniscience: Anything you think cannot be known, can be known anyway.

Omnibenevolence: Anything you think is not good, is simply because you lack the full perspective of an omnibenevolent being. That bad thing is still good anyway.

How do you disprove something that by definition cannot be disproven?

Its like trying to make 1+1=3.

No matter how much you scream it, reason with it, attempt to get around it, 1+1 will ALWAYS =2.

Being able to do ANYTHING, means being able to do ANYTHING. Be definition EVERYTHING can be done ... including violating the rules of logic.

God claims omnipotence - the ability to do anything.

He also claims wisdom. Boundaries.

And what God is NOT going to do is a bunch of whack *** stupid stuff in order to prove he is real to a bunch of atheists who will simply find an excuse to dismiss the whack *** stupid stuff anyway. THAT would be a real exercise in frivolity and absurdity.

God can be anything. He chooses to be logical, reasonable, compassionate, etc. So stating that he COULD do something that he is not only tell what God has already told us - that he has made decisions about what he will and will not do.

How does that disprove God?

We are talking about a God that has reportedly made food, mana, rain down from heaven. That is pretty friggin' magical isn't it? Yet even then, God was clear that this was an exigent circumstance born of singular vulnerability and exceptional faith in God.

The proof came after the faith.

And that too is something God has been clear about.

I mean put it in context.

What happens when we, as young adults, start claiming our Dad is stupid and we know better? Does he lock us in a basement? Or does he tell us, "Fine, go make your own way in the world, and I will be here when you need me and are ready for my help."

Do we expect our parents to start magically pulling bread out of their ***** merely to prove to us that they are right? Or do they trust us to mature on our own? As God does us?

Again, Plato's question is meant to induce though, not provide answers. And the answers that question generates have sustained religions for millennia.

Its not asking the question that is the error, its assuming the question is the answer that is the error.

 

[gree0232]

Speaking as an atheist, yes, it does seem to be.

However, that is only a reasonable challenge to the concept if we are addressing one of the all-powerful (and therefore self-contradictory) conceptions, such as the Abrahamic one.

As an objection to pantheistic or paganist conceptions, it doesn't really work far as I can tell.

Omnipotence is not an Abrahamic exclusive.

Its a concept that happens to be claimed by our God who is NOW quite popular. That was not always the case. And the fact that other beings have claimed this power, and have disappeared form the religious pantheon.

You seem to have a particular grudge with Abrahamic faiths, but its also equally clear that you don't really have a firm understanding of them either.

 

[gree0232]

You have actually made me giggle.
Do not confuse silence with agreement.
If he hasn't made a sarcastic remark about your posts, it doesn't mean he agrees you. It merely means that his disagreements with you are not his main contention on this topic.
I humbly suggest you don't seek support on his posts.

Well, conceding a valid point is not ... contrary to what many atheists think ... 'losing'.

It necessary to move a debate along.

And I happen to agree with you that not getting needlessly bogged down in semantics is helpful to discussion.

I am unsure how you believe this means I agree with my opponent's conclusion?

Discussion is not a zero sum game, You can concede a valid point without losing an argument. In fact, if we pursue discussion from a zero sum approach ... we are letting pride, not logic, guide our thoughts. Correct?

 

[Willamena]

One sense of ‘omnipotence’ is, literally, that of having the power to bring about any state of affairs whatsoever, including necessary and impossible states of affairs. Descartes seems to have had such a notion (Meditations, Section 1). Yet, Aquinas and Maimonides held the view that this sense of ‘omnipotence’ is incoherent. Their view can be defended as follows. It is not possible for an agent to bring about an impossible state of affairs (e.g., that there is a shapeless cube), since if it were, it would be possible for an impossible state of affairs to obtain, which is a contradiction (see Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Ia, 25, 3; and Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, Part I, Ch. 15). Nor is it possible for an agent to bring about a necessary state of affairs (e.g., that all cubes are shaped). It is possible for an agent, a, to bring about a necessary state of affairs, s, only if possibly, (1) a brings about s, and (2) if a had not acted, then s would have failed to obtain. Because a necessary state of affairs obtains whether or not anyone acts, (2) is false. As a consequence, it is impossible for an agent to bring about either a necessary or an impossible state of affairs. Many philosophers accept the principle that if an agent has the power to bring about a state of affairs, then this entails that, possibly, the agent brings about that state of affairs. If this principle is correct, then the foregoing absolute sense of ‘omnipotence’ is incoherent. Among contemporary philosophers, Earl Conee (1991) rejects this principle in order to defend the view that an omnipotent being would have the power to bring about any state of affairs whatsoever.
Omnipotence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

One sense of ‘omnipotence’ is, literally, that of having the power to bring about any state of affairs whatsoever, including necessary and impossible states of affairs. Descartes seems to have had such a notion (Meditations, Section 1). Yet, Aquinas and Maimonides held the view that this sense of ‘omnipotence’ is incoherent. Their view can be defended as follows. It is not possible for an agent to bring about an impossible state of affairs (e.g., that there is a shapeless cube), since if it were, it would be possible for an impossible state of affairs to obtain, which is a contradiction (see Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Ia, 25, 3; and Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, Part I, Ch. 15). Nor is it possible for an agent to bring about a necessary state of affairs (e.g., that all cubes are shaped). It is possible for an agent, a, to bring about a necessary state of affairs, s, only if ....

Yeah, someone should shoot that word 'omnipotence.' People sometimes take it seriously and that can lead to some tangled human thought.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Yeah, someone should shoot that word 'omnipotence.' People sometimes take it seriously and that can lead to some tangled human thought.

It is a redundancy. Omniscient and omnipresent should be enough or describing God as All in all should be enough.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It is a redundancy. Omniscient and omnipresent should be enough or describing God as All in all should be enough.

I have the same problem with 'omniscience' as with 'omnipotent'. I can't see any coherent meaning for either.

As for 'omnipresent', that one doesn't bother me so much. Let's just imagine that 'God' infuses every atom, as 'reality' infuses every atom. I can deal with that.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I have the same problem with 'omniscience' as with 'omnipotent'. I can't see any coherent meaning for either.

As for 'omnipresent', that one doesn't bother me so much. Let's just imagine that 'God' infuses every atom, as 'reality' infuses every atom. I can deal with that.

While I have no problem with omniscience, I agree.The All in all or omnipresent is a sufficient description.