The Problem of Evil

[Koldo]

Circular logic preclude ANY definitive conclusion.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that it can?

Circular reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its by definition fallacious.

Please, explain your 'question'.

Why do you believe that the problem of evil leads to circular reasoning on the part of who proposes it?
Where is the circular reasoning on the problem of evil?

 

[Koldo]

Why not just stick the Christian God?

Is there any reason for semantics at this point after just having stated that they are unhelpful?

She doesn't believe in the same god that you do.

 

[gree0232]

She doesn't believe in the same god that you do.

She seems to be quoting the Stanford Philosophy text so helpfully provided by Luis to prove my initial point.

And which God is ultimately irrelevant, as you have to first DISPROVE omnipotence generally and then you can disprove ANY God that claims to be omnipotent.

Since omnipotence is circular ...

Really, logic can lead us to conclusions if we use it, rather than special pleading, to try to hijack logic to support our faith.

BY all means, I keep asking you, and you keep avoiding the central issue.

How do you arrive at any point of certainty when circular logic prevents that?

 

[gree0232]

Why do you believe that the problem of evil leads to circular reasoning on the part of who proposes it?
Where is the circular reasoning on the problem of evil?

Are we being deliberately obtuse?

How many times must I explain it and watch faith driven atheists simply avoid that which might challenge their faith?

Anything you think an omnipotent being cannot do ... he can anyway.

Gosh oh golly gosh I have no idea what you mean is a tired excuse.

 

[Koldo]

She seems to be quoting the Stanford Philosophy text so helpfully provided by Luis to prove my initial point.

And which God is ultimately irrelevant, as you have to first DISPROVE omnipotence generally and then you can disprove ANY God that claims to be omnipotent.

Since omnipotence is circular ...

Really, logic can lead us to conclusions if we use it, rather than special pleading, to try to hijack logic to support our faith.

BY all means, I keep asking you, and you keep avoiding the central issue.

How do you arrive at any point of certainty when circular logic prevents that?

Since I don't see any circular reasoning on this issue, I can't answer your question. Can you point it out to me?

Do you mean that omnipotence is illogical? What is circular about omnipotence?

 

[Koldo]

Are we being deliberately obtuse?

How many times must I explain it and watch faith driven atheists simply avoid that which might challenge their faith?

Anything you think an omnipotent being cannot do ... he can anyway.

Gosh oh golly gosh I have no idea what you mean is a tired excuse.

There is nothing that I believe an omnipotent being can not do, except for logical contradictions. And there is nothing circular about that.

 

[gree0232]

There is nothing that I believe an omnipotent being can not do, except for logical contradictions. And there is nothing circular about that.

An omnipotent being can do anything, including violate logic.

You were earlier arguing just that point, only now ... at the point of having to acknowledge that this proof leads no where, you seek to limit omnipotence.

If it cannot violate logic, then its not omnipotence - and you are stuck right back in the circular logic you refuse to see and yet that fully traps you.

 

[Koldo]

An omnipotent being can do anything, including violate logic.

You were earlier arguing just that point, only now ... at the point of having to acknowledge that this proof leads no where, you seek to limit omnipotence.

I don't seek to limit omnipotence in any way.

If it cannot violate logic, then its not omnipotence - and you are stuck right back in the circular logic you refuse to see and yet that fully traps you.

I still don't see where is the circular logic.
Alright. Let's treat omnipotence as the ability to violate even logic.
Now what? Where do you see the circular logic here?

Please, treat me as someone who is completely clueless on what you mean to say. Show me in the most detailed way you can where is the circular reasoning.

EDIT: I was thinking...
Do you simply mean that since omnipotence can violate logic then an argument based on logic can not be used to disprove god?

 

[gree0232]

I don't seek to limit omnipotence in any way.



I still don't see where is the circular logic.
Alright. Let's treat omnipotence as the ability to violate even logic.
Now what? Where do you see the circular logic here?

Please, treat me as someone who is completely clueless on what you mean to say. Show me in the most detailed way you can where is the circular reasoning.

EDIT: I was thinking...
Do you simply mean that since omnipotence can violate logic then an argument based on logic can not be used to disprove god?

Oh? You aren't limiting it by claiming it cannot violate logic?

Yes it can, its omnipotence and it can do ANYTHING.

And I have stated repeatedly that an illogical construct like the PoE cannot be used to disprove God. That you are semantically changing that repeatedly K is beginning to smack of rank dishonesty. You are intelligent enough to that know its not kosher, and hopefully intelligent enough to know that other people hardly appreciate someone twisting something for the sake of pride.

Its taken you two days to get here, and now ... you still have to explain how the PoE, which is based in circular logic, can disprove anything at all.

And arguments based in logic COULD disprove God, (the PoE would not be logical proof now would it? Its based on circular logic) which every atheist on this thread is pointedly avoiding. And having stated that again K, to see you twist that would be dishonest, again.

The PoE is based on illogical premises. It cannot prove anything at all.

 

[cottage]

I too would like to know what "the Ying-Yang argument (false)" is. But to answer your question: Leibniz (1996) demonstrates the difficulty of justifying the best possible world.

1) If God were all-powerful, all-knowing, etc. this world would be the best possible world.
2) This world is not the best possible world because of suffering.
3) Thus God is not all-powerful, all-knowing, etc.
​

1) "While we can think of certain token features of the world that in and of themselves might be better than they are, we do not know whether it is possible to create a better world lacking those features, because we can never be certain of the nature of the connections between the token events in question and other events in the world. If we could improve or eliminate the token event in question without otherwise changing the world, we might well have a better world. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing whether such a change to the token event would leave the world otherwise unchanged, or might instead make things, on balance, worse." (Leibniz on the Problem of Evil (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Thank you for that.

I am reasonably familiar with Leibniz’ ‘Best possible world’ approach to the Problem of Evil (which includes aspects of A, B, C, I, and L by implication, and arguably others too)).

I am putting together a piece to answer the above, which will include a response that both you and Cynthia have requested in respect of the Yin Yang argument, as there is one particular and overlapping element that relates to both, although I will not realistically be able to deal with every facet of the Leibniz apologetic on the forum as it is quite extensive.

 

[Koldo]

Oh? You aren't limiting it by claiming it cannot violate logic?

Yes it can, its omnipotence and it can do ANYTHING.

And I have stated repeatedly that an illogical construct like the PoE cannot be used to disprove God. That you are semantically changing that repeatedly K is beginning to smack of rank dishonesty. You are intelligent enough to that know its not kosher, and hopefully intelligent enough to know that other people hardly appreciate someone twisting something for the sake of pride.

Semantically changing what?
How much have you read about the problem of evil?
Typically, the omnipotence referred in the problem of evil is the ability to do anything except for logical contradictions. This is no news to anyone that has read about the problem of evil before.

Behaving against logic creates a different set of problems. But since you agree that logic can be used to disprove god, then why is this even relevant?

Its taken you two days to get here, and now ... you still have to explain how the PoE, which is based in circular logic, can disprove anything at all.

You still haven't pointed out where is the circular reasoning on the problem of evil. Let's try a different approach: What is circular reasoning? Use your own words to answer this question.

The problem of evil shows there is a logical contradiction between the existence of this world and an omnimax world. If there is a logical contradiction that means at least one of them doesn't exist.

And arguments based in logic COULD disprove God, (the PoE would not be logical proof now would it? Its based on circular logic) which every atheist on this thread is pointedly avoiding. And having stated that again K, to see you twist that would be dishonest, again.

The PoE is based on illogical premises. It cannot prove anything at all.

What illogical premises is the problem of evil based on?
List them.

 

[cottage]

And arguments based in logic COULD disprove God, (the PoE would not be logical proof now would it? Its based on circular logic) which every atheist on this thread is pointedly avoiding. And having stated that again K, to see you twist that would be dishonest, again.

The PoE is based on illogical premises. It cannot prove anything at all.

And please would you explain to me how the Problem of Evil is based on ‘circular logic’? It isn’t! If it were circular the major premise would also be given as the conclusion, but it isn’t, and nor does it Assume the Consequent: If suffering exists then no being is omnibenevolent. (If A then B) Suffering does exist, therefore no being is omnibenevolent. (A, therefore B)

This is an argument from circularity:

If suffering exists then no being is omnibenevolent. No being is omnibenevolent, therefore suffering exists. (If A then B. B, therefore A)

 

[SoulDaemon]

..a problem of evil?

If u see the potential evil and malevolence in yourself, you've done good.

And accepting this darker side, you might understand yourself better.

To use knowledge or not utilizing it at all?

Everything we do ALWAYS has other sides in different perspectives. Making the best of it is hard.

I know I left the omnipotent stuff out, its more of a man/earthly centered thing to me. I don't feel dragging gods or deities into this, even if others do.

 

[Koldo]

..a problem of evil?

If u see the potential evil and malevolence in yourself, you've done good.

And accepting this darker side, you might understand yourself better.

To use knowledge or not utilizing it at all?

Everything we do ALWAYS has other sides in different perspectives. Making the best of it is hard.

I know I left the omnipotent stuff out, its more of a man/earthly centered thing to me. I don't feel dragging gods or deities into this, even if others do.

Oh, look, a bunny:

There is a similarity between this bunny and your post: How relevant it is to the topic.

 

[gree0232]

And please would you explain to me how the Problem of Evil is based on ‘circular logic’? It isn’t! If it were circular the major premise would also be given as the conclusion, but it isn’t, and nor does it Assume the Consequent: If suffering exists then no being is omnibenevolent. (If A then B) Suffering does exist, therefore no being is omnibenevolent. (A, therefore B)

This is an argument from circularity:

If suffering exists then no being is omnibenevolent. No being is omnibenevolent, therefore suffering exists. (If A then B. B, therefore A)

Yes it is, and I have explained it repeatedly.

I'll get right to the point yet again. The proof seems to be in determining that God is no omnibenevolent (OB) because there is suffering. Yet to prove some OB wrong you have to find something wrong? Only its OB?

So if YOU think its bad, you must have perfect knowledge of all context and interactions, in short you require omniscience to be able to determine that it is ACTUALLY bad.

No atheist I have even encountered has made the claim of omniscience.

SO when you get to that AHA moment? Lacking omniscience, its still good anyway.

That YOU don;t think so? Well, you are not omniscient are you? So who cares?

So tell me, how do your prove something that premise of the proof cannot allow you to prove?

In addition to NOT proving the thing you think you are proving, the resulting discussion about the reality of suffering and consequences is actually demonstrating the need for things like suffering in many cases and is ACTUALLY AFFIRMING the faith of many, whose scriptures talk about exactly these things and what they do.

So I think you get the logical premise of circular logic just fine, you are simply struggling because that 'religion killer' you thought you had isn't what its stacked up to be.

I will submit that a 2500 year old proof, if it were a 'religion killer' probably would have done so long ago. That it has not, should give atheists pause before the euphoria of embarking on a QUESTION of Plato's meant to drive discussion and provoke thought.

The question itself is not the answer.

 

[Koldo]

Yes it is, and I have explained it repeatedly.

I'll get right to the point yet again. The proof seems to be in determining that God is no omnibenevolent (OB) because there is suffering.

Or not omniscient. Or not omnipotent. Or it may not even exist.

Yet to prove some OB wrong you have to find something wrong? Only its OB?

So if YOU think its bad, you must have perfect knowledge of all context and interactions, in short you require omniscience to be able to determine that it is ACTUALLY bad.

No, you don't.
You don't need to be omniscient.

Do you agree that suffering in itself without any good consequence is something bad? I am not asking you whether you believe this kind of suffering exists. Do you agree that making someone suffer if they are not gonna gain anything whatsoever in return is a bad thing?

No atheist I have even encountered has made the claim of omniscience.

SO when you get to that AHA moment? Lacking omniscience, its still good anyway.

That YOU don;t think so? Well, you are not omniscient are you? So who cares?

So tell me, how do your prove something that premise of the proof cannot allow you to prove?

In addition to NOT proving the thing you think you are proving, the resulting discussion about the reality of suffering and consequences is actually demonstrating the need for things like suffering in many cases and is ACTUALLY AFFIRMING the faith of many, whose scriptures talk about exactly these things and what they do.

So I think you get the logical premise of circular logic just fine, you are simply struggling because that 'religion killer' you thought you had isn't what its stacked up to be.

No, we don't get where you see circular reasoning in any of that.
Even if you were correct on what you are saying about the flaws in the argument, it still wouldn't be circular reasoning.

I think that you don't really understand what circular reasoning means. Which is why I asked you tell me what you think that means using your own words.

I will submit that a 2500 year old proof, if it were a 'religion killer' probably would have done so long ago. That it has not, should give atheists pause before the euphoria of embarking on a QUESTION of Plato's meant to drive discussion and provoke thought.

The question itself is not the answer.

It is not like most people care about logical proofs about god.
And a minor change to what is 'god' would simply solve the problem just as easily. So it can not kill religion since religion is fluid.

 

[cottage]

Yes it is, and I have explained it repeatedly.

I'll get right to the point yet again. The proof seems to be in determining that God is no omnibenevolent (OB) because there is suffering. Yet to prove some OB wrong you have to find something wrong? Only its OB?

So if YOU think its bad, you must have perfect knowledge of all context and interactions, in short you require omniscience to be able to determine that it is ACTUALLY bad.

No atheist I have even encountered has made the claim of omniscience.

SO when you get to that AHA moment? Lacking omniscience, its still good anyway.

That YOU don;t think so? Well, you are not omniscient are you? So who cares?

So tell me, how do your prove something that premise of the proof cannot allow you to prove?

In addition to NOT proving the thing you think you are proving, the resulting discussion about the reality of suffering and consequences is actually demonstrating the need for things like suffering in many cases and is ACTUALLY AFFIRMING the faith of many, whose scriptures talk about exactly these things and what they do.

So I think you get the logical premise of circular logic just fine, you are simply struggling because that 'religion killer' you thought you had isn't what its stacked up to be.

I will submit that a 2500 year old proof, if it were a 'religion killer' probably would have done so long ago. That it has not, should give atheists pause before the euphoria of embarking on a QUESTION of Plato's meant to drive discussion and provoke thought.

The question itself is not the answer.

Forgive me, but this is a very muddled and rambling response. There was no reply to my (and others) pointing out to that the Inconsistent Triad is not circular reasoning, and nor was the properly structured formal demonstration that I gave you circular or question-begging. All I can see above is an argument from ignorance and plenty of bluster. And we don’t need to be omniscient, to have all possible knowledge, in order to be aware of sensations of pain and to see others suffering. And reasons for suffering, whether or not we can know what they are, do not overturn the logical contradiction.

The sentence I’ve highlighted in blue makes no sense at all, and the paragraph in red only appeals to scripture, and it makes assertions unsupported by any proper argument.

 

[LuisDantas]

Come to think of it, from the perspective of an Abrahamist or someone with similar conceptions of God, isn't the Problem of Evil more properly stated as one of expectations about the role of God?

I wonder if someone structured that already. Out of the top of my head I don't recall seeing any such presentation.

 

[gree0232]

Or not omniscient. Or not omnipotent. Or it may not even exist.

That would require some kind of logical proof one way or another ... unfortunately ...

It is not like most people care about logical proofs about god.

So ... we are at the claim anything for any reason stage are you?

Like the silly claim that people STRUGGLE with the concept of circular logic?

This is when we are at atheist baseball stage. Anything you throw at them? They will find any old excuse to completely ignore it. The confused cacophony can be amusing.

But then, I assume you have some goal other than simply writing the opposite of anything a Christian writes? Some point to make? Some claim to support?

Or are you simply assuming that most people don;t care about logical proofs because you don't?

Most people who debate care about logical proofs.

And as most atheists are all about being superior rationalists ... suddenly not caring about logical proofs sound rather astounding - especially as the pretense, if not the reality, of the PoE is supposedly logic.

 

[gree0232]

Come to think of it, from the perspective of an Abrahamist or someone with similar conceptions of God, isn't the Problem of Evil more properly stated as one of expectations about the role of God?

I wonder if someone structured that already. Out of the top of my head I don't recall seeing any such presentation.

Yep.

God can do anything. (And I have already written about the absurdity of attempting to prove a fallacious claim like that false.) It's not a testable or falsifiable claim.

What matter is what God claims he will and will not do.

For example, if he's omnipotent, then one suggestive proof would be looking for things, ostensibly caused by God, that would imply great and extraordinary power.

There are plenty of documented miracles out there.

CADRE Comments: Scientifically Documented Miracles

Indeed, the very act of creation implies fallaciously impossibility as well. How do you pack an infinite amount of something into an infinitely small space for example? And then have it explode and create a universe?

Its the same logical problem set.

How much energy can you put in a space that is infinite in size? An infinite amount. So no matter how big the number you imagine ... its still more than that.

Interesting that we find this problem in Creation isn't it?