A General Argument from Evil.

bbarr

Spirituality

31 Mar '05 04:21

kingdanwa
Joined
04 Nov '03
Moves
6803
24 Jul '05 23:16
I humbly request a brief summary, if our host bbarr (or another able patron) would be so kind.
DoctorScribbles
BWA Soldier
Tha Brotha Hood
Joined
13 Dec '04
Moves
49088
24 Jul '05 23:221 edit
To begin, I recommend you read the first post and ignore the rest, the marjority of which consists of people repeatedly asking what moral theory the argument requires and bbarr trying to convince them that no particular ethical theory is required, that the argument is valid and complete regardless of whichever ethical theory one espouses.

The posts beyond the first should largely be read for entertainment value only.
LemonJello
Joined
24 Apr '05
Moves
3061
24 Jul '05 23:39
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
To begin, I recommend you read the first post and ignore the rest, the marjority of which consists of people repeatedly asking what moral theory the argument requires and bbarr trying to convince them that no particular ethical theory is required, that the argument is valid and complete regardless of whichever ethical theory one espouses.

The posts beyond the first should largely be read for entertainment value only.
i agree, with only a couple of exceptions. i think lucifershammer threw some posts in there worth reading that modify slightly the original argument (even if these modifications are only somewhat cosmetic).

i think a summary of the whole argument (with modifications) can be found in the thread 'A General Argument Against Evil, Part II'.
chinking58
Joined
01 Sep '04
Moves
29935
25 Jul '05 10:031 edit
Originally posted by xxxenophobe
twoo twoo....
chinking58
Joined
01 Sep '04
Moves
29935
25 Jul '05 10:04
Originally posted by bbarr
[b]A General Argument from Evil:

God (def.): An entity that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

Omnipotent (def.): An entity G is omnipotent if and only if G can do anything that is logically possible.

Omniscient (def.): An entity G is omniscient if and only if G knows every true proposition.

Morally Perfect (def): An entity G i ...[text shortened]... s false. So, explicitly state in your response which premise you think is false any why.[/b]
It's good to see this thread up and running again.

Before I try to make my little point, I was just wondering:
Does a person really think he can 'eliminate' God through logic? Where is such a person coming from? Already convinced He does not exist? Working hard to justify himself, hoping that if he can impress his profs and other 'thinkers', then there is no personal accountability for personal decisions? Or is he stuck behind a wall of logic and hoping to find the way out? The way out to personal freedom. Away from living the burdensome life of Godlessness? Anyway...just wondering.

I'm thinking that one of the problems in the opening post of this thread is found in the definition of morally perfect.

Morally Perfect (def): An entity G is morally perfect if and only if for any two acts, events, or states of affairs A and B, if A is morally preferable to B then G prefers that A occur or obtain rather than B, and G acts accordingly.

The problem is that this assumes there is more than one 'act, event or state of affairs'. Of course from my perspective there are plenty of each. But from God's viewpoint (I am speculating), it may be said that there was but one act: The Creation (I will call it). All the rest of hisstory is simply what followed. Like some refer to 'the Big Bang' as one, explanatory, all inclusive event leading us to where we are now, though it would actually have been a long series of complex interactionary processes.

So that when God initiated His creation, He really only did one thing (and it was 'very good'😉.

When God made man, He installed the one most morally preferable nature there is: free will. Any other program, if you will, would have been morally bankrupt. We would only be like robots, designed and operated totally from the outside. As long as we continue in free will, then the most preferable 'occurs and obtains', even though we fill the world with violence and despair.

(Christian doctrine does hold, however, that we people tend to choose the giving up of our free will, and become 'slaves to sin'. This is a man made problem that reveals our inclination to moral imperfection.)
DoctorScribbles
BWA Soldier
Tha Brotha Hood
Joined
13 Dec '04
Moves
49088
25 Jul '05 14:556 edits
Originally posted by chinking58

Before I try to make my little point, I was just wondering:
Does a person really think he can 'eliminate' God through logic? Where is such a person coming from? Already convinced He does not exist?
The proof, even if perfectly flawless, wouldn't eliminate the possiblity of God existing. It would only show that no God defined as in the proof exists (or that logical contradictions can actually obtain, the denial of which is an implicit assumption in all reductio style proofs). Said another way, the proof's claim is really this: if God exists, he is not OOMP. A person who both believes in God and accepts the validity of the proof cannot reasonably hold that God is OOMP, but he doesn't have to deny God's existence.

Without changing the content of the proof one bit, bbarr's first definition could have defined the symbol 'Rattlesnake' rather than 'God'. The claim would then be that OOMP Rattlesnakes don't exist. If you'd accept the validity of the latter proof, you must accept the validity of the first. But the latter says nothing about the existence of all sorts of rattlesnakes.

Dr. S

P.S. In the above post, 'God' is not used as the symbol defined in the proof, but in its everyday connotation. It should be read as a placeholder, like 'Morally Perfect' in the proof, so we might have a forthcoming comedy. (The Rattlesnake bit was used to clarify the reading for some, and to confuse it for others.)
KellyJay
Walk your Faith
USA
Joined
24 May '04
Moves
157807
25 Jul '05 17:12
Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]And if time can be traced backwards to infinity - the implication is there is no such thing as a truly random events. Correct?

Incorrect. Quantum mechanics I believe leaves room for true randomness. It's possible that no matter how much knowledge and intelligence we have, we can not predict certain things.[/b]
That was what he said wasn't it? We cannot predict everything, that
does not mean that God cannot, because God is not limited as we
are.
Kelly
LemonJello
Joined
24 Apr '05
Moves
3061
27 Jul '05 02:331 edit
Originally posted by chinking58
It's good to see this thread up and running again.

Before I try to make my little point, I was just wondering:
Does a person really think he can 'eliminate' God through logic? Where is such a person coming from? Already convince ...[text shortened]... problem that reveals our inclination to moral imperfection.)

Does a person really think he can 'eliminate' God through logic?

if god exists, then i doubt there is anything one can do to 'eliminate' him. if god doesn't exist, then there is nothing to 'eliminate'. whichever case holds, the answer to your question is 'no'. the objective of the GAFE is not to 'eliminate' god whatever that is supposed to mean; the objective is to provide an argument that demonstrates it is sufficiently likely that no such god (so defined) exists.

Where is such a person coming from? Already convinced He does not exist? Working hard to justify himself, hoping that if he can impress his profs and other 'thinkers', then there is no personal accountability for personal decisions? Or is he stuck behind a wall of logic and hoping to find the way out? The way out to personal freedom. Away from living the burdensome life of Godlessness? Anyway...just wondering.

yeah that must be it. 🙄. where are you coming from? already convinced He does exist? working hard to secure a flowery afterlife to stroke your ego, hoping that if you can appease a god you cannot even prove exists, then there will be no accountability for your mortal sins? Or are you stuck behind a wall of faith, defined only by its arbitrary nature? away from the burdensome task of actually attempting to think for yourself? anyway...just wondering...do you take any pleasure in being so pigeon-holed?

I'm thinking that one of the problems in the opening post of this thread is found in the definition of morally perfect...The problem is that this assumes there is more than one 'act, event or state of affairs'....from God's viewpoint (I am speculating), it may be said that there was but one act: The Creation...

i disagree that this poses any problem. to suggest that there was only one act or event from which god could choose completely contradicts his other attributes, particularly omnipotence. it is logically possible for such a god to abstain from creating anything in the first place. so even if you lump everything together as 'creation', god still has at least two states of affairs that are fully specified to his omniscient self: creation and non-creation. this alone is enough to dismiss your concern, without even addressing the validity of your construction 'the creation' as only one state of affairs, which i think is dubious.

When God made man, He installed the one most morally preferable nature there is: free will...As long as we continue in free will, then the most preferable 'occurs and obtains', even though we fill the world with violence and despair.

okay, but i don't think free will necessitates suffering, and i will expound upon why if you want; and i certainly don't think that free will necessitates logically necessary suffering. even if free will does necessitate suffering, it certainly does NOT explain ALL of the suffering in the world; what about the pain and suffering caused by floods, plagues, earthquakes, etc? (thus, free will alone is not a vessel by which you can demonstrate that all suffering in the world is logically necessary).

but more importantly, if the existence of free will is necessary for greater good (ie, it is morally preferred to non-existence of free will), that doesn't change the fact that god could still have given man free will with less suffering resulting than what is present in the world. for example, god could have simply made men (or even just one man) with (even only slightly) more benevolent character, thus reducing the amount of suffering that results from the collective execution of free will. the point i am trying to make is that even if you appeal to free will, you are still going to have to entertain the notion of a callous god (ie, a god that demonstrates at least some measure of indifference to, or even a delight in, the sufferings of man).
KellyJay
Walk your Faith
USA
Joined
24 May '04
Moves
157807
27 Jul '05 05:10
Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Does a person really think he can 'eliminate' God through logic?

if god exists, then i doubt there is anything one can do to 'eliminate' him. if god doesn't exist, then there is nothing to 'eliminate'. whichever case holds, the answer to your question is 'no'. the objective of the GAFE is not to 'eliminate' god whatever that is sup ...[text shortened]... least some measure of indifference to, or even a delight in, the sufferings of man).

[/b]
Much of this discussion assumes so many things it isn’t even funny.
Suppose God had by design set in stone that this universe was going
to last X amount of years, and within that time frame what occurs here
will setup eternal life. Now suppose God had by design allows us to act
as we see fit within our limitations. Can you by any amount of logic
pick and choose what we should or should not see within this setup by
how God should act, when it is us doing most of the acting? I’m not at
all suggesting this is what has happened, but the logic presupposes
so many things that obligate God into having to respond according to
how you think God should act. We do not know what is important to
an eternal God, we do not know what God holds to as being more
important! We only know what we think is more important from our
point of view.
Kelly
LemonJello
Joined
24 Apr '05
Moves
3061
27 Jul '05 06:00
Originally posted by KellyJay
Much of this discussion assumes so many things it isn’t even funny.
Suppose God had by design set in stone that this universe was going
to last X amount of years, and within that time frame what occurs here
will setup eternal life. Now suppose God had by design allows us to act
as we see fit within our limitations. Can you by any amount of logic
pick a ...[text shortened]... ng more
important! We only know what we think is more important from our
point of view.
Kelly
(i feel some ranting coming on.)

have you read through the formulation of the GAFE? if you have, then you know that the GAFE assumes no particular ethical theory. that is to say, the GAFE stands independent of any concepts concerning what constitutes 'morally preferable'.

that said, the argument will surely falter with some ethical theories. for example, if the ethical theory of your god says that logically unnecessary suffering is just great -- the more needless suffering the better -- then the premise that god would have acted to prevent needless suffering can clearly be rejected. but would you want to worship a god that employs that type of ethical theory? sounds like hitler or something to me.

please try to understand where i am coming from KJ: i think i am employing some pretty darn reasonable ethical treatments when i say that the god defined in the GAFE should see fit to actively prevent LOGICALLY UNNECESSARY suffering (i repeat, LOGICALLY UNNECESSARY). but he clearly doesn't (because it's pretty clear to me that there is logically unnecessary suffering in this world), so no such god exists.

now you are saying that i am way out of line to assume only this much about god? spare me!...if an omnipotent and omniscient god exists and doesn't see fit to prevent LOGICALLY UNNECESSARY suffering, then he is a royal schmuck. i understand what you are saying (i think). you are saying basically 'who are we to say how god will act?', correct? well...i can tell you this much: if we cannot even say that an omnipotent and omniscient god would actively prevent LOGICALLY UNNECESSARY suffering, then that god ain't worth worshipping even if he exists. sorry. i don't even care about the fact that he can squash us all like bugs. this is a real deal breaker. i can't respect a schmuck like that.

so, to recap: if an omniscient and omnipotent god does exist, then he ain't no friend o' mine. if a god exists that is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, then i'll cut him some slack.

since i am pretty sure the bible purports the christian god to be both omnipotent and omniscient, i would say it follows that even if the christian god exists, he ain't worth worshipping. you really want to spend eternity with him?
howardgee
Cosmos
Joined
21 Jan '04
Moves
11184
27 Jul '05 10:27
Originally posted by LemonJello
(i feel some ranting coming on.)

have you read through the formulation of the GAFE? if you have, then you know that the GAFE assumes no particular ethical theory. that is to say, the GAFE stands independent of any concepts concerning what constitutes 'morally preferable'.

that said, the argument will surely falter with some ethical theories. fo ...[text shortened]... od exists, he ain't worth worshipping. you really want to spend eternity with him?

Yes, well KellyJay does seem to have the memory of a gold fish!

On 25th July 2005 in my "Main Problem With Evil" thread, he stated:

"I'm not sure what GAFE is, I have not followed any discussion where
that was a center piece of it. "

However, it is clear that he posted regularly to this GAFE thread over a long period!
I think the problem with KellyJay is that; if it isn't in the bible, he cannot take it in properly.
chinking58
Joined
01 Sep '04
Moves
29935
27 Jul '05 18:20
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
The proof, even if perfectly flawless, wouldn't eliminate the possiblity of God existing. It would only show that no God defined as in the proof exists (or that logical contradictions can actually obtain, the denial of which is an implicit assumption in all reductio style proofs). Said another way, the proof's claim is really this: if God exists, ...[text shortened]... . (The Rattlesnake bit was used to clarify the reading for some, and to confuse it for others.)
It took me a while to figure out what 'OOMP' is! Now I'm catching up, I think.

I think I found a problem in the definition of MP, that is critical. I would agree that a God who instigates event B (bad) when event G (good) is obviously preferable, would be an amoral if not immoral god.
But in my view, that did not happen. God initiated the only acceptable (morally) type of creation possible where any real form of 'love' could exist. One imbued with free will.

With my problelm in mind, then there never was the event E mentioned in point 2. (Therefore, there is no point 11)
chinking58
Joined
01 Sep '04
Moves
29935
27 Jul '05 19:09
Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Does a person really think he can 'eliminate' God through logic?

if god exists, then i doubt there is anything one can do to 'eliminate' him. if god doesn't exist, then there is nothing to 'eliminate'. whichever case holds, the answer to your question is 'no'. the objective of the GAFE is not to 'eliminate' god whatever that is sup ...[text shortened]... least some measure of indifference to, or even a delight in, the sufferings of man).

[/b]
if god exists, then i doubt there is anything one can do to 'eliminate' him
god could have simply made men (or even just one man) with (even only slightly) more benevolent character, thus reducing the amount of suffering that results from the collective execution of free will. the point i am trying to make is that even if you appeal to free will, you are still going to have to entertain the notion of a callous god (ie, a god that demonstrates at least some measure of indifference to, or even a delight in, the sufferings of man).

In my little aside, this is the point I was getting at (sorta). God can not be eliminated, but many people do succeed in alienating themselves from God by working so hard to eliminate Him.

where are you coming from? already convinced He does exist? working hard to secure a flowery afterlife to stroke your ego, hoping that if you can appease a god you cannot even prove exists, then there will be no accountability for your mortal sins? Or are you stuck behind a wall of faith, defined only by its arbitrary nature? away from the burdensome task of actually attempting to think for yourself?

I am indeed convinced He does exist. Problem?
Working hard to secure...? There is no 'appeasing' God. There is only accepting Him and His ways, and that is only for our benefit!
Accountability? If you were drowning in a river and I offered to help you out, would you refuse the rope I threw to protect your accountability? Jesus stood on the bank and offered to pull me out. I accepted.
Thinking for myself? I am intrigued by the number of people who reject the church, or their parent's ideas, and think they are becoming some kind of freethinking agent, when all they do is join the huge ranks of those who simply deny God and all He stands for. It is this path that is the wide one, crowded with unthinking followers.

to suggest that there was only one act or event from which god could choose completely contradicts his other attributes, particularly omnipotence. it is logically possible for such a god to abstain from creating anything in the first place.

All I suggested was that God did choose one act. And that it was a perfectly moral act. As opposed to the idea that He did something wrong. Whether He could have made the sky green or orange, or somehow modified our free will to only allow a lesser degree of badness (here's a though: maybe did!) is immaterial.

okay, but i don't think free will necessitates suffering

ABSOLUTELY AGREED!! This is my very main point! When God created man with a free will He did not intend it to go wrong. In love, He allowed for it, and it was A & E who chose to bring in the suffering.

The suffering we all endure is not necessary, or at least its beginning was not required. But it does, simply, exist. And as long as there is one person who rejects living God's way, then suffering will continue.

god could have simply made men (or even just one man) with (even only slightly) more benevolent character, thus reducing the amount of suffering that results from the collective execution of free will. the point i am trying to make is that even if you appeal to free will, you are still going to have to entertain the notion of a callous god (ie, a god that demonstrates at least some measure of indifference to, or even a delight in, the sufferings of man).

I'm afraid I have to say that this idea is just silly. Who am I to suggest that God modify any part of His character by some measure or degree? And like I said above; maybe God did modify how bad we could get.

But no, God is not callous, or unwise, or bad, nor nonexistant.

Ezekiel 18:23
Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

Ezekiel 18:32
For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!
echecero
Joined
15 Jul '05
Moves
351
27 Jul '05 21:22
Originally posted by Coletti
And if time can be traced backwards to infinity - the implication is there is no such thing as a truly random events. Correct? Randomness is really a concept we use to describe event that we find impossible to predict, like turbulence, or rolls of dice. But that is only due to a limit in our knowledge and ability to measure all the possible inputs. A robot ...[text shortened]... es every time. Someday they won't let people with computer controlled prosthesis into casinos.
Tracing time backwards would not preclude randomness. Just because you can say how something has happened in no way proves that the event wasn't a random occurence.

Further, we can predict random events in large quantity. For example, when rolling a pair of dice at least 50 times, the most commonly rolled number will be 7, 6 and 8 will be the next most common, and so on, with 2 and 12 being the least commonly rolled.

To the robotic arm example: The part of rolling dice that makes it random is the timing -- the person rolling the dice is unaware of the precise positing and timing when the dice are released. Indeed, if the person were aware of these factors, any randomness would be lost...I think that's rather obvious. That dice can be rolled in a non-random manner does not lessen the randomness of a human rolling them. Why do we know that a human rolling dice is truly random? Because the results are always uniformly distributed. Therefore, each possible outcome is occurring regularly, without weight given to any certain outcome based on some other factor.
LemonJello
Joined
24 Apr '05
Moves
3061
27 Jul '05 22:21
Originally posted by chinking58
[b]if god exists, then i doubt there is anything one can do to 'eliminate' him
god could have simply made men (or even just one man) with (even only slightly) more benevolent character, thus reducing the amount of suffering that results from the collective execution of free will. the point i am trying to make is that even if you appeal to free wil ...[text shortened]...
For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!
[/b]
God can not be eliminated, but many people do succeed in alienating themselves from God by working so hard to eliminate Him.

are you then rejecting the notion that there may be nothing to eliminate in the first place?

I am indeed convinced He does exist. Problem?

no problem at all. likewise, there should be no problem if someone else is convinced he doesn't exist. i was simply playing your own game: you pigeon-hole me, i pigeon-hole you. obviously, that gets us nowhere.

when all they do is join the huge ranks of those who simply deny God and all He stands for.

again, i pigeon-hole you as a mindless parrot, you pigeon-hole me as a heathen dead set on ransacking all that is innocent and pure. moving along...

All I suggested was that God did choose one act. And that it was a perfectly moral act. As opposed to the idea that He did something wrong. Whether He could have made the sky green or orange, or somehow modified our free will to only allow a lesser degree of badness (here's a though: maybe did!) is immaterial.

i have read your earlier post several times, and it seems to me that you were suggesting that god had but one choice. after all, your problem with the definition of MP was that you thought it assumes at least two choices. but if you play that game, where god has but one choice available, then you resign away his omnipotence. you can't handcuff him with respect to logically possible options and not resign away his omnipotence. i think there is no problem here with the definition of MP as it stands.

i think i see now what you are saying about his making one choice and its being morally perfect (seen or viewed as a collection). however, one could certainly challenge your assertion that it was morally perfect. how do you know it was morally perfect? the seemingly needless suffering in the world would lead me to believe the choice was far from morally perfect by any reasonable ethical theory.

ABSOLUTELY AGREED!! This is my very main point!

then you agree that free will does not necessitate suffering. then how is an appeal to free will supposed to provide evidence for the logical necessity of the suffering in this world if it cannot even explain the existence of suffering in this world? i am not sure i am asking that very clearly, but it speaks to the inability of appealing to free will to get around the GAFE.

When God created man with a free will He did not intend it to go wrong. In love, He allowed for it, and it was A & E who chose to bring in the suffering.

this does not change that fact that an omnipotent god has the ability to stop said suffering if he so chooses. this is one reasons why i disagree with your construction of lumping everything together into 'the creation'. even if he initially just sets something in motion, an omnipotent god would still necessarily reserve the ability to change due course. even the bible seems to suggest that god didn't just make one choice and sit back to let things unfold; he flooded out his creation to start over again in there somewhere. his initial choice couldn't have been all that perfect if he felt the need to start over.

Who am I to suggest that God modify any part of His character by some measure or degree?

there are so many people shoveling the DCT around these here parts that it's difficult to breath because of the overpowering stench. god is not above morality. god is also not above being questioned in terms of his motives and actions.

maybe God did modify how bad we could get.

i don't think it would change the fact that there is plenty more room for improvement.