An Inductive Argument from Evil

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"Shooting down a hijacked plane might kill hundreds of innocent people.
However if shooting that plane down saves the lives of tens of thousands
inside a packed stadium then on net, the good outweighs the bad."

we are not talking about complex decisions concerning the greater good. we are talking about morally good or morally bad. shooting down an air ...[text shortened]... it. i am tired of discussing semantics. out of my many points, you took the least important one.

we are not talking about complex decisions concerning the greater good.
we are talking about morally good or morally bad. shooting down an airplane full of
people is morally bad. no matter how many lives you save.

Actually the argument in the op is expressly dealing with "complex decisions concerning
the greater good"...

If you can't even understand that then I think it's probably best you drop out.

At no point was this a question of mere semantics...

I just can't understand how you can't get it without wilfully misreading the argument in
the op.

Originally posted by LemonJello

I don't think that Omnipotence or Omniscience or Moral Perfection are requirements
[by definition or otherwise] of a god.
And I think you get logical contradictions and paradoxes if you try to create an
Omnimax god.

I understand your objection against (16), based on the idea that such a definition is internally contradictory. I mys ...[text shortened]... evil does not purport to address conceptions of 'God' that lie outside this sort of definition.

Sure, and I think the argument succeeds on those terms...

However regardless of whether or not people CLAIM that their god is
omnimax all loving perfectly moral...

What they actually describe, and the stories about their god, always
depict a god that is neither omnimax, nor morally good. Let alone
perfectly so.

So I never really feel that the "Problem of Evil" argument carries much
punch. But then I've never believed in a god in the first place so that
doesn't necessarily mean a lot.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Why do you reject premise 1)? 16) I can understand, but 1)? That's crazy talk, isn't it?

it assumes a being we do not understand, a being that we assign incredible characteristics to, would see the world the same as we do.

consider these:
we understand pain as input travelling through neurons. god doesn't have neurons, why would he understand you are in pain? we ourselves do not believe plants feel pain. not the same as we do anyway. what is pain for plants? what is pain for god?

we have a lifespan of let's say 70 years. god is described as eternal. why would he be concerned you suffered for the last 3 years? what are 3 years compared to infinity? he may not even experience time as we do, maybe he has no concept of sequential, and to him, you are already enjoying eternal life with him in heaven. he already played football with the kid dying of cancer now, together with the kid that hasn't been born yet.

Originally posted by LemonJello

you assume god (an eternal being who may experience time differently or have in incomprehensible perception altogether) must register our suffering the same way we do.

No, the argument does not assume this. If you think otherwise, then actually show us how this is implied by the argument.

[quote]2-6 are obvious, no point going over ...[text shortened]... the product of sheer laziness and/or flagrant misrepresentation on the part of you, the reader.

"No, the argument does not assume this. If you think otherwise, then actually show us how this is implied by the argument"

the argument fails if god doesn't understand our suffering. look at a plant in your house. does it suffer? how can you tell? you are completely two different beings, with different notions. from your point of view, the plant is taken care of.


" I think it is clear "
yes, this remark always makes for an interesting debate. it is clear you do not understand the subject, it is clear you are too lazy to understand.

it cannot possibly be that i simply hold a different opinion than you, and rather than try to explain your position, you state it is clear i don't understand you and don't want you.

by this remark, it is my fault for not getting your point, and i should be arriving at your way of thinking, if only i would try a little harder.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]1. Both the property of intentionally allowing an animal to die an agonizing death in a forest fire, and the property of allowing a child to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, are wrongmaking characteristics of an action, and very serious ones.
Let's just start there, since the rest hinges on this.

Before delving into ...[text shortened]... or life to last forever and for it to be without suffering, this dog stalled at the gate.[/b]

WTF?

Please explicitly show me how "it is a reasonable expectation for life to last forever" and "that while it's in session...life ought to be without suffering" are implicit in (1).

Your entire post here is simply absurd. You have completely failed to understand this argument on any level. Did you actually read any of it beyond your grotesque misreading of (1)? If so, how exactly can it so thoroughly escape your comprehension that just asserting that something is a wrongmaking characteristic of action A does not even imply that action A is morally wrong, all things considered? There is simply no way that (1) entails all the crap you project on it.

And sorry, but your rant is just stupid.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
it assumes a being we do not understand, a being that we assign incredible characteristics to, would see the world the same as we do.

consider these:
we understand pain as input travelling through neurons. god doesn't have neurons, why would he understand you are in pain? we ourselves do not believe plants feel pain. not the same as we do anyway. what ...[text shortened]... ayed football with the kid dying of cancer now, together with the kid that hasn't been born yet.

Part 1 of the argument assumes none of these things.

If you think otherwise, please explain where part 1 assumes these things.

Here is part 1 for you for ease of reference.

1. Both the property of intentionally allowing an animal to die an agonizing death in a forest fire, and the property of allowing a child to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, are wrongmaking characteristics of an action, and very serious ones.

Please point out the part where it says ANYTHING about the being doing the actions described.

consider these:
we understand pain as input travelling through neurons. god doesn't have neurons, why would he understand you are in pain? we ourselves do not believe plants feel pain. not the same as we do anyway. what is pain for plants? what is pain for god?

Lets say we developed FTL capability [along with other advanced technologies] and
we travelled out into the galaxy and came across sentient alien life forms of a completely different
type and basis from us [say silicone based for example, with totally different chemical micro
and macro structures].
These creatures experience the world in totally different ways from us.
We are vastly more technologically advanced and powerful than they are.
Should the morality of our treatment of these aliens be based on how WE experience the world,
or how THEY experience the world?

Surely it should be based upon their experience and not ours.


We have the capability now to determine that many animals on this planet can feel pain, anxiety,
panic, boredom, loss, heartbreak... in their own ways. Given that we have knowledge that certain
courses of action will cause animals physical and/or mental suffering on THEIR terms.
It must be that the morality of our treatment of them will depend on us treating them in such a way
as to minimise THEIR suffering as THEY experience it to the best of our ability to determine how they
suffer and what causes them to suffer.


In the context of the OP this means that whether or not the child or animal suffers and whether or not
suffering is bad is based on the child and/or animals experience of the situation which we can know
without any reference to who or what causes that suffering.

It doesn't matter if the suffering is caused by evil daemons, gods, or space aliens.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"No, the argument does not assume this. If you think otherwise, then actually show us how this is implied by the argument"

the argument fails if god doesn't understand our suffering. look at a plant in your house. does it suffer? how can you tell? you are completely two different beings, with different notions. from your point of view, the plant is tak ...[text shortened]... ur point, and i should be arriving at your way of thinking, if only i would try a little harder.

What premise are you rejecting? Your plant talk is aimed at defeating what premise?

If I were you, I would simply stop talking altogether about 'God'. According to you, 'God' defies all description. In that case, what more is there to do but remain silent on the topic?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Sure, and I think the argument succeeds on those terms...

However regardless of whether or not people CLAIM that their god is
omnimax all loving perfectly moral...

What they actually describe, and the stories about their god, always
depict a god that is neither omnimax, nor morally good. Let alone
perfectly so.

So I never really feel that ...[text shortened]... t then I've never believed in a god in the first place so that
doesn't necessarily mean a lot.

Yes, I agree with you that there is often an obvious dissonance between what they claim definitionally applies to God and their putatively divinely inspired accounts depicting God.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"No, the argument does not assume this. If you think otherwise, then actually show us how this is implied by the argument"

the argument fails if god doesn't understand our suffering. look at a plant in your house. does it suffer? how can you tell? you are completely two different beings, with different notions. from your point of view, the plant is tak ...[text shortened]... ur point, and i should be arriving at your way of thinking, if only i would try a little harder.

the argument fails if god doesn't understand our suffering. look at a plant in your house. does it suffer? how can you tell? you are completely two different beings, with different notions. from your point of view, the plant is taken care of.

Side point... You think an omnimax god [as described in the op] can't work out
what causes humans or animals to suffer, or understand their suffering?

It's an OMNIMAX god.

It must know and understand these things BY DEFINITION.

So even if you were correct that step 1 assumes these things...
It still doesn't invalidate the argument.

Originally posted by LemonJello

my main concerns are with 1 and 16

Your objection against (1) is fantasy, precipitated no doubt by the aforementioned laziness and/or misrepresentation.

Regarding your remark on (16), if your view is that we cannot define God; that God simply resists any definition or description; then that's fine. But then God-talk will be cognitive ...[text shortened]... hings at other times, as it suits you. Amounts to nothing more than contradiction on your part.

"Your objection against (1) is fantasy, precipitated no doubt by the aforementioned laziness and/or misrepresentation."
no doubt you are an awesome debater. no doubt you enjoy green eggs and ham.

no, my view isn't that we cannot assign characteristics to god. we can, and until we get to know him (her, it) that is as good as we can.

i want to make sure everyone understands that 16 is not based on any of the previous points, and 17 simply states that a being described by 16 cannot exist.

if we create a fictional being as described by 16, then proceed to disprove it in 1-15, that is ok. it is not god. i would have a problem if you attempted to present this as proof there is no god.


"You just want to have your cake and eat it too"
i mentioned that an eternal being might not have the same morality as we do. exactly to answer 16.

Originally posted by googlefudge

the argument fails if god doesn't understand our suffering. look at a plant in your house. does it suffer? how can you tell? you are completely two different beings, with different notions. from your point of view, the plant is taken care of.

Side point... You think an omnimax god [as described in the op] can't work out
what cause ...[text shortened]... you were correct that step 1 assumes these things...
It still doesn't invalidate the argument.

OMNIMAX god.

does that mean we are going to mention how god cannot make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it? because that is always funny when it gets brought up


there are limits to omniscience. there are limits to omnipotence. if you describe god as simplistic as this, then yes, i agree, such a being doesn't exist.



can god be omniscient if we have free will? can god relate to humans when he has been around forever? could you imagine yourself able to communicate with a microbe? how would that work out? maybe you could prod it to go in a certain direction but can you really talk with it?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"Your objection against (1) is fantasy, precipitated no doubt by the aforementioned laziness and/or misrepresentation."
no doubt you are an awesome debater. no doubt you enjoy green eggs and ham.

no, my view isn't that we cannot assign characteristics to god. we can, and until we get to know him (her, it) that is as good as we can.

i want to make s ...[text shortened]... mentioned that an eternal being might not have the same morality as we do. exactly to answer 16.

Look, if you do not think the definition "an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being" properly applies to your conception of 'God', then the "problem of evil" isn't your problem. I am perfectly content with your dismissing the argument on these grounds.

But the rest of the crap you leveled against the argument is pretty much pure nonsense, again precipitated by laziness and/or flagrant misrepresentation in analysis. Regarding that, I would simply urge you to revisit the argument again at such time as you are able to analyze it in a more objective manner.

Originally posted by LemonJello
What premise are you rejecting? Your plant talk is aimed at defeating what premise?

If I were you, I would simply stop talking altogether about 'God'. According to you, 'God' defies all description. In that case, what more is there to do but remain silent on the topic?

"According to you, 'God' defies all description"

of course he does. we only talk about certain portrayals of god. we discuss the merits of models. that's all we can do.


and you only understand mildly my position. i didn't claim you can never talk about god. i mentioned that if you defined him as eternal, we cannot have the same morality as you, a non- eternal being have.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
OMNIMAX god.

does that mean we are going to mention how god cannot make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it? because that is always funny when it gets brought up


there are limits to omniscience. there are limits to omnipotence. if you describe god as simplistic as this, then yes, i agree, such a being doesn't exist.



can god be omniscient if we ...[text shortened]... work out? maybe you could prod it to go in a certain direction but can you really talk with it?

You might have spotted earlier that I pointed out that an Omnimax god is
logically impossible anyway, because of examples like the one you mentioned.
However even if you make god as "Omnimax as logically possible" it still by
definition must understand how we suffer because that knowledge is not
logically impossible for an "Omnimax as logically possible" god to have.

Also...

Who says we DO have free will. I would say that free will doesn't and cannot exist.

Being able to 'RELATE' to humans is irrelevant.... You don't have to be able to
relate to us to be able to comprehend that some things cause us to suffer and
other things cause us to thrive.
Like us knowing what conditions microbes really like and what conditions kill them.

Also the whole 'communicate with a microbe' thing doesn't actually work.

While an "Omnimax as logically possible" god would be immensely, or perhaps
infinitely smarter than us, the gap between us and it is not equivalent to that
between us an a microbe, or us and an ant.

Because we are thinking sentient beings. You literally cannot talk to a microbe
because they can't think. A better example might be us trying to talk to dolphins,
who probably mostly talk about fish and sex.

Anyhow, none of this is actually important for dealing with the argument in the OP.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"According to you, 'God' defies all description"

of course he does. we only talk about certain portrayals of god. we discuss the merits of models. that's all we can do.


and you only understand mildly my position. i didn't claim you can never talk about god. i mentioned that if you defined him as eternal, we cannot have the same morality as you, a non- eternal being have.

Morality is about maximising the wellbeing [health/happiness/ect] of the people in
a society.

The nature of god is irrelevant. The morality of god's treatment of us is dependent
only on what maximises OUR wellbeing. So the morality of gods actions towards us
is the same morality as governs our actions towards each other.