For Better or Worse

Originally posted by LemonJello
It seems like you're creating hurdles that are either unfair, do not exist or both.

That's not the way it seems to me. To me, it seems like you still just do not grasp the actual argument that constitutes the problem of evil. I recall that bbarr posted a nice formulation of it quite a long time ago in this forum. I can link to it here (assuming , here is the link to bbarr's formulation (see opening post): Thread 21886[/b]

Excuse the long delay. Life's been incessantly demanding lately.

In bbarr's GAFE, his first premise

There has occurred at least one event E such that E brought about unnecessary suffering; suffering not logically necessary for the bringing about of greater good.

ignores the basest aspect of living in a fallen world, namely, it is a corruption of its intended form. This chaotic mess that we're living in is both a direct and indirect result of one man who decided it would be better to be with the woman outside of communion with God than it would be to be without the woman in communion with Him.

Prior to the Fall, the will of God and the will of man were co-existing under the auspices of God's rule. Since the Fall, the will of God has been bound by the rule of Satan. God is no longer the ruler of this planet: Adam gave his authority to Satan and it is his administration--- not God's---- which holds sway.

It is a false dichotomy to insist that God must act a in a certain manner, or He is not God as described without considering the totality of all the dynamics at play. It is also a false dichotomy to insist that any unnecessary act (evil or otherwise, it certainly doesn't matter) automatically negates the whole. This temporary abatement of God's authority over the planet serves His permissive will; He is allowing the will of man (sans his submission to God's plan) to play itself out. Any of the evil which occurs is, again, either a direct or indirect result of conscious decisions by man.

To say that one (or any) unnecessary act negates the whole is akin to saying any unnecessary evil of the internet negates the whole of its good. We can certainly think of a hell of a lot more than one thing on the internet that would not diminish the overall usefulness of the whole, yet the GAFE is essentially saying that the whole is the barometer of the goodness of God. Demonstrate (or, better, speculate) on the uselessness of any one act to the greater of the overall good and you must throw out the whole thing. Nonsense, in other words.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Excuse the long delay. Life's been incessantly demanding lately.

In bbarr's GAFE, his first premise

There has occurred at least one event E such that E brought about unnecessary suffering; suffering not logically necessary for the bringing about of greater good.

ignores the basest aspect of living in a fallen world, namely, it is ...[text shortened]... r of the overall good and you must throw out the whole thing. Nonsense, in other words.

I think the GAFE allows you to consider the 'totality of all the dynamics at play'. God, being morally perfect, always prefers the most morally good state of affairs. An act of evil can be permitted if necessary to make the state of affairs - the whole - more morally good.

I don't buy the idea that natural evils [i.e., the 2004 Tsunami] are the indirect consequence of the actions of Adam and/or Eve.

To adapt one of bbarr's later arguments - the rejection of premise 2 commits you to the claim that if even one less child had been contacted in a chat room and later molested, if even one less identity had been stolen by hackers, if even one less terrorist had been recruited through a website, if even one less person had their computer ruined from a virus, the internet as a whole would somehow be less good. Goodness - not usefulness - is what's at issue.

Originally posted by whodey
Freaky, we can't even agree if prostituting yourself for money and then having an abortion via taxpayer dollars that was mandated by the Unconstitutional Obamacare is good or bad. How on earth are we ever going to come to a decision about the internet? 😛

For your information, SIR, the VAST majority of abortions are performed on women who are NOT prostitutes. This whole "prostitutes getting abortions" nonsense is another right-wing spin tool.


EDIT: But then again, we have fools like Rush Limbaugh, who thinks anyone NOT having sex with HIM must be a prostitute.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Excuse the long delay. Life's been incessantly demanding lately.

In bbarr's GAFE, his first premise

There has occurred at least one event E such that E brought about unnecessary suffering; suffering not logically necessary for the bringing about of greater good.

ignores the basest aspect of living in a fallen world, namely, it is r of the overall good and you must throw out the whole thing. Nonsense, in other words.

Excuse the long delay. Life's been incessantly demanding lately.

I understand. No worries. 🙂

To say that one (or any) unnecessary act negates the whole is akin to saying any unnecessary evil of the internet negates the whole of its good.

Could you please simply state exactly which premise(s) from bbarr's argument you are rejecting?

Your post is pretty darn confusing, and I will tell you why. You start off by quoting bbarr's premise 2, which simply states that there has obtained at least one instance of unnecessary suffering. But, the entire rest of your post has absolutely nothing to do with rejection of premise 2. As a matter of fact, your main objection here appears to be that even supposing premise 2 is true bbarr's argument would still fail.

Now, bbarr's argument is logically valid. That much is clear. So, if you think it fails, you have to reject at least one premise. If you're not rejecting premise 2, then which premise(s) are you rejecting and why? If you think the argument fails even given the truth of premise 2, then you have to be rejecting some other premise(s) in the argument. Which one(s)?

Once I figure out exactly which premise(s) you are rejecting and why, then this discussion will be much clearer to me.

Originally posted by LemonJello

Excuse the long delay. Life's been incessantly demanding lately.

I understand. No worries. 🙂

To say that one (or any) unnecessary act negates the whole is akin to saying any unnecessary evil of the internet negates the whole of its good.

Could you please simply state exactly which premise(s) from bbarr's argum ich premise(s) you are rejecting and why, then this discussion will be much clearer to me.

My contention is with premise two:

2) There has occurred at least one event E such that E brought about unnecessary suffering; suffering not logically necessary for the bringing about of greater good.

This is akin to stating that anything unnecessary--- that which, without the existence of, the whole is rendered impossible--- which, indeed, occurs, negates the whole. It also errs in assuming that the whole serves in producing a greater good, when in fact, the greater good could just as readily be out of its scope of ability to produce. And, lastly, it presumes to understand the greater good, other than on a microscopic level.

When the argument cites premises three and four, it speaks from the perspective of God acting on His omnipotence, on His omniscience and does not allow God to limit His powers in any way. Do you (the reader) do ALL the good that you ought? Or, do you limit your good with your decisions? Can we not expect God to do the same, i.e., to limit His power according to His thinking?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
My contention is with premise two:

2) There has occurred at least one event E such that E brought about unnecessary suffering; suffering not logically necessary for the bringing about of greater good.

This is akin to stating that anything unnecessary--- that which, without the existence of, the whole is rendered impossible- ...[text shortened]... ions? Can we not expect God to do the same, i.e., to limit His power according to His thinking?

This is akin to stating that anything unnecessary--- that which, without the existence of, the whole is rendered impossible--- which, indeed, occurs, negates the whole. It also errs in assuming that the whole serves in producing a greater good, when in fact, the greater good could just as readily be out of its scope of ability to produce. And, lastly, it presumes to understand the greater good, other than on a microscopic level.

Can you just not read? Premise 2 is not "akin to stating that anything unnecessary...which occurs negates the whole"? It also doesn't assume "that the whole serves in producing a greater good", whatever that means. And it doesn't presume "to understand the greater good, other than on a microscopic level", whatever that means. I mean, WTF are you talking about?

Good god man. Let's break this down simply. Premise 2 simply states that there has occurred at least one event with the stated property. If you're going to deny Premise 2, then you are saying that all events that have obtained are such that they do not have this stated property. Is this what you are saying? You will be thereby committing yourself to the idea that all instances of suffering that have obtained were each NOT such that they were logically unnecessary for the bringing about of greater good. The premise has nothing to do with "presuming to understand" how "the greater good" is to be read. That is up to you. So, again, is this the stance you intend to take?

When the argument cites premises three and four, it speaks from the perspective of God acting on His omnipotence, on His omniscience and does not allow God to limit His powers in any way. Do you (the reader) do ALL the good that you ought? Or, do you limit your good with your decisions? Can we not expect God to do the same, i.e., to limit His power according to His thinking?

Please state which of those premises you are rejecting, and why.

Christ man, this is like pulling teeth.

EDIT: Anyway, I took another look at Premises 3 & 4, and I would be shocked if you want to deny either of them. They seem pretty obviously true, given the definition of God as including the properties of being omnipotent and omniscient as defined explicitly in the argument. If anything, your objection here would be against the idea that God is so defined. After all, you seem to be saying that God has the capacities for being omnipotent and omniscient but doesn't exercise those capacities for some reason or other. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with 3 & 4, but the definition of 'God' in the argument may be challenged. Is that your objection?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
To put it another way, we can do a cost/benefit analysis.

For the hammer, on the benefit side we have a tool which is cheap and millions of people have used to make/mend things and improve their lives.

On the cost side, a tiny number of people have used them to kill people. However, this cost is reduced significantly by the fact that, had a hamm ...[text shortened]... at I think the OP is aiming to explore. My view is that it results in being massively positive.

Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears. Let the weakling say, "I am strong!"
(Joel 3:10)

"Sharpen the arrows, take up the shields! The LORD has stirred up the kings of the Medes, because his purpose is to destroy Babylon. The LORD will take vengeance, vengeance for his temple.
(Jeremiah 51:11)

He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.
(Isaiah 2:4)

Originally posted by RJHinds
Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears. Let the weakling say, "I am strong!"
(Joel 3:10)

"Sharpen the arrows, take up the shields! The LORD has stirred up the kings of the Medes, because his purpose is to destroy Babylon. The LORD will take vengeance, vengeance for his temple.
(Jeremiah 51:11)

He will judge between the na ...[text shortened]... ion will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.
(Isaiah 2:4)

How do you reconcile the Isaiah passage with the Revelation passages in your other thread?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I think the GAFE allows you to consider the 'totality of all the dynamics at play'. God, being morally perfect, always prefers the most morally good state of affairs. An act of evil can be permitted if necessary to make the state of affairs - the whole - more morally good.

I don't buy the idea that natural evils [i.e., the 2004 Tsunami] are the indire ...[text shortened]... rnet as a whole would somehow be less good. Goodness - not usefulness - is what's at issue.

This, in my opinion, bolsters the argument of 'all or nothing' in the sense that if anything that actually happened was to somehow not occur, the whole would be rendered inert. I'll explain more in my response to LJ's retort.

Originally posted by LemonJello
This is akin to stating that anything unnecessary--- that which, without the existence of, the whole is rendered impossible--- which, indeed, occurs, negates the whole. It also errs in assuming that the whole serves in producing a greater good, when in fact, the greater good could just as readily be out of its scope of ability to produce. And, la ...[text shortened]... efinition of 'God' in the argument may be challenged. Is that your objection?

Can you just not read?
I think so. Let me test it out...

Premise 2 simply states that there has occurred at least one event with the stated property.
Premise 2 assumes--- needs--- a balance. One more instance of so-called good or one less instance of the same, and the balance is jacked up, and therefore, inferior or flawed. The same holds true for so-called evil. This necessarily assumes a sum total of the greater good--- as though there is some pursuit of a greater good from this thing called history of fallen man. When the fact of the matter is something entirely different. The greater good is wrought by God's permission of a will outside of His own to reach its logical and actual conclusion. By allowing another will to be fleshed out, God proves Himself to be the only right will--- not just the (obviously) most mighty will.

Anything less than every person acting in accordance with their own will is inferior and flawed. He allows the free will of man to exist and rule--- sometimes in complete disagreement with His own--- in order to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that His will is the one which ought to rule. To prevent the expression of anyone's will would be a failed experiment.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Can you just not read?
I think so. Let me test it out...

Premise 2 simply states that there has occurred at least one event with the stated property.
Premise 2 assumes--- needs--- a balance. One more instance of so-called good or one less instance of the same, and the balance is jacked up, and therefore, inferior or flawed. The same h ...[text shortened]... which ought to rule. To prevent the expression of anyone's will would be a failed experiment.[/b]

I confess that I am confused.

“There has occurred at least one event E such that E brought about unnecessary suffering; suffering not logically necessary for the bringing about of greater good.”

[/i]In your view, has there or has there not ever occurred such an event?[/i]

As LJ points out, the deductive argument is valid. So, if you reject premise 2, then No you do not think such an event has ever occurred, and here’s why: __________________. Or it’s Yes, such an event has occurred, but the justification is as follows: ________________. Justification of such events (as in a theodicy that seeks so to do) is not the same as rejecting the premise. Saying that is assumes or needs a balance is not the same as rejecting the premise.

[It’s like the soteriological trilemma I once presented: all I asked was that one choose a position before proceeding to defend it. No one would. I got lots of artful theological responses, with extensive scriptural exegesis—coupled with a total refusal to accept one of the mutually exclusive choices (that represented a complete choice-set—at least I thought so, and was not challenged by any additional offerings) in order to take a position.]

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Had this discussion the other day with my wife; curious to see what direction folks herein would choose, given the option.

Considering all that is available on the internet, from the good[hidden]education, medical, religious, etc.,[/hidden] to the bad [hidden]http://www.buzzfeed.com/reyhan/how-child-porn-and-the-other-awfulest-things-ever[/hidden], are we better off having the internet?

I know you are deeply engaged with the others, but this is my first time entering this thread and I wanted to respond to the initial post.

If you want a biblical, or, bible-believer's perspective on this... all things work toward good in the long run. Nothing exists, nothing happens, if God wills it not to happen. Therefore it is presumable to say... nothing of any relevance happens without God's foreordination.

The bible--so as to be obvious that there is a point being hammered home--gives a plethora of examples where things happen that we humans think are awful, terrible, unfair, etc--only to have them lead toward something unimagineably wonderful and good. Among those accounts, is the most powerful story of all--Jesus Christ being crucified on the cross. His disciples were completely demoralized by the event, when, it ended up being the greatest possible scenario of any imaginable.

So back to your question - oh yes indeed, the internet is a catalyst, an accelerant for much evil - but on the flip side it has resulted in exponential growth in the spreading of the good news of the Gospel. Ultimately, if the bible is to be believed, the internet and all significant things, will end up being a tool to lead us toward the intended--good--end.



As an aside, I have oft considered the internet to be a possible modern day Tower of Babel. It's a single point where people from all over the world can get around their language differences and communicate.

I'm sure all of us here remember what happened next, when God saw that we were all becoming like a single mind, and that not much would stop us from joining together in a quest to become like gods. He destroyed our tower and scattered and confused us. What will God do when the internet finally becomes a place where we have no language barriers at all and can instantly communicate with each other? That's coming soon....

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This, in my opinion, bolsters the argument of 'all or nothing' in the sense that if anything that actually happened was to somehow not occur, the whole would be rendered inert. I'll explain more in my response to LJ's retort.

I'm just not sure where you are getting "the whole would be rendered inert" part. All you get out of a successful GAFE is that either a God is a shade less than optimal in the Omnipotence, Omnipresence, or Omniscience departments, or a shade less than morally perfect, or a rejected premise in the argument. There is no 'whole' to negate or throw out.

If I had retained my theistic belief and heard this very powerful argument, I would have been forced to examine my preconceptions of who God is. But if my faith was still strong, I would make the concessions necessary to conform to the truth. I would still want to have a relationship with God, even if I discovered he had some limitations. Maybe some imperfection and wrong doing in his past would allow us to better relate to other experiences.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Can you just not read?
I think so. Let me test it out...

Premise 2 simply states that there has occurred at least one event with the stated property.
Premise 2 assumes--- needs--- a balance. One more instance of so-called good or one less instance of the same, and the balance is jacked up, and therefore, inferior or flawed. The same h ...[text shortened]... which ought to rule. To prevent the expression of anyone's will would be a failed experiment.[/b]

Which premise(s) are you rejecting, and why?

Regarding premise 2, it's still not clear you understand its actual content. Again, premise 2 simply states that there has occurred at least one event with the stated property. Again, if you are going to reject premise 2, it commits you to the stance that, for ANY instance of suffering that has actually obtained, this instance of suffering was NOT such that it was NOT logically necessary for the bringing about of greater good. Getting rid of the mulitple negatives in there, that basically commits you to the stance that for ANY instance of suffering that has obtained, this instance of suffering was logically necessary for the bringing about of greater good. Problem is, however, this stance seems incredibly difficult to justify on ANY sane reading of "the greater good", given the definition of logical necessity and given all the various types of suffering that have obtained and do obtain; in fact, it seems patently false on any sane reading of the greater good. If it is your intention to deny premise 2, then I would urge you to read bbarr's thoughtful defense of premise 2 (see page 12 of the thread to which I linked) and then respond with your own rebuttal.

Regarding your continual claims that premise 2 assumes this and requires that, etc: no. In fact, it is EXPLICITLY STATED in a preface to the argument that the argument (and each and every premise, including premise 2) is entirely neutral with respect to which particular ethical theory is actually correct. That is, the argument applies regardless of which reading of the "greater good" is correct. You seem to be protesting against premise 2 because it assumes some reading of the greater good that you think is false. If so, then it is clear you simply do not understand the content of premise 2. The argument, premise 2 included, places no constraint at all on how the "greater good" is to be read off and understood. That is YOUR job, and the argument and what prefaces it all but explicitly states as much.

The greater good is wrought by God's permission of a will outside of His own to reach its logical and actual conclusion....Anything less than every person acting in accordance with their own will is inferior and flawed.

Fine. Now, explain which premise(s) of the argument is(are) false and why. Note that premise 2 will be true even given this particular reading of the "greater good", since it is patently false that all the instances of suffering that have obtained are such that they are logically necessary for such greater good. Again, bbarr's defense of premise 2 will make this clear, I think.