josephw vs. Atheism

Originally posted by JS357
I just want to make sure that the argument from evil is not the construction of a straw man argument.

Presumably, like most people who do theology, we assume that even an omnipotent god would be limited to doing what it is logically possible to do. If we don't allow this, we are not arguing about the god of modern Western theology but are instead arguing a ...[text shortened]... challenge to serve the greater good.

I welcome the identification of holes in this defense.

One route is to say that the greatest good is served by everything god does or allows

Strip away all the window dressing and it seems that your argument is built upon the above. In which case, you're effectively redefining "good" as "everything that happens" rendering the word pretty much meaningless and certainly outside the bounds of how it is commonly defined.

Originally posted by josephw
I said; "Why do you think you associate suffering with the existence of God? Assuming there is no God, does that alleviate suffering? But if there is a Creator/God, is He then the cause of suffering?"

You said; "I associate suffering, in this thread, with the claim your god is maximally benevolent - nothing more. I do not assert it is the cause (at least nale for the nonexistence of God.

Do you concede this point? Yes or no.

Nobody is trying to prove God doesn't exist per-se; more we seek to show that the God which is defined to be omnipotent AND omniscient AND omnibenevolent is incompatible with evil.

Further, I at least, will not work with ambiguous terms such as "omnipowerful" - since it is all too easy for theists to conceal and sweep under the carpet the assumption of maximally benevolent and maximally knowledgeable with this word.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]One route is to say that the greatest good is served by everything god does or allows

Strip away all the window dressing and it seems that your argument is built upon the above. In which case, you're effectively redefining "good" as "everything that happens" rendering the word pretty much meaningless and certainly outside the bounds of how it is commonly defined.[/b]

I have seen this argument posed in slightly different form on the usenet group alt.atheism. I'm trying to think of it not as my argument but as one we are discussing, so I have no stake in defending it.

It does sort of redefine or characterize all events as ultimately being necessary because they are in service of the good, even events we simply don't see that way. My problem with the argument is that it says, more or less, that the issues raised by the existence of evil coming from an omni-god are beyond our current rational understanding. Well, most claims that have this problem are rejected on that basis, or at least are ignored until such an understanding can be gained, so why not this one?

Originally posted by JS357
It does sort of redefine or characterize all events as ultimately being necessary because they are in service of the good, even events we simply don't see that way.

Although it has already been stated, let me restate the counter argument:
A person is faced with a moral decision he can choose to do a) or b).
If he chooses a) and it has the best moral outcome - well and good.
If he chooses b) and is has the worst moral outcome then:
regardless of whether or not he knew that it had the worst moral outcome, God, if omni-benevolent, should have prevented it.

Can we thus conclude that either God is not omni benevolent, or that we can never choose the worst moral outcome?

Originally posted by JS357
I have seen this argument posed in slightly different form on the usenet group alt.atheism. I'm trying to think of it not as my argument but as one we are discussing, so I have no stake in defending it.

It does sort of redefine or characterize all events as ultimately being necessary because they are in service of the good, even events we simply don't see t ...[text shortened]... basis, or at least are ignored until such an understanding can be gained, so why not this one?

Not only do you "have no stake in defending it", but it seems you don't believe the argument to be valid. You might want to consider that others may not be interested in playing those type of games.

Originally posted by Agerg
Nobody is trying to prove God doesn't exist per-se; more we seek to show that the God which is defined to be omnipotent [b]AND omniscient AND omnibenevolent is incompatible with evil.

Further, I at least, will not work with ambiguous terms such as "omnipowerful" - since it is all too easy for theists to conceal and sweep under the carpet the assumption of maximally benevolent and maximally knowledgeable with this word.[/b]

"..more we seek to show that the God which is defined to be omnipotent AND omniscient AND omnibenevolent is incompatible with evil."

You all keep saying that.

My counter is that there is no logical rationale for that conclusion.