The Logical Problem of Evil (Defeated)

"Most philosophers have agreed that the free will defense has defeated the logical problem of evil. Because of [Plantinga's argument], it is now widely accepted that the logical problem of evil has been sufficiently rebutted.

"In truncated form [Plantinga's argument] goes something like this:

"It is possible that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a world with free creatures who never choose evil. Furthermore, it is possible that God, even being omnibenevolent, would desire to create a world which contains evil if moral goodness requires free moral creatures."

~ Chad Meister, Introducing Philosophy of Religion, pp. 133-134

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by epiphinehas

"Most philosophers have agreed that the free will defense has defeated the logical problem of evil. Because of [Plantinga's argument], it is now widely accepted that the logical problem of evil has been sufficiently rebutted.

"In truncated form [Plantinga's argument] goes something like this:

"It is possible that God, even being omnipotent, ...[text shortened]... d Meister, Introducing Philosophy of Religion, pp. 133-134

Any thoughts?

Well, golly, I sure hope there's still room on the pew for me this Sunday.

Originally posted by epiphinehas

"Most philosophers have agreed that the free will defense has defeated the logical problem of evil. Because of [Plantinga's argument], it is now widely accepted that the logical problem of evil has been sufficiently rebutted.

"In truncated form [Plantinga's argument] goes something like this:

"It is possible that God, even being omnipotent, ...[text shortened]... d Meister, Introducing Philosophy of Religion, pp. 133-134

Any thoughts?

Anything's possible.

Seriously, what is this claptrap? 'Most philosophers have agreed ... ' Was there a vote? Can I see it?

Originally posted by epiphinehas

"Most philosophers have agreed that the free will defense has defeated the logical problem of evil. Because of [Plantinga's argument], it is now widely accepted that the logical problem of evil has been sufficiently rebutted.

"In truncated form [Plantinga's argument] goes something like this:

"It is possible that God, even being omnipotent, ...[text shortened]... d Meister, Introducing Philosophy of Religion, pp. 133-134

Any thoughts?

The logical problem of evil is rebutted at a cost. This sets the stage for the evidential problem of evil. I quite like Stephen Law's response here:

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/03/god-of-eth.html

Originally posted by epiphinehas

"Most philosophers have agreed that the free will defense has defeated the logical problem of evil. Because of [Plantinga's argument], it is now widely accepted that the logical problem of evil has been sufficiently rebutted.

"In truncated form [Plantinga's argument] goes something like this:

"It is possible that God, even being omnipotent, d Meister, Introducing Philosophy of Religion, pp. 133-134

Any thoughts?

The Free Will Defense doesn't explain the presence of natural evils, like earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, etc. that cause suffering.

The logical problem of evil fails because it's logically possible that all the suffering could be necessary for the greater good, even if we cannot fathom the reason.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
The logical problem of evil is rebutted at a cost. This sets the stage for the evidential problem of evil. I quite like Stephen Law's response here:

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/03/god-of-eth.html

The evidential problem of evil as articulated by Rowe and Draper also fails to establish a genuine defeater for theism. I'd refer you to Alvin Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief, pp. 465-481.

Stephen Law's inversion of the typical apologetic arguments for a wholly good God, although a fun read, misses the point entirely. The aim of such arguments, after all, whether in defense of a wholly good or a wholly evil God, isn't to "persuade" anyone that God exists, but rather to show that the atheological arguments in question lack legitimate epistemic clout (i.e., they fail to give someone on the fence little if any reason to prefer atheism to theism).

EDIT: Law challenges theists to deal much more effectively with the problem of evil. I find this humorous considering there hasn't yet been a single variation of the problem of evil that stands as a successful defeater for traditional Christian belief. I'd say the onus is on the atheist to come up with the more effective arguments.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The Free Will Defense doesn't explain the presence of natural evils, like earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, etc. that cause suffering.

The logical problem of evil fails because it's logically possible that all the suffering [b]could be necessary for the greater good, even if we cannot fathom the reason.[/b]

As to "natural evils" evidently Platinga has this covered if Wiki can be trusted:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantinga%27s_free_will_defense#Criticism
Another issue with Plantinga's defence is that it does not address the problem of natural evil, since natural evil is not brought about by the free choices of creatures. Plantinga's reply is a suggestion that it is at least logically possible that perhaps free, nonhuman persons are responsible for natural evils (eg. rebellious spirits or fallen angels)

For you not to have considered "rebellious spirits or fallen angels" shows that you put little thought into this. You're really slipping SW 🙂

Of course, why God would allow "rebellious spirits or fallen angels" is a different problem entirely 🙂

Originally posted by epiphinehas

"Most philosophers have agreed that the free will defense has defeated the logical problem of evil. Because of [Plantinga's argument], it is now widely accepted that the logical problem of evil has been sufficiently rebutted.

"In truncated form [Plantinga's argument] goes something like this:

"It is possible that God, even being omnipotent, ...[text shortened]... d Meister, Introducing Philosophy of Religion, pp. 133-134

Any thoughts?

Moral goodness does not require free moral creatures.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Moral goodness does not require free moral creatures.

I'm listening.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
As to "natural evils" evidently Platinga has this covered if Wiki can be trusted:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantinga%27s_free_will_defense#Criticism
Another issue with Plantinga's defence is that it does not address the problem of natural evil, since natural evil is not brought about by the free choices of creatures. Plantinga's reply is a ...[text shortened]... d would allow "rebellious spirits or fallen angels" is a different problem entirely 🙂

Yeah, silly me. I also forgot the bit in Genesis - "cursed is the ground for your sake" - God throwing the earth's ecosystem out of whack to punish man for the first sin. 😛

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Furthermore, it is possible that God, even being omnibenevolent, would desire to create a world which contains evil if moral goodness requires free moral creatures.

One is then left asking whether Gods desire to create a world with moral goodness (which necessarily results in evil) is a good thing. Further, if evil is so necessary then why all the preaching about avoiding it, conquering it etc.
And lastly, if the world is the best possible world then surely heaven cannot be better. Does heaven have both moral goodness and evil, or neither?

Of course the first question that sprang to my mind is can a wholly good God exist? Does his own free will also necessitate the existence of evil actions on his part?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I'd say the onus is on the atheist to come up with the more effective arguments.

And I'd say that the whole 'problem of evil' argument is more than effective enough for anyone not blinded by their faith. All counter arguments boil down to "we don't really know why evil exists but there could a reason". The weakness I see in that argument is that if you are going to claim ignorance of something so fundamental, how can you simultaneously claim such solid knowledge of Gods goodness? Yes I know - blind faith.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Yeah, silly me. I also forgot the bit in Genesis - "cursed is the ground for your sake" - God throwing the earth's ecosystem out of whack to punish man for the first sin. 😛

That of course raises another of my favorite theological problems. What purpose does punishment serve?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The Free Will Defense doesn't explain the presence of natural evils, like earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, etc. that cause suffering.

The logical problem of evil fails because it's logically possible that all the suffering [b]could be necessary for the greater good, even if we cannot fathom the reason.[/b]

It's this 'could' that makes me reject this line of thinking out of hand, with an unpleasant strangled sound somewhere between a laugh and a cough. Perhaps I'm too afraid to square up to the implications of 'could'. Could I be a vegetable? More than likely ... Am I a good vegetable? I don't know ...

Originally posted by twhitehead
That of course raises another of my favorite theological problems. What purpose does punishment serve?

Pleasure 😛

Oh, I know, what purpose does pleasure serve.

It gives the angels something to do.

Right?