1. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6266
    28 Oct '09 22:251 edit
    "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?
  2. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    28 Oct '09 22:30
    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.
  3. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    28 Oct '09 22:34
    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?
  4. Joined
    30 May '09
    Moves
    28126
    28 Oct '09 23:22
    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
  5. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    28 Oct '09 23:422 edits
    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.
  6. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6266
    29 Oct '09 00:444 edits
    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.
  7. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    29 Oct '09 00:51
    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 🙂
  8. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    29 Oct '09 01:37
    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.
  9. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6266
    29 Oct '09 03:03
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Moral goodness does not require free moral creatures.
    I'm listening.
  10. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    29 Oct '09 05:141 edit
    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. 😛
  11. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    29 Oct '09 05:31
    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?
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    29 Oct '09 05:34
    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.
  13. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    29 Oct '09 05:37
    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?
  14. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    29 Oct '09 06:49
    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 ...
  15. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    29 Oct '09 06:50
    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?
Back to Top