29 Oct 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitWhat is evil about an earthquake or tsunamis those are just natural occurances?
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]
You have a problem with the human condition suffering, there is more of that
with human on human contact than most anything else in my opinion, does that
make humans evil?
Kelly
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
29 Oct 09
Originally posted by epiphinehasI agree with you up to a point. The logical and evidential problems of evil do not make belief in god untenable. They aren't a 'defeater' or a knock out punch in that sense.
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 a ...[text shortened]... elief. I'd say the onus is on the atheist to come up with the more effective arguments.
I don't think that's the point of raising them though. The problem of evil and the problem of suffering are opening lines in a language game, and the most effective line in response is The Book of Job Defense. All effective christian responses transpose to this, and the result is stalemate.
I haven't read a lot of Plantinga, but what little I have encountered has not been persuasive. I'm not particularly partisan when seeing debates between atheists and theists though. Did you see the one where William Lane Craig totally kebabbed Peter Atkins? Any, I digress...
I think you might have missed the point of Law's argument slightly. If you find arguments for The God of Eth plausible, then you have to concede that, in considering these aspects (evil, suffering), an evil god is just as plausible an explanation as a good god. If you want to say that the arguments for Eth are not plausible, then since they are symmetrical to those used by theists to defend the christian god, you must reject those also.
I think most of these arguments between theists and atheists run a bit backwards though. If you take the christian god as a premise, and you are clever enough, you can make this consistent with reason and the available evidence, albeit at the cost of having to construct a somewhat rococo metaphysics. The POE and POS are just aspects of this.
Similarly, if you reject the god premise your metaphysics can be a little more austere-a spartan meritocracy as opposed to the baroque monarchy of theism. But atheists still have problems to grapple with, some are easier but I suspect some are more difficult.
It is difficult for me to imagine being on the fence, but although we might agree that neither side could persuade somebody to one side or the other just with logical arguments like the POE, we might disagree on which side has prima facie plausibility. I have read some theists (not you) who have smugly quoted Plantinga or Craig and declared that the problem of evil has been dealt with. I think they miss the point big time: plausibility.
29 Oct 09
Originally posted by Lord SharkI think logical arguments would be very effective at persuading Christians to become atheist if it wasn't for the refusal of most Christians to listen to logic whenever it contradicts their faith.
It is difficult for me to imagine being on the fence, but although we might agree that neither side could persuade somebody to one side or the other just with logical arguments like the POE, we might disagree on which side has prima facie plausibility.
29 Oct 09
Originally posted by KellyJayYou might claim that almost all instances of human suffering are a result of neglect of some kind by the sufferer or others, but you would only be fooling yourself for the sake of avoiding the problem of evil.
What is evil about an earthquake or tsunamis those are just natural occurances?
You have a problem with the human condition suffering, there is more of that
with human on human contact than most anything else in my opinion, does that
make humans evil?
Kelly
The truth is that the vast majority of deaths are caused not by human violence but natural causes, and the vast majority of suffering though possibly avoidable if we were all a bit more thoughtful and giving, are primarily a result of the world we live in and not a direct result of bad choices we make.
29 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI said suffering has more to do with humans than nature, nature also gives us
You might claim that almost all instances of human suffering are a result of neglect of some kind by the sufferer or others, but you would only be fooling yourself for the sake of avoiding the problem of evil.
The truth is that the vast majority of deaths are caused not by human violence but natural causes, and the vast majority of suffering though possi ...[text shortened]... , are primarily a result of the world we live in and not a direct result of bad choices we make.
nice sunny days, allows us the grow plants and so on, you either accept it all
or you don't. Extremes in nature are just nature being nature and our calling
certain things extreme is simply us applying our likes and dislikes to them.
Suffering if it is a measure of good and evil I like you to defend that, because
suffering is also a means of protection too; it helps us to know what not to do
while allowing us to live. Evil, on the other does imply something beyond
suffering, drug users can feel great but end up dying due to the need to
maintain the pleasure they get out of drugs and with that desire they will start
putting all else behind the desire for the drugs. Evil has to do with intentional
cause than random natural events.
Kelly
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
29 Oct 09
Originally posted by KellyJay
Evil has to do with intentional cause than random natural events.
Sometimes, in order to distinguish between suffering due to events that can credibly be linked to human free will, and those that can't, we give the problems different names. The Problem of Evil and The Problem of Suffering. So far, you have offered a plausible solution to neither.
29 Oct 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageDon't get me wrong - I think it's very very unlikely that all the suffering on earth serves some greater good - I just can't completely discount the possibility.
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 ...
29 Oct 09
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are confusing two issues here Human Suffering, and Evil.
I said suffering has more to do with humans than nature, nature also gives us
nice sunny days, allows us the grow plants and so on, you either accept it all
or you don't. Extremes in nature are just nature being nature and our calling
certain things extreme is simply us applying our likes and dislikes to them.
Suffering if it is a measure of good and ev ...[text shortened]... desire for the drugs. Evil has to do with intentional
cause than random natural events.
Kelly
Your claim was regarding human suffering being caused largely by humans, yet now you try to downplay that claim by claiming that because such suffering is not caused by evil it doesn't count.
The real 'problem of evil' argument however includes the fact that all suffering is either a direct result of God choices, or has some other decidedly Evil source. You cannot simply dismiss it as 'random natural events' unless you simultaneously remove God from all ownership of nature and its rules. If you can do that then you might have actually solved the problem of evil or at least a very large part of it. I think, however, that Genesis disagrees with you.
Your argument that suffering is in some way beneficial is fundamentally flawed as it is the very environment we live in that results in any such benefits and it is trivial to conceive of possible environments in which such suffering could be removed or at least minimized. In fact it is patently obvious that some people experience far less suffering than others and so any argument that it is necessary for some must explain why it is unnecessary for others.
29 Oct 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitSure it does. At least in Genesis, Adam and Eve were thrown out of the Garden paridise into a world where the ground was cursed and they had to fend for themselves. Once man had fallen, he was then prone to "natural evils".
[b]The Free Will Defense doesn't explain the presence of natural evils, like earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, etc. that cause suffering.
29 Oct 09
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd I'd say that the whole 'problem of evil' argument is more than effective enough for anyone not blinded by their faith.
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.
The problem of evil may be a defeater for some people, but it doesn't have to be for others. What is at issue is whether or not the problem of evil is such that it makes theism basically untenable, i.e., whether or not it incontrovertibly establishes that theistic belief is irrational and unwarranted. What Plantinga and others have shown is that any and all variations of the problem of evil have so far failed to do this.
Christian belief still enjoys warrant, granted the 'internal instigation' of the Holy Spirit actively reveals the veracity of Christian truth to the believer's heart and mind (a process consistent with Christian teaching), i.e., it is possible that the Christian may be privy to knowledge the atheist doesn't share, knowledge which governs the Christian's belief formation. In such an instance the development of Christian belief can be said to be entirely rational, though dependent on the revelation of Christian truth via the inner working of the Holy Spirit. Thus, Christian belief may arise and persist amidst any and all evidential challenges without being based in ignorance (i.e., blind faith).
All counter arguments boil down to "we don't really know why evil exists but there could a reason".
Likewise, atheological arguments are just as weak; boiling down to "we can't think of any plausible reason why a good God would allow evil, so God probably doesn't exist."
29 Oct 09
Originally posted by epiphinehasLikewise, atheological arguments are just as weak; boiling down to "we can't think of any plausible reason why a good God would allow evil, so God probably doesn't exist."
[b]And I'd say that the whole 'problem of evil' argument is more than effective enough for anyone not blinded by their faith.
The problem of evil may be a defeater for some people, but it doesn't have to be for others. What is at issue is whether or not the problem of evil is such that it makes theism basically untenable, i.e., whether or not it ...[text shortened]... lausible reason why a good God would allow evil, so God probably doesn't exist."[/b]
I can't understand how you concluded that all atheological arguments boil down to that.
29 Oct 09
1 edit
Seems to me that the issue is not whether or not God exists, but whether or not and omnipotent, omniscient AND omnibenevolent God can exist where evil exists.
Somehow this seems to be getting lost.
An obvious solution would be that God is NOT omnipotent, omiscient AND omnibenevolent.