The Logical Problem of Evil (Defeated)

Originally posted by lausey
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."

I can't understand how you concluded that all atheological arguments boil down to that.

Excuse me, atheological arguments of the evidential kind.

Originally posted by whodey
Sure 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".

Hey! No fair. You stole that from my earlier post. 😠

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Much the same as I can't truly discount the possibility that the moon really is made of cheese.

Yep. Defeating the logical PoE should be cold comfort at best. Same goes with the defense to the evidential PoE.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are confusing two issues here Human Suffering, and Evil.
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 re o any argument that it is necessary for some must explain why it is unnecessary for others.

"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? "

I asked this, if evil is to be defined by human suffering than people are evil since
they cause more human suffering across the board.

I'm not confusing two issues here, I am talking about one what makes evil,
evil. If the only thing that makes something evil is human suffering than human
on human causes suggests that people are evil since they are the cause.

I do not at all equate all human suffering as evil, since human suffering can
becaused by things that have nothing to do with good or evil as an earth quake is
that is just earth moving as any other natural event. On top of that suffering is
a good tool for teaching too, get burned don't put your hand on the oven.
Kelly

Originally posted by epiphinehas
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.

I think I agree with you regarding the 'incontrovertibly' bit, but I am less inclined to agree that it is required. I think a sufficiently good argument should persuade anyone even if it doesn't incontrovertibly establish that the belief in question is irrational. ( don't think 'unwarranted' fits here).

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.
Which is for me, just one more argument against Christianity. If being a Christian requires the Holy Spirits assistance then he must have chosen to leave me an atheist - which doesn't seem to fit with other Christian teaching.

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.
I skeptical that something that cannot be explained convincingly to another can still be said to be entirely rational.

Thus, Christian belief may arise and persist amidst any and all evidential challenges without being based in ignorance (i.e., blind faith).
I see now where you are going. But I think you misunderstood what I mean about blind faith. What I meant was that Christians refuse to address the arguments whereas you are saying they have counter arguments we are not privy to.

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."
I agree. It is weak in that it only makes the claim that God probably doesn't exist. So obviously it must simply be taken into account when combined with other evidence or arguments for or against the existence of God.
How strong the 'probably' is also depends on which description of God we are dealing with. For example an omnipotent all loving God that abhors suffering seems far less likely than the jealous, emotional God of the OT.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I asked this, if evil is to be defined by human suffering than people are evil since
they cause more human suffering across the board.

And I still dispute that. I do not believe that humans are the cause of the majority of human suffering.

I'm not confusing two issues here, I am talking about one what makes evil,
evil. If the only thing that makes something evil is human suffering than human
on human causes suggests that people are evil since they are the cause.
Well I am getting quite confused trying to make sense of what you are saying.
Would you agree that unnecessary suffering is wrong, or evil? If someone can easily alleviate a given instance of suffering that is:
1. Unnecessary in that there is no universal law that requires it.
2. Non-beneficial in that it does not result in a greater good.
then if that someone does not alleviate the suffering, is he not evil?

I do not at all equate all human suffering as evil, since human suffering can
becaused by things that have nothing to do with good or evil as an earth quake is
that is just earth moving as any other natural event.
And my response is (which you seem to have ignored and simply restated your points,): who is responsible for these natural events? Or if nobody is responsible as you imply, then are natural events perhaps an example of necessary evil existing? eg God cannot stop or control nature and could not create it in a less dangerous form.

On top of that suffering is a good tool for teaching too, get burned don't put your hand on the oven.
Kelly
Quite so, if you have an oven. If you get rid of the oven, you can avoid being burned. I doesn't however deal with the vast majority of suffering which teaches us nothing, and a lot of suffering I have experienced leaves me thinking that I would rather remain ignorant than go through the painful learning process.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I still dispute that. I do not believe that humans are the cause of the majority of human suffering.

[b]I'm not confusing two issues here, I am talking about one what makes evil,
evil. If the only thing that makes something evil is human suffering than human
on human causes suggests that people are evil since they are the cause.
Well I am ge me thinking that I would rather remain ignorant than go through the painful learning process.[/b]

Much of the human suffering is due to humans actions or inactions throughout time.
We withhold food, shelter, jobs, affections, friendships, what it takes to full fill
another we cause suffering. If it gets hot out today, that is just today in a small
area on the planet.

I'd say that unnecessary suffering is wrong, evil no. Evil would be causing suffering
with the intent to do harm for unjust selfish reasons. I do not call a doctor evil
because s/he gives a shot to a child to help save the child's life, when that action
causes the child suffering on several levels. I do not call banging my foot against
something evil if I suffer for it, it will help me pay attention to the way I go about
my day and avoid such things.

God cursed the planet due to our sins, it was done with cause.

Our desires and needs to grow up require us to move out of our little worlds and
experience other things, our suffering due to car wrecks does not stop us from
allowing ourselves to build roads and drive motorcycles, cars, trucks, and so on,
on them.
Kelly

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
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.

Is this what you think?

I think it has to do with God desiring us to have free will, thus, he has CHOSEN to give us the freedom to reject him introducing "evil" into the universe. Without this free will, we would be mere appendages of himself. What interest is there in that? In such a scenrio, he could stiill be omnipotent and omniscient.

Originally posted by whodey
Without this free will, we would be mere appendages of himself. What interest is there in that?

Isn't heaven a place of paradise where none suffer, everyone has free will, and no one sins?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Much of the human suffering is due to humans actions or inactions throughout time.

And I disagree with that, but without a census on suffering I think we cannot come to a definitive answer.

Evil would be causing suffering with the intent to do harm for unjust selfish reasons.
So it is not evil if your intentions were in the right place. So if a person kills another person for what he believes were the right reasons then he is not evil?

I do not call a doctor evil because s/he gives a shot to a child to help save the child's life, when that action
causes the child suffering on several levels. I do not call banging my foot against
something evil if I suffer for it, it will help me pay attention to the way I go about
my day and avoid such things.
Now you are going for a 'greater good' argument which I have no problem with, so long as the greater good exists.

God cursed the planet due to our sins, it was done with cause.
So are you withdrawing your earlier claims that natural causes are uncaused random events? Do you now accept that they have a specific cause (Adams sin), though why you say "our sins" I cannot fathom. Am I in some way responsible for Adams choices, or did God foresee my choices and punish me in advance?

Our desires and needs to grow up require us to move out of our little worlds and
experience other things, our suffering due to car wrecks does not stop us from
allowing ourselves to build roads and drive motorcycles, cars, trucks, and so on,
on them.
Kelly
I am fully aware of that. I fail to see however how it is an argument for the necessity of car wreaks.

Originally posted by whodey
Is this what you think?

I think it has to do with God desiring us to have free will, thus, he has CHOSEN to give us the freedom to reject him introducing "evil" into the universe. Without this free will, we would be mere appendages of himself. What interest is there in that? In such a scenrio, he could stiill be omnipotent and omniscient.

I don't think you understood the point of my post. Some seem to think that "the logical problem of evil" has to do with refuting the existence of God when this is not the case. Rather it speaks against the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient AND omnibenevolent God. Note that ALL THREE have to be true for such a God to exist.

I think it has to do with God desiring us to have free will, thus, he has CHOSEN to give us the freedom to reject him introducing "evil" into the universe. Without this free will, we would be mere appendages of himself. What interest is there in that? In such a scenrio, he could stiill be omnipotent and omniscient.

But not omnibenevolent. Rather it would seem that benevolence is placed below making things "interesting".

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Isn't heaven a place of paradise where none suffer, everyone has free will, and no one sins?

Evidently it isn't very "interesting".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I don't think you understood the point of my post. Some seem to think that "the logical problem of evil" has to do with refuting the existence of God when this is not the case. Rather it speaks against the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient AND omnibenevolent God. Note that ALL THREE have to be true for such a God to exist.

[b]I think it has to do olent. Rather it would seem that benevolence is placed below making things "interesting".

Free will is not just "interesting" it's vital to any humanity. Love (in the true sense of the word) is not possible without the freedom to not love. If we love only because we HAVE to love then it is not love. Love has to be an act of will and a choice , anything else is just playing at love.

Since love is the primary nature of God he saw fit to try and share the true nature of love with us. He chose not to create bland automatons - instead he chose to create real living people who have the freedom to love or not love. It's entirely logical that he would do this. The problem comes because such an approach is very risky and has dire consequences (eg evil) which makes us question this logic , but underneath this the logic is sound. God is a risk taker , he wanted us to be truely alive.

BTW- Jesus believed in a love such as this and was prepared to die for it. He also believed unflinchingly in the very God you cast doubt upon.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Evidently it isn't very "interesting".

I feel a Mark Twain-style rant coming on.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Love (in the true sense of the word) is not possible without the freedom to not love.

I see no reason to accept this.