The Logical Problem of Evil (Defeated)

Originally posted by knightmeister
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 ...[text shortened]... t underneath this the logic is sound. God is a risk taker , he wanted us to be truely alive.

And this same God, since he has the same love which positively cannot exist without the possibility of freedom not to love, must also occasional choose not to love - but that would mess up your whole concept of God would it not? If on the other hand he can have the option to not love but never choose that option, then surely he could have made us 'in his image' so that we too could love but never choose wrong?

Of course none of your argument actually addresses one of the core 'problem of evil' arguments which is that suffering could conceivably be reduced without violating free will.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I feel a Mark Twain-style rant coming on.

Nah, I was just alluding to Whodey's assertion:
"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?"

Your depiction of heaven seemingly would only include "mere appendages of [God]" and therefore be "uninteresting". Remarkable that God should choose to follow a short-lived "interesting" with an eternal "uninteresting". Evidently God does indeed "work in mysterious ways".

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]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.[/b]

Was not attempting too, what I did say was that if you just make the claim that
anything that causes human suffering is evil, than we are left with humans are
evil.

If we judge what is evil to be something more than just saying what causes human
suffering than we can attempt to address going towards the root cause of evil and
addressing it. I do not think all and any human suffering is caused by evil, and
more than that I'd be willing to even say that sometimes even those things that are
good can cause human suffering. If there is the desire to do evil upon someone,
and the desire to do evil is restrained thus causing suffering in the one that wants
to do it, than what what is good is the restraint would be the cause of suffering in
the one wanting to do evil.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Was not attempting too, what I did say was that if you just make the claim that
anything that causes human suffering is evil, than we are left with humans are
evil.

If we judge what is evil to be something more than just saying what causes human
suffering than we can attempt to address going towards the root cause of evil and
addressing it. I do not ...[text shortened]... is good is the restraint would be the cause of suffering in
the one wanting to do evil.
Kelly

Ok, well we have a reality made by this good god which clearly has the safety override set to OFF. Not only does free will contribute to massive arbitrary human suffering, but so do the apparerently mechanistic processes of physics, as manifest in earthquakes and so on. What no christian here has done is offer a plausible reason as to why this state of affairs should obtain. As has been pointed out, any reason involving free will is open to the criticism that heaven is ok, so why not start with that? I think free will is overrated...certainly to create a world with feeble, mendacious, feckless, weak willed, covetous creatures like us, in order to save the anomalous few who believed in, and chose to love this creator, in spite of the evidence seems like a rather odd Grand Purpose. Don't you think?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Ok, well we have a reality made by this good god which clearly has the safety override set to OFF. Not only does free will contribute to massive arbitrary human suffering, but so do the apparerently mechanistic processes of physics, as manifest in earthquakes and so on. What no christian here has done is offer a plausible reason as to why this state of af ...[text shortened]... this creator, in spite of the evidence seems like a rather odd Grand Purpose. Don't you think?

I believe the safety override was set to on, because this life isn't it, it is the temp
area before the eternal gets fixed. The mechanics of the whole thing does reside
in God's work still, a way has been made for all to be saved even in the midst
of a world that has our flesh's cravings, our perverted wills, the world system,
the influence of spiritual forces trying to drag us into evil, our misguided views
of right and wrong are up against us, we either answer God's call or we do not, and
we choose. The grace and mercy given wipes out all of our sins if we go to God
and that is a great salvation; to reject it or accept it both have consequences.

To sin has its own sets of consequences, it preverts all that it touches including
the earth. If you think freewill is overstated I suggest you move to a country
that does not allow you to think for yourself, you will be told what to do and how
to do, big brother will take care of you no matter how you like or dislike it, because
in those places your will does not mean squat.

If you want proof God is real you will be given nothing except a place where you
either accept it on faith or not, and that is that.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
... the world system, the influence of spiritual forces trying to drag us into evil,

So can you explain why those spiritual forces trying to drag us into evil are allowed to influence us? Are they necessary for our free will, or do they serve some other purpose?

If you want proof God is real you will be given nothing except a place where you
either accept it on faith or not, and that is that.
Kelly
I don't get the whole 'accept it on faith' claim. You don't accept it on faith, why should I? If you disagree and claim that you do accept it on faith, then can you explain to me why you don't also accept on faith the contents of the Quran?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So can you explain why those spiritual forces trying to drag us into evil are allowed to influence us? Are they necessary for our free will, or do they serve some other purpose?

[b]If you want proof God is real you will be given nothing except a place where you
either accept it on faith or not, and that is that.
Kelly
I don't get the whole 'acce h, then can you explain to me why you don't also accept on faith the contents of the Quran?[/b]

"So can you explain why those spiritual forces trying to drag us into evil are allowed to influence us? Are they necessary for our free will, or do they serve some other purpose?"

Truth, in my opinion...you know an honest man who can return a found wallet
with all the money verses one who does not. I know many would say God would
not need to know or test, He would just know, but what about the rest of creation?
On judgment day, there will be no doubt about the truth of each action or inaction
and our hearts on why we did the things we did will be made quite clear. Evil forces
are just displaying themselves for what they are, they too are going to be dealt
with on that same level.

I accept it all on faith, I cannot prove anything to you. I reject somethings on faith
and I accept others both because I cannot disprove either, because if I could
either prove or disprove they would not be matters of faith. I do believe God does
make clear reality, what we do with it, is on us.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I accept it all on faith, I cannot prove anything to you. I reject somethings on faith
and I accept others both because I cannot disprove either, because if I could
either prove or disprove they would not be matters of faith. I do believe God does
make clear reality, what we do with it, is on us.
Kelly

I am just not clear what you mean by 'on faith'. Do you mean you made an arbitrary decision to believe something, do you mean you believe it because it suits you, or do you mean you believe the evidence warrants the belief even though it is not conclusive proof?
I just cant understand your attitude. If your faith is based on evidence and reasoning then why can you not pass that on? If it is not, do you realize that your belief is arbitrary? Why would you accept that of yourself?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe the safety override was set to on, because this life isn't it, it is the temp
area before the eternal gets fixed. The mechanics of the whole thing does reside
in God's work still, a way has been made for all to be saved even in the midst
of a world that has our flesh's cravings, our perverted wills, the world system,
the influence of spiritual ...[text shortened]... nothing except a place where you
either accept it on faith or not, and that is that.
Kelly

KellyJay,
it is the temp area before the eternal gets fixed.
As I implied, no credible explanation has been given as to why an all-powerful god would need a 'temp area'

If you think freewill is overstated I suggest you move to a country
that does not allow you to think for yourself,
I didn't say it was worthless, just overrated given what's at stake. Why did god not make heaven for us all to live in first? Either free will is not important in heaven so we don't need it or have it there, or heaven works perfectly fine with free will and no evil. Either way, all you have left is The Book of Job Defense.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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 rs suffering seems far less likely than the jealous, emotional God of the OT.

I think a sufficiently good argument should persuade anyone even if it doesn't incontrovertibly establish that the belief in question is irrational.

What Plantinga and others have shown is that such atheological arguments have not only failed to incontrovertibly establish that theism is untenable, but that such atheological arguments have also failed to give sufficient reason to believe that a world without God is any more likely.

What I meant was that Christians refuse to address the arguments whereas you are saying they have counter arguments we are not privy to.

I'm not saying that Christians have counter arguments that atheists are not privy to, rather, that the Holy Spirit supplies a direct perception of the veracity of Christian truth (e.g., Jesus is God's Son, Christ was resurrected, etc.).

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]I think a sufficiently good argument should persuade anyone even if it doesn't incontrovertibly establish that the belief in question is irrational.

What Plantinga and others have shown is that such atheological arguments have not only failed to incontrovertibly establish that theism is untenable, but that such atheological arguments have also ...[text shortened]... of the veracity of Christian truth (e.g., Jesus is God's Son, Christ was resurrected, etc.).[/b]

What Plantinga and others have shown is that such atheological arguments have not only failed to incontrovertibly establish that theism is untenable, but that such atheological arguments have also failed to give sufficient reason to believe that a world without God is any more likely.

I don't think you understand the "Logical Problem of Evil" argument.

Like I said earlier:
"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."

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]What Plantinga and others have shown is that such atheological arguments have not only failed to incontrovertibly establish that theism is untenable, but that such atheological arguments have also failed to give sufficient reason to believe that a world without God is any more likely.

I don't think you understand the "Logical Problem of E ...[text shortened]...

An obvious solution would be that God is NOT omnipotent, omiscient AND omnibenevolent."[/b]

The logical problem of evil, of course, would be an irrelevant argument if we assumed that God isn't omnibenevolent.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
The logical problem of evil, of course, would be an irrelevant argument if we assumed that God isn't omnibenevolent.

Let me try again. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "AND".

Evil could logically exist if ANY of the three were not true, but not if all three are true.

Try running through a few scenarios and you'll see that if any of the three are not true, then evil can logically exist.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let me try again. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "AND".

Evil could logically exist if ANY of the three were not true, but not if all three are true.

Try running through a few scenarios and you'll see that if any of the three are not true, then evil can logically exist.

Yes, but we aren't defending a god who lacks any of those attributes.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Yes, but we aren't defending a god who lacks any of those attributes.

It was specifically addressing your post where you said:
"The logical problem of evil, of course, would be an irrelevant argument if we assumed that God isn't omnibenevolent."

And in a larger context you keep making statements such as:
"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."

"What Plantinga and others have shown is that such atheological arguments have not only failed to incontrovertibly establish that theism is untenable, but that such atheological arguments have also failed to give sufficient reason to believe that a world without God is any more likely."

...which speak to "God" and "theism" in general and are not specific to an OOO God.