The Problem of Evil Does Not Prove the Nonexistence of the Tri-Omni God -- SMS vs. wiploc

[TransverseWave]

Welcome to a Rat Ring formal debate!

SMS and wiploc will engage in a formal debate on the following resolution:

Resolved: the problem of evil does not prove the nonexistence of a tri-omni god: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.

SMS (going first) will affirm and wiploc will oppose. The debate will have six rounds and will use the following special format, per the parameters (http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=237116&postcount=30) agreed prior.

Part I: Introductory arguments (Rounds 1-2)

Round 1: SMS opens; wiploc opens
Round 2: SMS defends; wiploc rebuts

Part II: Cross-examination (Rounds 3-5)

Round 3:
- SMS submits 3 questions
- wiploc submits 1 response to each question
- SMS submits 1 reply to each response

Round 4:
- wiploc submits 3 questions
- SMS submits 1 response to each question
- wiploc submits 1 reply to each response

Round 5: SMS evaluates cross-examination; wiploc evaluates cross-examination

Part III: Conclusion (Round 6)

- SMS posts a concluding statement; wiploc posts a concluding statement
All members (except for the Rat Ring participants) can comment on this formal debate in the Rat Ring Gallery (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=7787) set up in the Philosophy forum.

Enjoy the debate!

TransverseWave, Rat Ring Moderator

[TransverseWave]

Part I: Introductory Arguments

[SMS]

My Aim

The scope of the logical problem of evil (LPoE) is not restricted to monotheism, and I wish to take advantage of that. I argue that polytheism saves the tri-omni God from the clutches of LPoE.

There exists a deity just as necessary, omnipotent and omniscient as God. However, unlike God, this deity is essentially the embodiment of evil. Let us refer to this deity as ‘Satan’. Satan and God can neither exterminate nor harm each other because they are not the type of beings that can die or come under harm. They also cannot control each other’s mind because their minds are essentially free or because their omniscience enables them to prevent it; and so on and so on. What I am alluding to is the sheer pointlessness or impossibility of combat between God and Satan.

In lieu of fruitless combat, God and Satan compromise: They agreed to create earth with a mixture of persistent potential and actual goods/evils. Examples of these goods and evils are hardly scarce: predation, pleasure, natural disasters, happiness, pain and love are some examples of many. Like earth, God and Satan created us, too. On earth, we are the only free and morally conscious agents. God and Satan compromised that (prima facie) we cannot have our wills controlled by any one of them. However, we do have innate inclinations (via human evolution) for both good and evil. For example, we often act altruistically or with greed; we often love or hate, and we bring about suffering or happiness. These inclinations reflect the context of our creation: a milieu of both goodness and evilness.

The purpose of earth and the human beings within it is relative to the deity. For God, our existence and pleasure are pleasing to him. This is not to say that we are a mere means to God’s end because we are also ends in ourselves. For instance, we engage in our own projects and we are self-determined; I take this is to be all very good. I also take it as intuitively obvious that the good we possess, experience and the further good that we can actualize (potential goods) are worth the necessary existence of at least a tiny degree evil (and hence suffering).

Through the abovementioned narrative, the compossibility of suffering and God’s existence is easily explicable in two ways: (1) Suffering is instantiated from free human choice guaranteed from the compromise between Satan and God. Free human choice would account for, say, murder or assault. The other way, (2), is that suffering is instantiated from the contractual necessity that there be some evil and hence suffering within the world. What (2) accounts for is the suffering from natural disasters, disease and so forth. In both (1) and (2) suffering is the instantiation of evil on earth.

Closing Considerations

If this debate were about evil, per se, then I would just argue that evil essentially exists within Satan who is a necessary being. So long as God and Satan are possible co-existents, then possibly God and evil co-exist, too. Thus, the LPoE ceases to be a problem. Formally,


◊(g & s)
□(s→□e)
◊(g&e)



Yet, this debate is about the possible co-existence of suffering and God. In response, my above narrative offers an explanation as to how suffering and God can possibly co-exist. However, I did not try to argue that it is possible that God and Satan co-exist. I assumed that they are possible co-existents. I also assumed that there is nothing impossible or immoral in respects to God accepting an agreement with Satan and allowing suffering as an instantiation of evil. If my opponent has a problem with these two assumptions or others, then I await his protest.

I understand that readers might view my reconciliation of evil and God as odd or implausibly true. However, the LPoE is defeated by any reconciliation that is merely logically possible. Therefore, it is enough that my reconciliation is only possibly true.

Thank you.

[wiploc]

The Problem of Evil
SMS vs. Wiploc
Round One


The problem of evil (PoE) is that a tri-omni god (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) cannot coexist with evil. If evil exists, the tri-omni god does not.

There are five possible responses to the PoE:

1. God is not really omnipotent;
2. God is not really omniscient;
3. God is not really omnibenevolent;
4. Evil does not exist; and,
5. The abandonment of logic.

That's all there are. Any other response is off topic. And each of those responses is a concession that the PoE is correct.

The art of defending against the PoE, then, consists of this: you make one (or more) of those five concessions, but then you conceal from yourself (and, hopefully, from your audience) that you have made it.

SMS concedes omnipotence. His god is not really omnipotent, because he is opposed by an equal power. Thus, his god is not tri-omni. In arguing that a dual-omni god could exist, SMS effectively concedes that a tri-omni god cannot exist.

However, having effectively conceded the non-existence of the tri-omni god, the PoE defender must conceal from himself that he has made the concession. Thus, after positing that god cannot defeat Satan, SMS continues to call god "omnipotent." This undefines omnipotence.

One could parody SMS's argument this way: "An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god can coexist with evil---so long as "omnipotent" doesn't mean anything."

[SMS]

The problem of evil (PoE) is that a tri-omni god (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) cannot coexist with evil. If evil exists, the tri-omni god does not.

There are five possible responses to the PoE:

1. God is not really omnipotent;
2. God is not really omniscient;
3. God is not really omnibenevolent;
4. Evil does not exist; and,
5. The abandonment of logic.

That's all there are. Any other response is off topic. And each of those responses is a concession that the PoE is correct.


Contrary to wiploc's belief, four and five do not concede that the PoE is correct. Number 4 denies that evil exists at all and hence it cannot be said that God does not exist on the account of evil. Number 5 just rids the playing field of logic; it says nothing about whether the PoE is sound.

SMS concedes omnipotence. His god is not really omnipotent, because he is opposed by an equal power.

I am willing to defend the possibility of two co-existing omnipotent beings, but wiploc gave me no line of attack to defend against. To be sure, wiploc has stated that two omni-Gods are impossible but wiploc has yet to argue for this impossibility. Consequently, if I am to now defend against wiploc's current statement, then I'd say wiploc's current statement amounts to question begging.

However, having effectively conceded the non-existence of the tri-omni god, the PoE defender must conceal from himself that he has made the concession. Thus, after positing that god cannot defeat Satan, SMS continues to call god "omnipotent." This undefines omnipotence.

One could parody SMS's argument this way: "An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god can coexist with evil---so long as "omnipotent" doesn't mean anything."

If wiploc would have presented me with an argument for the logical inconsistency of two co-existing omni-beings, then I'd argue back. Yet, he has not. If I am to now respond to wiploc, then I repeat: Wiploc begs the question.

[wiploc]

I am willing to defend the possibility of two co-existing omnipotent beings, but wiploc gave me no line of attack to defend against. To be sure, wiploc has stated that two omni-Gods are impossible but wiploc has yet to argue for this impossibility. Consequently, if I am to now defend against wiploc's current statement, then I'd say wiploc's current statement amounts to question begging. I assume that the omnipotent god we're discussing is really "punk-omnipotent." That is, he can do anything except violate logic. He can't make square circles, but he can leap tall buildings in a single bound. He can't make it true that colorless green dreams sleep furiously, but he can turn water into wine. He can't make a married bachelor, but he can beat Satan in a wrestling match.

There is nothing inherently illogical about being stronger than Satan. Therefore, an omnipotent god would be stronger than Satan. If he wasn’t stronger than Satan, he wouldn't be omnipotent.

People usually say that you can't have both an irresistible force and an immovable object. That's because if the force were really irresistible, then the object wouldn't be immovable; and if the object were really immovable, then the force wouldn't be irresistible.

But, by the same logic, you can't have two irresistible forces. If Jehovah were really irresistible, then Satan wouldn't be able to resist him. If two gods are evenly matched, neither one of them is all-powerful.

The same trick (downgrading god's powers but continuing to use the "omni-) label) is also often used on omniscience and omnibenevolence. I'm told that "open theology" says that god doesn't know the future. He's "omniscient," but there's a whole lot of stuff he doesn't know.

Plantinga pulls the same trick with benevolence. He insists that god is omnibenevolent; but then he says, in effect, "What makes you think god wants to do anything for you?"

I debated one guy who didn't think god could supersize fries. Not only was this god unable to do miracles, he couldn't intervene in any way. And yet, the guy still labeled this god "omnipotent."

SMS's god may be stronger than one who can't supersize fries, but he isn't omnipotent. If SMS's god is omnipotent, then omnipotence no longer refers to being stronger than everything else; rather, it refers only to being stronger than things that are weaker than it. But that definition makes every one of us omnipotent.

Well, it's a free country. SMS can call anything that he wants to "omnipotent." But that doesn't mean he has defeated the problem of evil. The PoE is about a god who has a particular kind of omnipotence: Infinite power. Unmatched power. Power that cannot be defeated, or even fought to a standstill. Power that rules all, including (if Satan exists) Satan.

The PoE proves that a tri-omni god cannot coexist with evil. SMS's response amounts to saying that if god weren't tri-omni, then he could coexist with evil. That's true, but it is not a refutation of the PoE.

[TransverseWave]

Part II: Cross-Examination

[SMS]

For God's omnipotence to be greater than Satan's omnipotence, then God's omnipotence must not be identical to Satan's omnipotence. After all, nothing can be stronger than itself. Yet, I said Satan was just as omnipotent as God.

Response?


Contra Irresistible: Satan's free will is essential to his being. Since Satan exists necessarily, then so does Satan's free will. Thus, since Satan and his free will are necessary, God cannot violate Satan's free will. Omnipotence is saved!

Response?


An omnipotent being need not be the strongest being. Analogously, a score of 100% on a test is the highest possible grade. However, more than one person could have scored 100%. Two people could share the strongest possible grade.

Response?

[wiploc]

The Problem of Evil
SMS vs. Wiploc
Cross Examination
Wiploc Answers Three Questions
(250 words per answer)


Question One:
For God's omnipotence to be greater than Satan's omnipotence, then God's omnipotence must not be identical to Satan's omnipotence. After all, nothing can be stronger than itself. Yet, I said Satan was just as omnipotent as God.
.
I grant you that, if god and Satan were equally powerful, then god could coexist with evil. I further grant that---since there are no language police who could take you to your well-deserved cell---you can call anything you want "omnipotent." And I reiterate that the god disproven by the PoE is not merely as strong as Satan; he is infinitely stronger.




Question Two:
Contra Irresistible: Satan's free will is essential to his being. Since Satan exists necessarily, then so does Satan's free will. Thus, since Satan and his free will are necessary, God cannot violate Satan's free will. Omnipotence is saved! .
.
First, let me point out that Satan is not necessary. And his free will, as I interpret Plantinga, is not essential.

That said, I should read your question as favorably as possible. Something like, "Suppose that Satan were necessary; and suppose that his free will were essential … wouldn't god then be able to coexist with evil?"

If I recall, that's how we got the god who couldn't supersize fries. Everything in the world was necessary, so god was simultaneously omnipotent and powerless. But that is not what is meant by "omnipotent." Powerlessness is not omnipotence. Inability to supersize fries is not omnipotence. And inability to vanquish Satan is not omnipotence.

Granted, you have the freedom to use words with any meaning you want, or with no meaning. But you cannot refute the PoE unless you actually deal with the PoE. The god disproven by the PoE is not equal to Satan, he is stronger. He is much stronger. Infinitely stronger.

The PoE says that if evil exists, and if god is omniscient and omnibenevolent, then he can't also be stronger than anything else. You can't prove that god can be stronger than anything else by pretending that "stronger than" means "just as strong as."



Question Three:
An omnipotent being need not be the strongest being. Analogously, a score of 100% on a test is the highest possible grade. However, more than one person could have scored 100%. Two people could share the strongest possible grade. .
That's like saying, "If three were really four, then one plus three would be five." You are saying that if proponents of the PoE meant, "no stronger than Satan," when they said, "omnipotent," then they would be wrong to say that a tri-omni god cannot coexist with evil. They wouldn't just be wrong, they would be stupid and wrong. But they didn't mean that.

You can't defeat an argument by saying, "If the argument were different, then it would be wrong." If that were fair, then I would be pulling the same stunt on you, pointing out that your argument would be perverse if, when you said, "omnipotent," you really meant "Ivory Soap."

[SMS]

Question 1 responded to wiploc's opening declaration that "[t]here is nothing inherently illogical about being stronger than Satan." However, on my account it is contradictory because Satan and God are equally omnipotent. Question 1 aimed to get wiploc to admit that on my account, God being more omnipotent than Satan is illogical nonsense. Accordingly, wiploc cannot assume in advance (without question begging) that God is more omnipotent than Satan. Indeed, Wiploc needs to show that both God and Satan cannot be omnipotent. Thus, we turn to Question 2.


Question 2 was in reference to my account of Satan and hence when I speak of Satan’s necessariness, I am referring to my account of Satan. With that said, I have no clue what wiploc is talking about! To explain: I never said (or implied) that everything in the world is necessary nor am I saying that God is powerless. Omnipotence just means that God is limited to the logically possible. Since Satan—on my account—is a necessary being and has essential free will, then it deductively follows that God cannot “vanquish” Satan nor violate Satan’s free will. This is basic logic! My account does not indicate that God cannot supersize fries or that everything in the world is necessary (the collapse of modal dualism). Does wiploc understand the basics of modal logic?


Question 3 responded to wiploc’s claim that “If SMS's god is omnipotent, then omnipotence no longer refers to being stronger than everything else”. This statement is problematic because omnipotence is not definitive of being stronger than anything else. In contrast, within this debate, the definition of omnipotence is merely the ability to do whatever is logically possible. It is important to understand that a person cannot assume in advance that omnipotence refers to a being stronger than any other being because that’s question begging.

Finally, question 3 was not ambitious. I merely wanted to get wiploc to admit that attaining the greatest degree of any x does not, itself, necessitate that its attainment ensures that the attainer is unmatched. Wiploc’s argument rests on the impossibility of two omnipotent beings. He gave this argument in response to question two. For reasons mentioned , I think his argument is a blatant failure.

[wiploc]

The Problem of Evil
SMS vs. Wiploc
Cross Examination
Wiploc Asks Three Questions
(40 words per question)



Wiploc's Only Question:
If "omnipotent" meant "no stronger than Satan," then the PoE wouldn't prove god's nonexistence. But, if, by "omnipotent," we mean "of unlimited power, and stronger than anything else," then the PoE does prove god's nonexistence. You understand this, right?

[SMS]

if, by "omnipotent," we mean "of unlimited power, and stronger than anything else," then the PoE does prove god's nonexistence. You understand this, right?

Does “anything else” mean ‘any other being’? If so, then, omnipotence would be defined as having unlimited power and being stronger than any of being. I readily admit that my defence is problematic under this definition. However, I am uncertain if my defence fails because Satan would still be a necessary being that is essentially evil. Thus, evil necessarily exists and hence God cannot eradicate evil. Thence, all I would need to do is account for suffering.

For those of you who do not know, when some X is defined as essential to a thing, it means that this thing could not exist without that X. In this case, Satan could not exist without being the embodiment of evil. Evil is essential to Satan’s being. Since—on my account—Satan necessarily exists (cannot not exist), then evil necessarily exists, too!

In any case, I see no good reason nor has wiploc provided any good reason to believe that we should accept that omnipotence means to be stronger than any other being. To me, and as it is usually defined, omnipotence just means the ability to do whatever is logically possible. Wiploc cannot assume, in advance, that omnipotence means anything more than that without begging the question.

[wiploc]

The PoE makes it obvious that a god of unlimited power cannot exist (assuming he is omniscient and omnibenevolent, and that evil exists). The PoE has nothing to say about other gods (for instance, SMS's god of limited power).

So what are we discussing? SMS points out that, by using wordplay involving "necessity" and "essence," he can distort the word "omnipotence" to the point that it means something like, "no stronger than the next guy."

I can do the same trick. I can posit that the world is essentially and necessarily natural; so god cannot do magic. I can posit that a small order of fries is essentially and necessarily unsupersized; so god can't even supersize fries. God is, if we take SMS's wordplay to its logical conclusion, simultaneously omnipotent and impotent.

That's not what SMS means by "omnipotent"? Well, SMS's definition is not what PoE proponents mean either.

[SMS]

Earlier wiploc had argued that omnipotence, by definition, excludes a co-existent equal. Yet, by wiploc's own admission, omnipotence just means that the omnipotent being has ability to do whatever is logically possible. From this, there is no definitive reason to believe that two omnipotent beings are impossible co-existents. In other words, there is nothing within that definition that excludes the possibility of two omnipotent beings.

To remedy this problem, wiploc must further argue that there is something about possessing the ability to do whatever is logically possible that logically entails that the possessor is the strongest being of all possibly co-existing beings. Wiploc tried to argue just that through declaring that my construal of omnipotence is somehow analogous or amounts to God being powerless and that God cannot supersize fries. Yet, I have shown that to be absurd! My account of omnipotence gives great power to God, In fact, God can supersize fries and anything else that is logically possible. My account only states that what God cannot do is eradicate evil because it is logically impossible to eradicate Satan.

In reply to my account, wiploc accuses me of "wordplay". He furthers that I have distorted the meaning of omnipotence, too. Wiploc avers that he can attribute necessity and essentialness to various things such like a small order of fries. On wiploc’s account, a small order of fries are essentially and necessarily unsupersized. But, I agree with him! Why? Well, small fries are by definition not large fries and if any x is a small fry, then it is necessary that the x is not a super large fry. These are basic de dicto and de re modal truths! Yet, from these truths, it is does not follow (pace wiploc) that God cannot supersize fries. After all, when we supersize fries, we merely just purchase or create a larger serving of fries. Since purchasing or creating a larger serving of fries is possible for us, then it must also be possible for God, too. Consequently, the act of supersizing fries cannot be impossible.

To be recap: The possibility of supersizing fries is entirely consistent with a small order of fries that are essentially and necessarily unsupersized. Why? Well, because the latter is barely anything more--if anything more at all-- than an analytic truth and the former just means an order a larger serving of fries. Wiploc’s confusion of these modal terms seems to suggest that he does not understand modality. Yet, if wiploc does not understand modality, then why is he debating the logical problem from evil?

I conclude that wiploc has failed to rebuke or undercut my argument.

[wiploc]

The Problem of Evil
SMS vs. Wiploc
Cross Examination
Wiploc Comments on Cross Exam
(800 words)


SMS wants you to know that a wimp god, a god who is no stronger than the next guy, might not be able to eliminate evil. He's right about that. Nobody's taking the other side of that argument. I stipulate: a wimp god might be unable to eliminate evil.

But, here's the thing, that god doesn't have anything to do with the problem of evil. The PoE is about an in-charge god, a god who can take anybody. The PoE god could eliminate evil. Interestingly, nobody's taking the other side of this argument either. SMS stipulates that defending the existence of this god would be "problematic."

So what's left to talk about?

Well, SMS claims that his wimp god is relevant to the PoE. I defined the PoE god as being so strong that he can do anything except violate logic. SMS asks, what if god was logically no stronger than the next guy? Then the PoE's in-charge god becomes SMS's wimp god. If they're the same god, he argues, then the PoE's god can't eliminate evil---and therefore the PoE is false.

But they aren't the same god. A god who's no stronger than the next guy is obviously not what the PoE is talking about. But SMS insists that---so long as he gets to arbitrarily declare god is arbitrarily declare that god is logically no stronger than the next guy, they are the same god.

The thing is, if SMS gets to arbitrarily create new rules of logic, then so do I. If he can say that god is logically too weak to defeat Satan, then I get to say that god is logically too weak to intervene in the natural world in any way. God can't do anything. He's totally impotent. He can't even, to take a now-familiar example, supersize fries. Therefore, according to SMS's logic, god's are omnipotent even if they can't do anything at all.

I use that illustration to make this point: That's obviously not the god being discussed in the PoE. A god who is not in charge, who cannot overcome opposition, is not the god who cannot coexist with evil.

SMS's defense amounts to claiming that if god were weak enough that he couldn't eliminate evil, then he wouldn't be strong enough to eliminate evil. While he's right about that, it doesn't have anything to do with the PoE. The PoE is about a god who is strong. He can not only supersize fries, he can defeat Satan. He can do it easily. He is totally in charge.

And SMS admits that defending that god would be problematic. He doesn't even try. So I don't know why he wanted to debate in the first place. Or why we're still here. SMS offers no cogent opposition to the PoE.

[TransverseWave]

Part III. Conclusion

[SMS]

Wiploc’s response disappointed me because he continues to beg the question by reaffirming (without argument) that omnipotence entails that whoever is omnipotent has no co-existing equal. I hope my readers are able to catch that. Wiploc cannot just say that two omnipotent beings are impossible co-existents. Indeed, wiploc must argue that. Wiploc misleads his readers, too. To exemplify, let us examine wiploc’s opening statement-

SMS wants you to know that a wimp god, a god who is no stronger than the next guy, might not be able to eliminate evil.

To the contrary, I do not want my readers “to know that a wimp god, a god who is no stronger than the next guy, might not be able to eliminate evil.” Perhaps wiploc means that the God I speak of—despite my resistance—amounts to a wimp God. Yet, this is entirely different than the statement I have quoted.

Wiploc furthers-

SMS asks, what if god was logically no stronger than the next guy?

I did not say that God is “no stronger than the next guy” nor did I ask what would happen if God was” no stronger than the next guy”. In contrast, I said that God is no stronger than Satan and based my argument on that. For wiploc’s statement to be anything other than misleading, “the next guy” would have to be equivalent to Satan. Yet, “the next guy” is not equivalent to Satan. When people say “the next guy”, they usually mean just any random person. Does wiploc wish to caricaturize my argument in this way?

There's not much to respond to here, folks. Wiploc continues to beg the question.

[wiploc]

The Problem of Evil
SMS vs. Wiploc
Wiploc's Conclusion
(800 words)


Wiploc’s response disappointed me because he continues to beg the question by reaffirming (without argument) that omnipotence entails that whoever is omnipotent has no co-existing equal.

I repeatedly said that SMS can use the word any way he wants. I further agreed with him that, given the way he uses the word, the PoE (problem of evil) does not show that an omnipotent god does not exist. I don't know what else SMS could want of me.

However, it is fair to point out that some people use the word differently. Some people go around saying that god is omnipotent, is all-powerful, is infinitely powerful, is unlimited. With this god, they say, all things are possible.

They aren't talking about a god who's met his match in Satan. They don't call a god all-powerful when they think that he has only half the power. They don't call him unlimited when they believe him to be fundamentally unable to attain his goals.

And when people like that add in that god is omniscient and omnibenevolent, then we get to whip out the PoE to show them that they are wrong. Which it does. Indisputably.

SMS's entire argument consists of saying that if these theists meant something else, then the PoE wouldn't prove them wrong. I have repeatedly conceded this. I don't know what else he could ask of me.

Given that SMS's argument is irrelevant to the PoE, I have asked him to admit that an omnipotent (the way I define it, not the way he defines it), omniscient, omnibenevolent god is logically incompatible with evil. He wasn't really forthcoming. He allowed that it would be "problematic." Further than that, he sayeth not. He didn't really want to get into that. Which is strange, since he requested this debate on, of all things, the PoE.

So what's left? If I agree that his god is compatible with evil, and if he doesn't dispute that my god is incompatible with evil, then what is left to discuss?

Only this: SMS thinks that I should be somehow confused by the fact that we are describing two different gods, by the fact that we are defining "omnipotent" in two different ways.

But I am not confused.

[TransverseWave]

This concludes the debate. Thanks to both participants. Discussion may be continued in the Rat Ring Gallery. (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=7787)

TransverseWave, Rat Ring Moderator