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

[TransverseWave]

This thread has been set up to provide a gallery for all members who wish to comment on the Rat Ring FORMAL DEBATE (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=7785) between SMS and wiploc 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 employ a special format (see the OP of the debate thread for details).

We ask that the formal debate participants refrain from posting in the gallery until their formal debate comes to an end.

Enjoy the debate!

TransverseWave, Rat Ring Moderator

[TransverseWave]

SMS' opening statement (http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=237433&postcount=3) is up.

[Spacemonkeyadb]

SMS appears to have opened by initially postulating the existence of two omnipotent beings before immediately placing limitations on what they are each capable of doing. Seems a little misguided to me.

That God and Satan (defined as omni-beings) are possible co-existents does not strike me as an unproblematic assumption.

[TransverseWave]

Wiploc's opening statement (http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=238025&postcount=4) is up.

[TransverseWave]

SMS' second statement (http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=238120&postcount=5) is up.

[BWE]

Hi TW, could you include links to the posts in your notices in the peanut gallery? It's easy when there are only a few posts in both but it gets tougher (for me anyway).

[TransverseWave]

Sure.

[Columbus]

Dayum.
Wiploc slammed dunked SMS' opening statement on his first try. SMS says, "If wiploc would have presented me with an argument for the logical inconsistency of two co-existing omni-beings, then I'd argue back." I don't think wiploc is likely to have trouble doing that. A link to an appropriate dictionarydotcom entry should suffice.

I am surprised SMS used this line of reasoning instead of the somewhat more substantial "Omni-Max God has reasons for allowing evil to exist that we mere humans just aren't capable of understanding". Instead he contradicted all three of the relevant omnis in one fell swoop. If God is limited by Satan, then He isn't omnipotent. If He cannot read Satan's mind, then he isn't omniscient. If He created Satan, then He isn't omni-benevolent. At least the "It's a Mystery" argument has the strategic advantage of undefinable terms. It is sometimes difficult to show how it falls into Wiploc's #5 "The abandonment of logic."
Tom

[TransverseWave]

Wiploc's second statement (http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=238493&postcount=6) is up.

[TransverseWave]

SMS' three questions (http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=238950&postcount=8) are up.

[SophistiCat]

I am surprised SMS used this line of reasoning instead of the somewhat more substantial "Omni-Max God has reasons for allowing evil to exist that we mere humans just aren't capable of understanding". Instead he contradicted all three of the relevant omnis in one fell swoop. If God is limited by Satan, then He isn't omnipotent. If He cannot read Satan's mind, then he isn't omniscient. If He created Satan, then He isn't omni-benevolent. At least the "It's a Mystery" argument has the strategic advantage of undefinable terms. It is sometimes difficult to show how it falls into Wiploc's #5 "The abandonment of logic."
Tom

Nah, it's as good as any defense. Ultimately, they all come down to a two-prong strategy: definitions game and reshaping theology to avoid inconsistencies. There is no reason why such a defense couldn't succeed, at least in the defender's mind. The attacker, of course, could argue about definitions and try to impose some constraints on how much the concept of God could be molded, pointing out arbitrary and ad-hoc nature of such maneuvers. But such arguments usually end at an impasse. The defender will insist on his prerogative to define his own theology, including the meanings of words as they apply to it. If he defines "omnipotent" in an idiosyncratic way, well, that just makes his theology idiosyncratic, rather than contradictory.

[TransverseWave]

Wiploc's three answers (http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=239216&postcount=9) are up.

[BWE]

I am surprised SMS used this line of reasoning instead of the somewhat more substantial "Omni-Max God has reasons for allowing evil to exist that we mere humans just aren't capable of understanding". Instead he contradicted all three of the relevant omnis in one fell swoop. If God is limited by Satan, then He isn't omnipotent. If He cannot read Satan's mind, then he isn't omniscient. If He created Satan, then He isn't omni-benevolent. At least the "It's a Mystery" argument has the strategic advantage of undefinable terms. It is sometimes difficult to show how it falls into Wiploc's #5 "The abandonment of logic."
Tom

Nah, it's as good as any defense. Ultimately, they all come down to a two-prong strategy: definitions game and reshaping theology to avoid inconsistencies. There is no reason why such a defense couldn't succeed, at least in the defender's mind. The attacker, of course, could argue about definitions and try to impose some constraints on how much the concept of God could be molded, pointing out arbitrary and ad-hoc nature of such maneuvers. But such arguments usually end at an impasse. The defender will insist on his prerogative to define his own theology, including the meanings of words as they apply to it. If he defines "omnipotent" in an idiosyncratic way, well, that just makes his theology idiosyncratic, rather than contradictory.

1. I'm surprised he hasn't busted out quantum entanglement.
2. There is always a third prong. They're just not as obvious due to styles and fashion.
3. Even Punk Omnipotence can't stretch that far.

[TransverseWave]

SMS' response (http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=240181&postcount=10) is up.

[Zimpo]

Dayum.
Wiploc slammed dunked SMS' opening statement on his first try. SMS says, "If wiploc would have presented me with an argument for the logical inconsistency of two co-existing omni-beings, then I'd argue back." I don't think wiploc is likely to have trouble doing that. A link to an appropriate dictionarydotcom entry should suffice.

I am surprised SMS used this line of reasoning instead of the somewhat more substantial "Omni-Max God has reasons for allowing evil to exist that we mere humans just aren't capable of understanding". Instead he contradicted all three of the relevant omnis in one fell swoop. If God is limited by Satan, then He isn't omnipotent. If He cannot read Satan's mind, then he isn't omniscient. If He created Satan, then He isn't omni-benevolent. At least the "It's a Mystery" argument has the strategic advantage of undefinable terms. It is sometimes difficult to show how it falls into Wiploc's #5 "The abandonment of logic."
Tom

I thought the same thing when I read the OP of that. All three parts of the omni-max god were contradicted.

[Spacemonkeyadb]

When did omnipotence become a matter of degree?? :confused:

[BWE]

When did omnipotence become a matter of degree?? :confused:
You must be a Yale man.

/Mr. Howell voice.

[BWE]

umop... paging umop**

Remember when you wondered why SMS was going round and round trying to get you to go on this topic? Here's your answer.

[TransverseWave]

Wiploc's question (http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=246180&postcount=11) is up.

[TransverseWave]

SMS' answer (http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=246482&postcount=12) is up.

[TransverseWave]

Wiploc's response (http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=249074&postcount=13) is up.

[TransverseWave]

SMS' evaluation of the cross-examination (http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=249827&postcount=14) is up.

[TransverseWave]

Wiploc's evaluation (http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=254476&postcount=15) is up.

[David B]

I thought wiploc had the best of it.

What do we do now?

Have some sort of poll to judge consensus of opinion on this, or jsut let it go.

David B

[TransverseWave]

SMS' conclusion (http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=254702&postcount=17) is up.

[AdamWho]

Just read the debate. Not really sure that SMS actually understood the topic being debated.


It is unfortunate that wiploc wasn't challenged in any meaningful way.

[TransverseWave]

Wiploc's conclusion (http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=259322&postcount=18) is up.

This concludes the debate. The participants may now join discussion in the Gallery, if desired.

[umop apisdn w,I]

I have to say there were no surprises to me from either side of the debate.

SMS argued in his usual duplicitous manner, and wiploc called him on it.

[hecaterin]

Well, that was lame. Even worse than I expected. Wiploc never had to break a sweat.

[SMS]

I have to say there were no surprises to me from either side of the debate.

SMS argued in his usual duplicitous manner, and wiploc called him on it.

Just read the debate. Not really sure that SMS actually understood the topic being debated.


It is unfortunate that wiploc wasn't challenged in any meaningful way.

Well, that was lame. Even worse than I expected. Wiploc never had to break a sweat.


If there are any objections besides your vacuous declarations, then I'd be happy to deal with them.

[SMS]

My thoughts: Wiploc's argument is an abject failure but it takes refuge within the ignorance of those aboard this thread. I might as well have my performance graded by 3rd graders.

I passed his argument around to a few philosophy grad students, and it was ridiculed. I'm not surprised. Had I have been his TA (I may be one next year), he'd be lucky if he got a bare pass for his effort. Wiploc's argument is ridden with question begging and blatant misconstructions of my argument. Yet, no one calls him on it. No one calls wiploc on his complete ignorance as to why small fries are necessarily and essentially not supersized fries. Or how he can miscontruct my argument to equate God's power to the "next guy" or that I "want you to know" that the PoE does not operate on a weak God.Or that he cannot assume, in advance, that possessing omnipotence means being stronger than all possibly co-existing beings.

Some user by the name of nialler implied that TR's philosophy forum has some individuals that are my intellectual overlords. I'd like to invite them out to criticize my argument or explain to me how wiploc's (later) replies do not constitute question begging.

[SMS]

>yawn<

If I get no responses to this, then can I at least get a confirmation that evil (though not necessarily suffering) would necessarily exist if Satan necessarily exists and is essentially evil? We need not even confirm the questionable co-omnipotence. The key premises are here-anyone wanna deduce?

(∃x)(x=s & □Es)
◊ (∃x)(x=s) →□(∃x)(x=s)



It may be of interest to know that I'm working on a far more sophisticated solution to the logical problem of evil. I argue from a form of Platonic-like realism that that evil is a necessary co-instantation of good. Accordingly, necessarily, if good exists in a possible world, then evil exists in that world,too. From this, I have two approaches: I can first argue for the consistency of the Christian doctrine through noting that God is necessary and essentially good. Thus, evil necessarily exists. Second, I could argue from the consequentalist scheme that the evil is justified in this world because it was a necessary condition for any good at all. This approach leaves some wiggle room about the exact modal status of evil/good.

It's a work in progress. :)

[Sarpedon]

Tell me, SMS, what degrees have you earned, and from where? What books have you published, what awards have you won, what inventions have you patented? In short, what have you accomplished, that justifies this towering arrogance of yours? It seems to me that your greatest (justifiable) boast is that you "may be a TA next year." As someone who WAS a TA, I am less than impressed.

If you are so great, why don't you show this debate to your philosophy professor, and see what he thinks about it?

I have two degrees, both from accredited universities no less. There are people here with much more than that. That you mock Nialler of all people is hilarious. How many languages do you speak?

[David B]

>yawn<

If I get no responses to this, then can I at least get a confirmation that evil (though not necessarily suffering) would necessarily exist if Satan necessarily exists and is essentially evil? We need not even confirm the questionable co-omnipotence. The key premises are here-anyone wanna deduce?

(∃x)(x=s & □Es)
◊ (∃x)(x=s) →□(∃x)(x=s)

You can get confirmation from me that mischief exists if leprechauns necessarily exist, and are essentially mischievous.

Which amounts to much the same thing.

David B

[umop apisdn w,I]

I have to say there were no surprises to me from either side of the debate.

SMS argued in his usual duplicitous manner, and wiploc called him on it.

Just read the debate. Not really sure that SMS actually understood the topic being debated.


It is unfortunate that wiploc wasn't challenged in any meaningful way.

Well, that was lame. Even worse than I expected. Wiploc never had to break a sweat.


If there are any objections besides your vacuous declarations, then I'd be happy to deal with them.

I've certainly got no objections to wiploc pointing out your shortcomings.

[SMS]

I have to say there were no surprises to me from either side of the debate.

SMS argued in his usual duplicitous manner, and wiploc called him on it.



Well, that was lame. Even worse than I expected. Wiploc never had to break a sweat.


If there are any objections besides your vacuous declarations, then I'd be happy to deal with them.

I've certainly got no objections to wiploc pointing out your shortcomings.



Spare me his question begging. Why don't you take a shot at it?

[SMS]

>yawn<

If I get no responses to this, then can I at least get a confirmation that evil (though not necessarily suffering) would necessarily exist if Satan necessarily exists and is essentially evil? We need not even confirm the questionable co-omnipotence. The key premises are here-anyone wanna deduce?

(∃x)(x=s & □Es)
◊ (∃x)(x=s) →□(∃x)(x=s)

You can get confirmation from me that mischief exists if leprechauns necessarily exist, and are essentially mischievous.

Which amounts to much the same thing.

David B


:) Indeed. However, this does not do much in showing that there is a logical inconsistency within the worldview I was giving.

[SMS]

Tell me, SMS, what degrees have you earned, and from where? What books have you published, what awards have you won, what inventions have you patented? In short, what have you accomplished, that justifies this towering arrogance of yours? It seems to me that your greatest (justifiable) boast is that you "may be a TA next year." As someone who WAS a TA, I am less than impressed.

My arrogance is not the topic here.

If you are so great, why don't you show this debate to your philosophy professor, and see what he thinks about it?

Perhaps I will.



I have two degrees, both from accredited universities no less. Who cares?


There are people here with much more than that. That you mock Nialler of all people is hilarious. How many languages do you speak?


Why's that relevant?

[David B]

>yawn<

If I get no responses to this, then can I at least get a confirmation that evil (though not necessarily suffering) would necessarily exist if Satan necessarily exists and is essentially evil? We need not even confirm the questionable co-omnipotence. The key premises are here-anyone wanna deduce?

(∃x)(x=s & □Es)
◊ (∃x)(x=s) →□(∃x)(x=s)

You can get confirmation from me that mischief exists if leprechauns necessarily exist, and are essentially mischievous.

Which amounts to much the same thing.

David B


:) Indeed. However, this does not do much in showing that there is a logical inconsistency within the worldview I was giving.

Well you brought that up.

However, the WV you you were giving involved a tri-omni god, and under any reasonable interpretation of that, Wiploc had you cold, IMV.

David B

[SMS]

You can get confirmation from me that mischief exists if leprechauns necessarily exist, and are essentially mischievous.

Which amounts to much the same thing.

David B


:) Indeed. However, this does not do much in showing that there is a logical inconsistency within the worldview I was giving.

Well you brought that up.

However, the WV you you were giving involved a tri-omni god, and under any reasonable interpretation of that, Wiploc had you cold, IMV.

David B


I repeat: If there are any objections besides your vacuous declarations, then I'd be happy to deal with them.

[umop apisdn w,I]

If there are any objections besides your vacuous declarations, then I'd be happy to deal with them.

I've certainly got no objections to wiploc pointing out your shortcomings.



Spare me his question begging. Why don't you take a shot at it?

Because I'm secure enough in my knowledge that you're talking shit that I have no need to bolster my ego by doing so, and because deliberately not doing so and seeing you get wound up by that is currently far more amusing than doing so would be...

[SMS]

I've certainly got no objections to wiploc pointing out your shortcomings.



Spare me his question begging. Why don't you take a shot at it?

Because I'm secure enough in my knowledge that you're talking shit that I have no need to bolster my ego by doing so, and because deliberately not doing so and seeing you get wound up by that is currently far more amusing than doing so would be...

Translation: I can't.

Anyone else?

[umop apisdn w,I]

Spare me his question begging. Why don't you take a shot at it?

Because I'm secure enough in my knowledge that you're talking shit that I have no need to bolster my ego by doing so, and because deliberately not doing so and seeing you get wound up by that is currently far more amusing than doing so would be...

Translation: I can't.

Anyone else?

If you want to try to bait me into arguing with you, you'll have to do better than that.

Or did you really expect that comment to make me fear for my self image?

"Oh no! People might believe SMS when he says that I can't address his points! I'd better get writing an essay-length rebuttal of him or people will think I have a small e-penis!"

[SMS]

shhh, dean. It's quiet time for you.

[David B]

:) Indeed. However, this does not do much in showing that there is a logical inconsistency within the worldview I was giving.

Well you brought that up.

However, the WV you you were giving involved a tri-omni god, and under any reasonable interpretation of that, Wiploc had you cold, IMV.

David B


I repeat: If there are any objections besides your vacuous declarations, then I'd be happy to deal with them.

You never did explain the validity of proof by repetition.

David B

[osmanthus]

Nor did he ever explain the validity of redefining "omnipotent" so that it no longer meant omnipotent. :D

[wiploc]

Nor did he ever explain the validity of redefining "omnipotent" so that it no longer meant omnipotent. :D

You're begging the question. :D

crc

[SophistiCat]

You were ~M~ on IIDB, weren't you?

[umop apisdn w,I]

You were ~M~ on IIDB, weren't you?

Without a doubt.

[Febble]

It's interesting. There are smart people on these forums, and not-so-smart people. There are humble people and arrogant people. And some of the smart people are arrogant and some are humble. And some of the not-so-smart people are arrogant, and some are humble.

But I'd say, holding smarts as a constant, that the humble people make fewer errors than the arrogant people. In fact, I'd go so far to say that degree of humility is a better guide to reliability than number of smarts. And it seems to me that that is probably because the habit of holding open the possibility that you might be mistaken leads both to humility and better monitoring of your own errors.

Just sayin'.

[osmanthus]

So was that a vacuous declaration then?:D

[wiploc]

You were ~M~ on IIDB, weren't you?

Oh. Well, then, he goes on my ignore list here too.

[BWE]

Nor did he ever explain the validity of redefining "omnipotent" so that it no longer meant omnipotent. :D
Warning. If your omnipotence lasts more than four hours, seek medical attention immediately.

[Jet Black]

It's interesting. There are smart people on these forums, and not-so-smart people. There are humble people and arrogant people. And some of the smart people are arrogant and some are humble. And some of the not-so-smart people are arrogant, and some are humble.

But I'd say, holding smarts as a constant, that the humble people make fewer errors than the arrogant people. In fact, I'd go so far to say that degree of humility is a better guide to reliability than number of smarts. And it seems to me that that is probably because the habit of holding open the possibility that you might be mistaken leads both to humility and better monitoring of your own errors.

Just sayin'.

I think that's inevitable. Humility contains acknowledgement that you don't know everything.

[SMS]

Nor did he ever explain the validity of redefining "omnipotent" so that it no longer meant omnipotent. :D

See wiploc's statement.

Nor did he ever explain the validity of redefining "omnipotent" so that it no longer meant omnipotent. :D

You're begging the question. :D

crc

You were ~M~ on IIDB, weren't you?

Nope.

[wiploc]

Nor did he ever explain the validity of redefining "omnipotent" so that it no longer meant omnipotent. :D

See wiploc's statement.



You're begging the question. :D

crc

That was a joke. I was parodying you.

[Jet Black]

err, is SMS really attempting to say that God and Satan are of equal strength?

[BWE]

err, is SMS really attempting to say that God and Satan are of equal strength?
Separate but equal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson)..

That might be an American only reference so I offered a link.

[osmanthus]

Nor did he ever explain the validity of redefining "omnipotent" so that it no longer meant omnipotent. :D

See wiploc's statement.

See my statement.

[Columbus]

:) Indeed. However, this does not do much in showing that there is a logical inconsistency within the worldview I was giving.

Well you brought that up.

However, the WV you you were giving involved a tri-omni god, and under any reasonable interpretation of that, Wiploc had you cold, IMV.

David B


I repeat: If there are any objections besides your vacuous declarations, then I'd be happy to deal with them.There has a been a consistent and clear objection made that you have not dealt with. I.e., omnipotence is an absolute. There cannot be two "All-Powerful" beings. There could be two super-duper beings, with supernatural powers. But not two "All-Powerful" beings, they cannot both be omnipotent.

I realize that you didn't invent this "solution" to the PoE. I remember the first time I heard of it. It was in Rabbi Kuchman's book, "When Bad Things Happen to Good People". It was getting rave reviews from christians, so I read it. I was absolutely appalled. A die-hard religionist was explaining that the reason people's babies died and the Holocaust happened wasn't that God didn't love everybody. It was just that He wasn't really All that Powerful, on a day to day basis. And you here are making the same lame argument. You are arguing that God is not the All-Powerful Creator deserving of worship. God isn't even 50% of the power in the universe. Satan is just as powerful, and we humans have some of the power, too. In the WV you describe God is like a partisan politician. Depending on how humans are feeling or what they are thinking, God could be Barack Obama or John McCain, G W Bush or Al Gore. God is not an All-Powerful Being, He is just another person with an opinion.

The reason that the local skeptics are laughing at you is because we know what religionists have been teaching for centuries, and it isn't your WV. The contradiction between what has been taught(that God is All-Powerful, not some wienie trying desperately to avoid losing the Eternal battle with Satan) and what you are arguing is night and day. You might not see the contradiction in your WV, but we do. You might think that sticking to the traditional definition of "omnipotent" is begging the question, but we don't.

Speaking only for myself, the contradiction between religionist's description of God as an omnipotent sentient being and the reality that I see around me everyday is proof that they just made their religion up. It is fiction. They cannot describe their image of God and also reality without contradicting themselves. You just tried to "solve" the Problem of Evil by jettisonning a fundamental premise of religionists, that God is The Supreme Being. I think you only helped to prove that it is not possible to believe in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic image of God while also having a rational view of reality. Thanks for trying, but I really didn't need your help.
Tom

[umop apisdn w,I]

Well you brought that up.

However, the WV you you were giving involved a tri-omni god, and under any reasonable interpretation of that, Wiploc had you cold, IMV.

David B


I repeat: If there are any objections besides your vacuous declarations, then I'd be happy to deal with them.There has a been a consistent and clear objection made that you have not dealt with. I.e., omnipotence is an absolute. There cannot be two "All-Powerful" beings. There could be two super-duper beings, with supernatural powers. But not two "All-Powerful" beings, they cannot both be omnipotent.

His other major flaw is that he relies of both these being being arbitrarily defined as "necessary".

Logically, the existence of any "necessary" being always leads to paradox, therefore it is not possible for any being to actually be "necessary".

Speaking only for myself, the contradiction between religionist's description of God as an omnipotent sentient being and the reality that I see around me everyday is proof that they just made their religion up. It is fiction.

Wait - I'm confused. Back at IIDB, I always thought you were a liberal Christian. Did you de-convert, or am I just going senile?

[Febble]

Well you brought that up.

However, the WV you you were giving involved a tri-omni god, and under any reasonable interpretation of that, Wiploc had you cold, IMV.

David B


I repeat: If there are any objections besides your vacuous declarations, then I'd be happy to deal with them.There has a been a consistent and clear objection made that you have not dealt with. I.e., omnipotence is an absolute. There cannot be two "All-Powerful" beings. There could be two super-duper beings, with supernatural powers. But not two "All-Powerful" beings, they cannot both be omnipotent.

I realize that you didn't invent this "solution" to the PoE. I remember the first time I heard of it. It was in Rabbi Kuchman's book, "When Bad Things Happen to Good People". It was getting rave reviews from christians, so I read it. I was absolutely appalled. A die-hard religionist was explaining that the reason people's babies died and the Holocaust happened wasn't that God didn't love everybody. It was just that He wasn't really All that Powerful, on a day to day basis. And you here are making the same lame argument. You are arguing that God is not the All-Powerful Creator deserving of worship. God isn't even 50% of the power in the universe. Satan is just as powerful, and we humans have some of the power, too. In the WV you describe God is like a partisan politician. Depending on how humans are feeling or what they are thinking, God could be Barack Obama or John McCain, G W Bush or Al Gore. God is not an All-Powerful Being, He is just another person with an opinion.

The reason that the local skeptics are laughing at you is because we know what religionists have been teaching for centuries, and it isn't your WV. The contradiction between what has been taught(that God is All-Powerful, not some wienie trying desperately to avoid losing the Eternal battle with Satan) and what you are arguing is night and day. You might not see the contradiction in your WV, but we do. You might think that sticking to the traditional definition of "omnipotent" is begging the question, but we don't.

Speaking only for myself, the contradiction between religionist's description of God as an omnipotent sentient being and the reality that I see around me everyday is proof that they just made their religion up. It is fiction. They cannot describe their image of God and also reality without contradicting themselves. You just tried to "solve" the Problem of Evil by jettisonning a fundamental premise of religionists, that God is The Supreme Being. I think you only helped to prove that it is not possible to believe in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic image of God while also having a rational view of reality. Thanks for trying, but I really didn't need your help.
Tom

Rabbi Kushner, not Kuchman.

I like Kushner. He's honest.

[Febble]

Never mind the Omnipotence issue (which I don't have a problem with, actually), feel the Omniscience issue. That's where the question is truly begged, IMO, because before you can even start to tackle it, you have to address what it means to know. And trying to define knowledge in terms of a bodiless being ties you up in knots.

[TransverseWave]

Logically, the existence of any "necessary" being always leads to paradox, therefore it is not possible for any being to actually be "necessary".
How does that work?

[wiploc]

Logically, the existence of any "necessary" being always leads to paradox, therefore it is not possible for any being to actually be "necessary".
How does that work?

I'm curious too.

[Columbus]

Wait - I'm confused. Back at IIDB, I always thought you were a liberal Christian. Did you de-convert, or am I just going senile? Sorry to be confusing, you might well have thought this. It's not that I have changed so much as none of the labels ever really matched my beliefs all that well. I believe that religions are fiction, and also that if you sort out the cultural baggage from the Message attributed to Jesus it is superb. Modern christians would do well to study some of Jesus' meta-Messages, like "ancient world views aren't all there is to morality". I am both a liberal christian and also a conservative atheist, it depends on the context. :dunno:
Tom

[Columbus]

Rabbi Kushner, not Kuchman.

I like Kushner. He's honest.You are absolutely correct, my bad. I haven't even seen my copy in years, and after I wrote that I suspected I was wrong, but was too lazy/tired to google the correct name.
I wish more religionists had noticed that Kushner had redefined God in a fundamental way in order to suit modern secular morality. Not surprisingly, nobody noticed this even when I pointed it out. The typical response was something like, " If you prayed, you'd understand."
Tom

[umop apisdn w,I]

Logically, the existence of any "necessary" being always leads to paradox, therefore it is not possible for any being to actually be "necessary".
How does that work?


Logically, the existence of any "necessary" being always leads to paradox, therefore it is not possible for any being to actually be "necessary".
How does that work?

I'm curious too.

I came up with the core of this back at IIDB while debating Brian Bosse, and then after the debate Jade helped to develop it...

1) A Necessary entity is an entity that must exist in all possible worlds.

2) This entity will have a number of properties.

3) Some of these properties - let's call them Essential properties - are the properties which make the entity Necessary in the first place. When Christians talk about God as being necessary, they usually refer to the Essential properties of being uncaused and omnipotent and so on. The exact properties don't matter for this argument. All that matters is that the entity posesses them.

4) Other properties of the entity - let's call them Incidental properties - are the properties which don't make a difference to whether or not the entity is Necessary. To use the Christian God as an example, his name is an incidental property. Most Christians would agree that if God's name were different, it wouldn't make him any less (or any more) necessary. Or the property being a Triune being rather than a Quadrune being, or the property of having a son that took mortal form rather than a daughter that took mortal form. These are all properties of the Christian God, but none of them make that God necessary. A God who sent its daughter down to earth as a saviour is just as logically valid and as logically necessary as a God who sent its son down to earth.

5) Therefore, for any postulated Necessary Entity X, we can postulate another Necessary Entity Y - which differs from Entity X only in incidental properties. Because the Essential properties of Entity Y are identical to those of Entity X, Entity Y will be just as necessary as entity X. Either they will both necessarily exist or neither will necessarily exist (or they will both necessarily not exist).

6) In fact, for any defined Necessary Entity X, we can postulate an infinite number of Necessary Entities X1 to XN, all of which have identical Essential properties but different Incidental properties.

7) Therefore if any Necessary Entity exists, an infinite number of Necessary Entities must exist, and since a Necessary Entity - by definition - exists in all possible worlds, if such a thing as a Necessary Entity is indeed possible then all possible worlds must contain an infinite number of Necessary Entities. This is clearly ludicrous.

8) It goes from merely ludicrous to genuinely paradoxical if any of these entities are given any kind of mutually exclusive property. For example, the God of the Christians has - assuming the Christians are correct - the property of being a monotheistic God. Part of his definition is that he is the only one that exists. If this monotheistic trait is an Essential property, then there are an infinite number of other monotheistic Gods (differing from the Christian one only in Incidental properties) all of which are the only God that exists. This is clearly a paradox. Similary, if being the only god that exists is merely an Incidental property, then there are an infinite number of other gods that share that incidental property with the Christian God but differ in other properties. Again, an infinite number of monotheistic gods each of which is the only one is paradoxical.

9) Therefore, since if any Necessary Entity exists an infinite number of similar ones must exist and that is paradoxical, it is clearly not possible for any Necessary Entity to exist.

It's been a while since I've gone through this in detail, so I may not have explained it as clearly as I might have done...

When we argued this back at IIDB, the only defence Brian could come up with was an "intuition" that every single property of the Christian God must be Essential, and therefore he could be the only Necessary Entity in existence. Apart from the fact that he was unable to defend that intuition - we were able to come up with lots of mundane properties ascribed to the Christian God and he couldn't give any reason why those properties might be in any way Essential to the Christian God's necessity - he was also unable to argue against the principle that even if every property of the Christian God were Essential, we can still postulate another entity which is identical to the Christian God but possesses extra Incidental properties.

[wiploc]

Nice, thanks.

[TransverseWave]

Huh. Interesting.

When I first came across the concept of necessary beings, it bothered me because it had the same sort of ring as Anselm's ontological proof: something you can do with language that doesn't necessarily map to anything in the world. I didn't get any farther with it than that, though.

[umop apisdn w,I]

Huh. Interesting.

When I first came across the concept of necessary beings, it bothered me because it had the same sort of ring as Anselm's ontological proof: something you can do with language that doesn't necessarily map to anything in the world. I didn't get any farther with it than that, though.

You're right. "Necessary Entities" are really just wordplay - another way of defining God into existence.

By getting you to accept the basic premise - that God is defined as a Necessary Entity - the apologist has already snuck in his conclusion. He's tricked you into accepting that God must exist, and whatever logical games he then plays with the "necessary" God to "prove" that it actually exists is just a smokescreen. The idea is that you focus your attention on the logic (which is normally convoluted but valid) and frustrate yourself when you can't find flaws in it and have to accept the conclusion. What you should be doing is refusing to accept the premise in the first place.

[Jet Black]

err, is SMS really attempting to say that God and Satan are of equal strength?
Separate but equal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson)..

That might be an American only reference so I offered a link.

hehe.

the idea of two omnipotent beings is about as logically sound as an irresistable force meeting an immovable object. Both would have the power to destroy everything, and both would have the power to resist being destroyed. if they didn't, then it is possible to imagine a being that has all their abilities plus the ability to destroy everything and resist being destroyed, and that would be closer to omnipotence than them.

[FreezBee]

Having just read the debate, I must admit that I am somewhat confused, so I am seeking some deconfusement :)

Wiploc writes:

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?

Why should "omnipotent" mean "of unlimited power, and stronger than anything else"?

An omnibus is a bus for all (link (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omnibus)); that is a bus for all that exist. No omnibus needs to accept Martians as passengers, because there are no Martians.

The same with 'omnipotent'. A potency must be possible in order to enter the equation.

If it is not possible to be stronger than satan, then being stronger than Satan is not a potency, and therefore God can be omnipotent without being stronger than satan.

The same with omnibenevolence and omniscience.

For God to be omnibenevolent, God only needs to will the goods, that are possible to will (and it may not be possible to not will evil), and to be omniscient, God only need to know, what is possible to know (and it may not be possible to know, how to beat Satan).

An omni-3D god of this world needs only be omni-3D in this world, not in every possible world.

If it isn't possible to be omni-3D in every possible world, then it isn't a requirement for God to be omni-3D in every possible world. Or, if you prefer, if there isn't a possible world, in which there is a god who is omni-3D in every possible world, then there necessarily is no god who is omni-3D in every possible world.

Isn't modal logic just cool?

Just my random musings - please ignore.


- FreezBee

[SophistiCat]

So, omnipotence is being able to do just those things that you can do. Can you name me one creature that is not omnipotent in that sense?

[FreezBee]

So, omnipotence is being able to do just those things that you can do. Can you name me one creature that is not omnipotent in that sense?

Assuming 'you' to be me ...

No, omnipotence doesn't mean "being able to do just those things that you can do", it means that if X can be done (in this world), you can do X.


- FreezBee

[SophistiCat]

No, omnipotence doesn't mean "being able to do just those things that you can do", it means that if X can be done (in this world), you can do X.

I fail to see the difference - unless you qualify "can be done." Can be done by whom/what?

[FreezBee]

No, omnipotence doesn't mean "being able to do just those things that you can do", it means that if X can be done (in this world), you can do X.

I fail to see the difference - unless you qualify "can be done." Can be done by whom/what?

Ok, imagine that that time is discrete, and let a tick be the smallest unit of time. At each tich the world enter a new state. That state is selcted amon the possible new states for the world. God can choose any of those possible new states.

Does that help?


- FreezBee

[wiploc]

Why should "omnipotent" mean "of unlimited power, and stronger than anything else"?

An omnibus is a bus for all (link (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omnibus)); that is a bus for all that exist. No omnibus needs to accept Martians as passengers, because there are no Martians.

Why should "inflamable" mean flamable? Why shouldn't "free love" refer to refusing to pay a prostitute?

The question isn't what "omnipotent" could mean if it were used differently. The question is, how is it used in the PoE?

crc

[FreezBee]

The question isn't what "omnipotent" could mean if it were used differently. The question is, how is it used in the PoE?

Exactly! For two people to discuss a subject, they need to make sure they are actually discussing the same subject.

- FreezBee

[SophistiCat]

No, omnipotence doesn't mean "being able to do just those things that you can do", it means that if X can be done (in this world), you can do X.

I fail to see the difference - unless you qualify "can be done." Can be done by whom/what?

Ok, imagine that that time is discrete, and let a tick be the smallest unit of time. At each tich the world enter a new state. That state is selcted amon the possible new states for the world. God can choose any of those possible new states.

Does this mean that there is a set of rules that constrain God's actions? I don't mean the rules of logic - violation of logical rules is an absurdity in itself. I am mean a set of contingent rules, such as the laws of nature. If God is constrained by contingent rules, that doesn't sound like omnipotence to me.

Also, wouldn't that mean that God is the only entity endowed with libertarian free will? At any rate, there could not be another such being, such as the Devil.

[FreezBee]

Does this mean that there is a set of rules that constrain God's actions? I don't mean the rules of logic - violation of logical rules is an absurdity in itself. I am mean a set of contingent rules, such as the laws of nature. If God is constrained by contingent rules, that doesn't sound like omnipotence to me.

God is as omnipotent as he can be. Maybe there are some constraints, maybe there aren't. How am I to know?

Also, wouldn't that mean that God is the only entity endowed with libertarian free will? At any rate, there could not be another such being, such as the Devil.

There can be only one.


- FreezBee

[SophistiCat]

Does this mean that there is a set of rules that constrain God's actions? I don't mean the rules of logic - violation of logical rules is an absurdity in itself. I am mean a set of contingent rules, such as the laws of nature. If God is constrained by contingent rules, that doesn't sound like omnipotence to me.

God is as omnipotent as he can be. Maybe there are some constraints, maybe there aren't. How am I to know?

I don't think that you can be somewhat omnipotent, any more than you can be somewhat pregnant. The omni- prefix normally implies that there are no degrees of accomplishment. You are either omni- or you are not.

[FreezBee]

I don't think that you can be somewhat omnipotent, any more than you can be somewhat pregnant. The omni- prefix normally implies that there are no degrees of accomplishment. You are either omni- or you are not.

Not necessarily. What is the 'omni'?

Say I owned all cars on this planet. Someone might come up and say that I don't own an invisible, pink car. But that's not a contradiction, because there are no invisble pink cars. To be the omnicarowner, you only need to own cars that actually exist, not cars that do not exist.

If God is omnipotnt, he only need to have the potencies that actually exist, not.


- FreezBee

[AdamWho]

My thoughts: Wiploc's argument is an abject failure but it takes refuge within the ignorance of those aboard this thread. I might as well have my performance graded by 3rd graders.

I passed his argument around to a few philosophy grad students, and it was ridiculed. I'm not surprised. Had I have been his TA (I may be one next year), he'd be lucky if he got a bare pass for his effort. Wiploc's argument is ridden with question begging and blatant misconstructions of my argument. Yet, no one calls him on it. No one calls wiploc on his complete ignorance as to why small fries are necessarily and essentially not supersized fries. Or how he can miscontruct my argument to equate God's power to the "next guy" or that I "want you to know" that the PoE does not operate on a weak God.Or that he cannot assume, in advance, that possessing omnipotence means being stronger than all possibly co-existing beings.

Some user by the name of nialler implied that TR's philosophy forum has some individuals that are my intellectual overlords. I'd like to invite them out to criticize my argument or explain to me how wiploc's (later) replies do not constitute question begging.

I don't know which debate you were engaged in but I have read dozens of similar debates and it was pretty clear that you didn't actually understand the topic. In your defense the POE is pretty sound and hard to argue against.

Not that you would take a strangers advice, but you might take this as a learning opportunity.

[Febble]

I don't think that you can be somewhat omnipotent, any more than you can be somewhat pregnant. The omni- prefix normally implies that there are no degrees of accomplishment. You are either omni- or you are not.

Not necessarily. What is the 'omni'?

Say I owned all cars on this planet. Someone might come up and say that I don't own an invisible, pink car. But that's not a contradiction, because there are no invisble pink cars. To be the omnicarowner, you only need to own cars that actually exist, not cars that do not exist.

If God is omnipotnt, he only need to have the potencies that actually exist, not.


- FreezBee

Fair enough. But in that case, an omnipotent God has to have at least all potencies that any other god has, and those to the max, so an omnipotent God has to be the only omnipotent God.

[SophistiCat]

God is as omnipotent as he can be. Maybe there are some constraints, maybe there aren't. How am I to know?

You wrote: "An omni-3D god of this world needs only be omni-3D in this world, not in every possible world." If there are other possible worlds, that means that something about this world is contingent (not necessary, arbitrary). If God is limited to exercising his will in this world, that means that he is bound by arbitrary rules. And those rules were not chosen by him - otherwise, he could have chosen differently, and the POE would still be in force.

If that's a solution to the POE, the cure seems worse than the disease!

[FreezBee]

Fair enough. But in that case, an omnipotent God has to have at least all potencies that any other god has, and those to the max, so an omnipotent God has to be the only omnipotent God.

Of course -- but again, notice it is only in this world.

I could be the omnicarowner in my hometown, and you could be the omnicarowner in your home town.


- FreezBee

[FreezBee]

God is as omnipotent as he can be. Maybe there are some constraints, maybe there aren't. How am I to know?

You wrote: "An omni-3D god of this world needs only be omni-3D in this world, not in every possible world." If there are other possible worlds, that means that something about this world is contingent (not necessary, arbitrary). If God is limited to exercising his will in this world, that means that he is bound by arbitrary rules. And those rules were not chosen by him - otherwise, he could have chosen differently, and the POE would still be in force.

If that's a solution to the POE, the cure seems worse than the disease!

Well, and what is the problem with that? It still means that a god could be Omni-3D and still have to deal with evil.

As for the rules being arbitrary, that is not a given. Assuming there to be a god of this world, that god might have chosen those rules. He might have chosen there to be evil to allow a choice. Why would a god do that? Well, if a god is bound by human ideas about an ideal god, that god is certainly not absolutely Omni-3D anyway,


- FreezBee

[SophistiCat]

You wrote: "An omni-3D god of this world needs only be omni-3D in this world, not in every possible world." If there are other possible worlds, that means that something about this world is contingent (not necessary, arbitrary). If God is limited to exercising his will in this world, that means that he is bound by arbitrary rules. And those rules were not chosen by him - otherwise, he could have chosen differently, and the POE would still be in force.

If that's a solution to the POE, the cure seems worse than the disease!

Well, and what is the problem with that? It still means that a god could be Omni-3D and still have to deal with evil.

Nothing, if you are willing to do whatever it takes to make your theology non-contradictory - even if it means abandoning traditional notions about God.

The problem for the more traditional Christians seems to be that God is not the author of all, as is usually claimed. He is not the author of the rules that constrain him. (Again, to preempt possible misunderstanding, I am not talking about the necessary rules of logic. I am talking about that which distinguishes the actual world from other possible worlds.)

As for the rules being arbitrary, that is not a given. Assuming there to be a god of this world, that god might have chosen those rules. He might have chosen there to be evil to allow a choice. Why would a god do that? Well, if a god is bound by human ideas about an ideal god, that god is certainly not absolutely Omni-3D anyway,

That's a different line of defense - and it's usually the last line. You might not want to retreat so far back just yet ;) This plea for ignorance of God's motives is a desperate defense because it undermines all those theological proofs (all of them, I think) that rely on claiming some knowledge of God's motives.

[FreezBee]

Nothing, if you are willing to do whatever it takes to make your theology non-contradictory - even if it means abandoning traditional notions about God.

Oh? It isn't my theology.

The problem for the more traditional Christians seems to be that God is not the author of all, as is usually claimed. He is not the author of the rules that constrain him. (Again, to preempt possible misunderstanding, I am not talking about the necessary rules of logic. I am talking about that which distinguishes the actual world from other possible worlds.)

Why are the rules of logic necessary?

]
That's a different line of defense - and it's usually the last line. You might not want to retreat so far back just yet ;) This plea for ignorance of God's motives is a desperate defense because it undermines all those theological proofs (all of them, I think) that rely on claiming some knowledge of God's motives.

Such aswhich proofs? Don't they rely on that humans were created in the image of God and therefore with the same qualities as he, though to a minor degree?

This proofs rely on particular inrterpretations of the Bible, interpretations made by fallible humans. Isn't that sad?


- FreezBee

[SophistiCat]

Nothing, if you are willing to do whatever it takes to make your theology non-contradictory - even if it means abandoning traditional notions about God.

Oh? It isn't my theology.[q/uote]

I know. It was a third-person your, if there is such a thing :)

Why are the rules of logic necessary?

They are logically necessary by definition, and I believe they are necessary in other senses as well, because logic provides the structure for our reasoning. It is a necessary prerequisite for a discussion. Therefore, offering the possibility of violations of logic is literally nonsense.

[QUOTE=SophistiCat]]
That's a different line of defense - and it's usually the last line. You might not want to retreat so far back just yet ;) This plea for ignorance of God's motives is a desperate defense because it undermines all those theological proofs (all of them, I think) that rely on claiming some knowledge of God's motives.

Such aswhich proofs? Don't they rely on that humans were created in the image of God and therefore with the same qualities as he, though to a minor degree?

Yes, exactly. Because God is conceived more-or-less anthropomorphically by practically everyone, theological proofs rely on extrapolating from human nature onto God's nature. The theist has to be able to make some a priori statements about God's nature. If she can't say that God would likely do this and not that, how can she offer anything up as evidence for God? I don't agree that even this anthropomorphic conception of God is truly a priori, but when the theist humbly appeals to ignorance of God's nature, he pulls even that rug from under his feet.

[wiploc]

Why are the rules of logic necessary?

Logic is not necessary in the modal many-worlds sense.

But logic is necessary to having a logical discussion. If god can violate logic, then logic is not reliable. So, if you want to reach a logical conclusion about whether god exists, you have to assume that god cannot violate logic.

[wiploc]

Did I say that? Okay, logic probably is necessary in the modal many-worlds sense. That's because the worlds are divided into possible and impossible worlds---and the possible worlds are those that are logically possible. And here's the definition of "necessary": If something exists in every logically possible world, then it is "necessary."

Logic itself, then, is going to meet that definition. So logic is modally necessary.

[David B]

Did I say that? Okay, logic probably is necessary in the modal many-worlds sense. That's because the worlds are divided into possible and impossible worlds---and the possible worlds are those that are logically possible. And here's the definition of "necessary": If something exists in every logically possible world, then it is "necessary."

Logic itself, then, is going to meet that definition. So logic is modally necessary.

Modally?

Especially in this context?

David B (has had, on the back burner, for some time, the idea of starting a thread concerning whether simple arithmetic has to work in any universe)

[wiploc]

Modally?

Especially in this context?

.
Not sure what you're asking. I thought I was clear, but I entertain the possibility that I'm in way over my head.




David B (has had, on the back burner, for some time, the idea of starting a thread concerning whether simple arithmetic has to work in any universe).
At most, it would have to work in possible universes. Nothing has to work in all universes. (Unless, again, I'm confused without knowing it, which I admit is possible.)

[FreezBee]

Did I say that? Okay, logic probably is necessary in the modal many-worlds sense. That's because the worlds are divided into possible and impossible worlds---and the possible worlds are those that are logically possible. And here's the definition of "necessary": If something exists in every logically possible world, then it is "necessary."

Logic itself, then, is going to meet that definition. So logic is modally necessary.

Well, not quite that simple. That only goes for certain possible worlds. But let us be more concrete.

We have the following theory:

1) omniscient (God)

2) omnibenevolent (God)

3) omnipotent (God)

4) evil (Satan)

5) \neg evil (God)

In any possible world for the above, Satan and God will exist, and they will be two different entities.

Now, we need to add some sentences to the above theory in order to define what is meant by that omni-3d-ness of God.

What would you propose?


ETA: I will presume that we are supposed to end up with the following conclusion:

(\exists x : omniscient (x) \wedge omnipotent (x) \wedge omnibenevolent (x)) \Rightarrow (\neg \exists x : evil (x))


- FreezBee

[wiploc]

(\exists x : omniscient (x) \wedge omnipotent (x) \wedge omnibenevolent (x)) \Rightarrow (\neg \exists x : evil (x))

I can't read this.

[FreezBee]

(\exists x : omniscient (x) \wedge omnipotent (x) \wedge omnibenevolent (x)) \Rightarrow (\neg \exists x : evil (x))

I can't read this.

Well, it says that if there is someone that is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, there can be no evil. Is that not your claim?

- FreezBee

[wiploc]

(\exists x : omniscient (x) \wedge omnipotent (x) \wedge omnibenevolent (x)) \Rightarrow (\neg \exists x : evil (x))

I can't read this.

Well, it says that if there is someone that is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, there can be no evil. Is that not your claim?

- FreezBee


Right. So that is the sentence I propose.

[FreezBee]

I can't read this.

Well, it says that if there is someone that is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, there can be no evil. Is that not your claim?

- FreezBee


Right. So that is the sentence I propose.

No, no -- you need to deduce that sentence from the five premises.

That is you need to provide some definitionhs of omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and evil that will enable you to deduce the above.


- FreezBee

[wiploc]

Well, it says that if there is someone that is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, there can be no evil. Is that not your claim?

- FreezBee


Right. So that is the sentence I propose.

No, no -- you need to deduce that sentence from the five premises.

That is you need to provide some definitionhs of omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and evil that will enable you to deduce the above.


- FreezBee

Your premises say that the tri-omni god coexists with evil, and you want me to deduce from those premises that he cannot coexist with evil? Sure, I'll do that for you as soon as you deduce 17 from the premise 2+7.

[FreezBee]

Right. So that is the sentence I propose.

No, no -- you need to deduce that sentence from the five premises.

That is you need to provide some definitionhs of omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and evil that will enable you to deduce the above.


- FreezBee

Your premises say that the tri-omni god coexists with evil, and you want me to deduce from those premises that he cannot coexist with evil? Sure, I'll do that for you as soon as you deduce 17 from the premise 2+7.

How much do you know about logic?

If you can derive from those five premises that the tri-omni god cannot coexist with evil, then you have shown that there is no possible world, in which the tri-omni god coexists with evil.


- FreezBee

[WAR_ON_ERROR]

Hello all,

I just stumbled upon this tonight and I thought I would give my overview and thoughts.

The "New" Argument

If an all powerful evil deity co-exists with an all powerful good deity, then the good deity would be logically unable to eliminate all evil.

A New Inconsistency

I was like, "Hey, a new argument!" Five seconds later... In this case, evil could exist and an all powerful god could exist, and yet if we knew that evil existed, we are almost certainly within the unbreachable dominion of the evil deity. Both deities could create unbreachable fortress universes to do their own thing and there would be nothing either could do to stop each other. There's no reason they have to share and the good deity would certainly not share. Therefore, if evil exists in your proximity, you are by definition cut off from an almighty good deity and your religion is vacuous. That is an abysmal FAIL for any religious person hoping this is a possible exception.

Is Heaven Not Bad Enough to Be True?

SMS said: "It may be of interest to know that I'm working on a far more sophisticated solution to the logical problem of evil. I argue from a form of Platonic-like realism that that evil is a necessary co-instantiation of good. Accordingly, necessarily, if good exists in a possible world, then evil exists in that world,too. From this, I have two approaches: I can first argue for the consistency of the Christian doctrine through noting that God is necessary and essentially good. Thus, evil necessarily exists."

Yet another backfire of course is that God intends to create an all good world in the end. Does evil still have to exist for that to be all good? Heaven is going to suck.

Properly Basic Fries with That

SMS said: "No one calls wiploc on his complete ignorance as to why small fries are necessarily and essentially not supersized fries."

It's already ludicrous to suppose the modal traits of a person could conceivably be "necessary" and that is Wiploc's point. A small order of fries is as equally logically plastic as a small order of brains or an arbitrary reorientation of moral polarity. We have sociopaths after all who are not amenable to moral arguments as the general populace would be. SMS seems to think he snuck that in the door when we posited the the two omnipotent deities, but in reality we're only having one debate amongst a cluster of other related debates.

"umop apisdn w,I" agrees: "By getting you to accept the basic premise - that God is defined as a Necessary Entity - the apologist has already snuck in his conclusion."

Wiploc was right that SMS brought up an entirely different debate and the entire conversation could just as easily been derailed from the get go by calling attention to the fact that there's no reason to call two omnipotent superminds "necessary" or "essential." That was just assumed and could easily be challenged (and was challenged) by the example of the necessarily essential un-supersizable fries.

Don't Forget the Other Options

Naturally if we can suppose two almighty deities exist with different moral polarities, then there's no reason there can't be three almighty deities with an even greater variety of moral orientation. Why not a supremely utilitarian god? Or a supremely virtue ethics based god? A supreme moral relativist deity or even a supremely apathetic god and so on and so forth? Perhaps there could be a deity who is only interested in making chocolate castles. Morality is not even an essential metric. That's just a theism-ism in need of justification it can never have. If we are to accept any deities that just exist for no reason arbitrarily the way they are, there's no reason we can't suppose an infinite variety of other brands of deity. Obviously the polytheists thought this was a great idea since it explained the chaotic nature of the world around them. How could just one super being be responsible? Dur...

Inert Omnipotence?

Sophisticat put it thus: "So, omnipotence is being able to do just those things that you can do. Can you name me one creature that is not omnipotent in that sense?"

There are certainly non-amenable constraints for individuals and within that smaller radius we could call you "omnipotent." However, for the sake of the broadest definition of the term we would fit to God, another amenable part is you! Obviously a clarification is necessary in order for us to be talking about "omnipotence" in that relevant sense. We typically mean "logically possible" in terms of "not bound by any amenable constraints." Drawing circular squares and creating too big of rocks to pick up for an infinitely strong person are absolute impasses in any possible circumstances. Of course we have to admit we don't really know all that is possible or even if some of the things we think may be possible are actually possible and so the definition in reference to God is necessarily fuzzy at some point.

Summary of All the Debates in Play

There are several debates here. One is the efficacy of the standard argument from evil that says this world isn't compatible with the inference that a good all powerful deity is in charge. Another is the effect of the new hypothetical deity situation presented by an all powerful co-existent Satan. Another is the legitimacy of calling any deity necessarily essential to existence. Another is the architecture of morality along the same lines. Another would be whether good requires evil and how that affects the doctrine of heaven in Christian theology. And another would be on what a relevant definition of the word "omnipotent" would be. Both participants were debating at a level above at least two or three other debates they also disagreed on and hence met at an impasse.

SMS conceded that: "If so, then, omnipotence would be defined as having unlimited power and being stronger than any of being. I readily admit that my defense is problematic under this definition."

Wiploc conceded that: "I further agreed with him that, given the way he uses the word [omnipotence], 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."

Outro:

I imagine that proponents of the uber-Satan "option" might try to use it as a wedge of sorts. They might say something like this: "Since there is at least one possible exception to the argument from evil, there might be more we don't know about." This reduces the defense to an incredibly heterodox ad hoc invincible agnosticism and it is still up against a simpler argument to the better explanation in favor of naturalism.

[Jet Black]

yup. The two omnipotent beings thing seems to me like a glossed over "irresistible force meets an immovable object" situation.

[wiploc]

WAR_ON_Error, welcome to the boards. That's a great first post.

crc

[wiploc]

How much do you know about logic?

.
I know enough that I look like a genius if you stand me next to someone who knows twenty percent less.




If you can derive from those five premises that the tri-omni god cannot coexist with evil, then you have shown that there is no possible world, in which the tri-omni god coexists with evil.

From the first three premises, I can prove that evil doesn't exist. But if you add in the forth premise (which I read as saying that evil does exist) then it's just stupid. That's like trying to prove that circles don't have corners if one of the premises is that they do.

Or maybe all you're asking is for me to show that the premises are inconsistent with each other. They are, so I can do that. But if that's all you're asking, then I have to say that you've written that request in a nearly opaque manner.

[WAR_ON_ERROR]

WAR_ON_Error, welcome to the boards. That's a great first post.

Hello! :wave: Thank you so much. Although you are clearly biased. haha I followed your link from the secular web forums. Thanks also for an interesting debate even if the swords didn't quite clash.

Ben

[FreezBee]

From the first three premises, I can prove that evil doesn't exist. [/Qoute]

Ok, please do that.

[QUOTE=wiploc]But if you add in the forth premise (which I read as saying that evil does exist) then it's just stupid. That's like trying to prove that circles don't have corners if one of the premises is that they do. [/QOUTE]

The first four premises are necessary, since your point is that possible world exists that satisfies those four premises.

[QUOTE=wiploc]Or maybe all you're asking is for me to show that the premises are inconsistent with each other. They are, so I can do that. But if that's all you're asking, then I have to say that you've written that request in a nearly opaque manner.

If you were more familiar with logic, it would have been as clear as daylight.


- FreezBee

[wiploc]

[quote=wiploc;276383]
From the first three premises, I can prove that evil doesn't exist. [/Qoute]

Ok, please do that.

.
Will do.




[quote=wiploc]But if you add in the forth premise (which I read as saying that evil does exist) then it's just stupid. That's like trying to prove that circles don't have corners if one of the premises is that they do. [/QOUTE]

The first four premises are necessary, since your point is that possible world exists that satisfies those four premises.

.
No, my point is that there is no possible world which satisfies those four premises---which, if you were familiar with the PoE, would be as clear as daylight.

[FreezBee]

Will do.

I will be looking forward to that

No, my point is that there is no possible world which satisfies those four premises---which, if you were familiar with the PoE, would be as clear as daylight.

Ooops, the keyboard leprechaun had eaten a 'no' in front of 'possible world'.


- FreezBee

[wiploc]

Ok, please do that.



"Omnipotent," as used here, refers to punk-omnipotence rather than true-omnipotence. That is, god can do anything except violate logic.



"Omniscience" is Plantinga-style omniscience: god knows everything. He knows the future. He knows conterfactuals, what would have happened if.... He knew, at the time of creation, every choice that would ever be made in every possible and impossible world.



Omnibenevolence: Good and evil are opposites. Benevolence is wanting good, being against evil. Omni-benevolence is strongly, totally, infinitely, unconflictedly wanting good and opposing evil.

So, if god doesn't want to eliminate evil, he isn't omnibenevolent. And if he isn't able to eliminate evil, he isn't omnipotent. And if he both wants to eliminate evil and is able to eliminate evil, then there is no evil.

Conversely, if there is evil, then there is no omnipotent and omnibenevolent god.

Then we add in the omniscience stuff so that nobody can say, "But what if he was strong enough to eliminate evil, but was too stupid. What if god was, like, 'I had them cut off the ends of their dicks---and they're still not happy? What do these people want from me?'" Omniscience covers that.

So there we have it: If god were omipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then there would be no evil. If there is evil, then there is no tri-omni god.

[wiploc]

Ooops, the keyboard leprechaun had eaten a 'no' in front of 'possible world'.


Which would have been clear to me if I were more familiar with logic? :D Okay, I'm ready to lighten up if you are.

[wiploc]

Although you are clearly biased. haha

But I was right. And you recognized that I was right. Where is the bias in me recognizing that you were right to recognize my rightness? :D

[WAR_ON_ERROR]

Although you are clearly biased. haha

But I was right. And you recognized that I was right. Where is the bias in me recognizing that you were right to recognize my rightness? :D

Just teasin.

[FreezBee]

"Omnipotent," as used here, refers to punk-omnipotence rather than true-omnipotence. That is, god can do anything except violate logic.

What is *anything*?

"Omniscience" is Plantinga-style omniscience: god knows everything. He knows the future. He knows conterfactuals, what would have happened if.... He knew, at the time of creation, every choice that would ever be made in every possible and impossible world.

Again, too broad. Pleease be more specific. We need something that we can enter into a Prolog program.

Omnibenevolence: Good and evil are opposites. Benevolence is wanting good, being against evil. Omni-benevolence is strongly, totally, infinitely, unconflictedly wanting good and opposing evil.


Ok, that at least gives us

omnibenevolent (x) \Rightarrow \neg evil (x)

So, if god doesn't want to eliminate evil, he isn't omnibenevolent. And if he isn't able to eliminate evil, he isn't omnipotent. And if he both wants to eliminate evil and is able to eliminate evil, then there is no evil.

Let us see. What does 'eliminate evil' mean? After all, God could want to eliminate evil, but maybe he hasn't done it yet?

Conversely, if there is evil, then there is no omnipotent and omnibenevolent god.

Why?

Then we add in the omniscience stuff so that nobody can say, "But what if he was strong enough to eliminate evil, but was too stupid. What if god was, like, 'I had them cut off the ends of their dicks---and they're still not happy? What do these people want from me?'" Omniscience covers that.

:confused: How?

So there we have it: If god were omipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then there would be no evil. If there is evil, then there is no tri-omni god.

Sorry, but there are too many loose ends for that conclusion. Please be more specific in your definitions.

Thanks in advance.


- FreezBee

[WAR_ON_ERROR]

Let us see. What does 'eliminate evil' mean? After all, God could want to eliminate evil, but maybe he hasn't done it yet?

Yes, buddy Jesus sits up in heaven all day long with a big red "bring world peace immediately" button on his desk and just can't bring himself to push it. Us mere empathetic mortals are just too weak to do his job.

So not only did the Bible god unnecessarily allow evil in the first place (what's heaven going to be about?), and not only did he allow the sins of two people to taint billions more with unnecessarily poor starting conditions (given the expectations and failure rate), but he admits that his "great plan" entails the end result of most people burning in hell for all eternity (see Matthew 7:14). Is there something morally respectable here? Cuz I don't see it. What's the excuse Jesus makes in that one parable? "Oh I can't pull the evil weeds now because that might mess up the crop...I mean, it's not like I have magic powers or or just said earlier that all things are possible for me."(Matthew 13:24-29)

My full case is here:

http://weblog.xanga.com/WAR_ON_ERROR/605675010/god-evil-impotent-or-non-existent.html

The secular web has a great parable of its own on lame excuses for the problem of evil:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html

The bottom line is that a god who can bring himself to not care about the "little things" even though he has all the power in the world to do it, is not a god who can be trusted to care about the "big things."

Ben

[wiploc]

What is *anything*?

.
You chastise me for not knowing logic when you don't even know English? I don't see how you can think that's ambiguous. I feel like you're just trying to be difficult.




"Omniscience" is Plantinga-style omniscience: god knows everything. He knows the future. He knows conterfactuals, what would have happened if.... He knew, at the time of creation, every choice that would ever be made in every possible and impossible world.

Again, too broad. Pleease be more specific. We need something that we can enter into a Prolog program.

.
Don't know what Prolog is. Don't think what I said was ambiguous. If you're serious, you might give an example of something that you're not sure falls within the scope of "everything."






Ok, that at least gives us
omnibenevolent (x) \Rightarrow \neg evil (x)

Let us see. What does 'eliminate evil' mean? After all, God could want to eliminate evil, but maybe he hasn't done it yet?

.
A future-good god could eliminate evil in the future. A partly good god could eliminate evil in the future. An all-good god would eliminate evil at all times.




Why?

.
Because an all good god would want to eliminate evil; and all-powerful god would be able to eliminate evil; and an all good all-powerful god would want to and be able to---and therefore would---eliminate evil.

And I don't even suspect you're still confused about this. If you're in earnest, you need to articulate your questions better than a three-year-old would.




Then we add in the omniscience stuff so that nobody can say, "But what if he was strong enough to eliminate evil, but was too stupid. What if god was, like, 'I had them cut off the ends of their dicks---and they're still not happy? What do these people want from me?'" Omniscience covers that.

:confused: How?

.
I just said: An omnipotent god is strong enough to eliminate evil. An omnibenevolent god wants to eliminate evil. So the only thing that could prevent an omnipotent omnibenevolent god from eliminating evil is if he's too stupid to figure out how to eliminate evil. But an omniscient god knows how to eliminate evil. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god would eliminate evil.




So there we have it: If god were omipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then there would be no evil. If there is evil, then there is no tri-omni god.

Sorry, but there are too many loose ends for that conclusion. Please be more specific in your definitions.

Thanks in advance.


- FreezBee

.
I think you're a troll.

[FreezBee]

Yes, buddy Jesus sits up in heaven all day long with a big red "bring world peace immediately" button on his desk and just can't bring himself to push it. Us mere empathetic mortals are just too weak to do his job.

Is a good teacher one, who does all your homework for you?

So not only did the Bible god unnecessarily allow evil in the first place (what's heaven going to be about?), and not only did he allow the sins of two people to taint billions more with unnecessarily poor starting conditions (given the expectations and failure rate), but he admits that his "great plan" entails the end result of most people burning in hell for all eternity (see Matthew 7:14).

But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

I don't see, how this supports your conclusion.


Is there something morally respectable here? Cuz I don't see it. What's the excuse Jesus makes in that one parable? "Oh I can't pull the evil weeds now because that might mess up the crop...I mean, it's not like I have magic powers or or just said earlier that all things are possible for me."(Matthew 13:24-29)

24 Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27 "The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'

28" 'An enemy did this,' he replied.
"The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'

29 " 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them.

Umm, well, maybe the servants aren't omni-3D?


- FreezBee

[FreezBee]

What is *anything*?

.
You chastise me for not knowing logic when you don't even know English? I don't see how you can think that's ambiguous. I feel like you're just trying to be difficult.

But *anything* is somewhat difficult to relate to´. Can you specify, which actions are necessary in order to elimit evil?


Don't know what Prolog is.

It's a logic programming language. It figures in a thread in this forum -- Prolog and the Hard Problem (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=8639).

Don't think what I said was ambiguous. If you're serious, you might give an example of something that you're not sure falls within the scope of "everything."

You can't just know everything. You must know something.

A future-good god could eliminate evil in the future. A partly good god could eliminate evil in the future. An all-good god would eliminate evil at all times.

Why?

Because an all good god would want to eliminate evil; and all-powerful god would be able to eliminate evil; and an all good all-powerful god would want to and be able to---and therefore would---eliminate evil.

And I don't even suspect you're still confused about this. If you're in earnest, you need to articulate your questions better than a three-year-old would.

Three-year-olds can be surprisingly logical.

.
I just said: An omnipotent god is strong enough to eliminate evil. An omnibenevolent god wants to eliminate evil. So the only thing that could prevent an omnipotent omnibenevolent god from eliminating evil is if he's too stupid to figure out how to eliminate evil. But an omniscient god knows how to eliminate evil. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god would eliminate evil.

You are still talking in abstractions. We need something more concrete to make things logical. So how would an omni-3D god eliminate evil?

So there we have it: If god were omipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then there would be no evil. If there is evil, then there is no tri-omni god.

N, we don't have it, I'm afraid.

I think you're a troll.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)):

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[

If that is your definition of 'troll' as well, then I regret to inform you that I am not a troll, since my posts are on-topic.


- FreezBee

[WAR_ON_ERROR]

Is a good teacher one, who does all your homework for you?

You think that Biblically speaking, humans are going to bring world peace?

I don't see, how this supports your conclusion.

If "few" will be saved...then it logically follows that "most" will be damned. If a shepherd brings back 30 out of 100 sheep...do we give him an A for shepherding?

Umm, well, maybe the servants aren't omni-3D?

So...Jesus' parables are about the characters in the parables?

Ben

[wiploc]

FreezBee, you're going on my ignore list.

[FreezBee]

FreezBee, you're going on my ignore list.

Well, then somebody else must suggest to you that you take an introductory course in logic.

And thanks for the discussion.


- FreezBee

[FreezBee]

You think that Biblically speaking, humans are going to bring world peace?

No, I can't read the Bible that way

If "few" will be saved...then it logically follows that "most" will be damned. If a shepherd brings back 30 out of 100 sheep...do we give him an A for shepherding?

Is that, how you read Matthew 7:14?

Maybe the meaning is that they can't find the narrow gate on their own?

So...Jesus' parables are about the characters in the parables?

Well, a parable is an analogy, so who do you think those servants are?


- FreezBee

[Minnesota Joe]

I'm confused.

If I give you an argument that evil is not necessary if there is a tri-omni being, how is it a substantive response to assert that evil is necessary? It seems to me that a claim to even the possible necessity of any intelligent being (much less one with causal powers) or property needs an argument, not simple assertion, but aside from that there is another problem.

In particular, to say "God is necessary and evil is necessary" is to say that "God is compatible with evil". But, of course, what you are trying to establish is that "God is compatible with evil"! Your circular reasoning hasn't demonstrated that your solution is possible, just that you like saying the same thing twice.

I think a substantive response to wiploc would have been to defend something like this:

(P) It is not necessary that an omni-benevolent being would totally and without conflict, desire to eliminate evil.

That would show that wiploc's LPOE has a false premise and is therefore unsound. Of course, the conclusion might still be true, so at that point you could say, oh, and by the way, the conclusion of the LPOE is false. As a defense you could go on to demonstrate how it is possible for a person to be necessary, enter Satan, blah blah blah, it is possible that God's existence is compatible with the existence of evil and get a good night's sleep.

Sadly, none of this except the Manichean fairy tale was attempted. I have no idea how hard it would be, but it probably wouldn't be as easy as some think.

[WAR_ON_ERROR]

No, I can't read the Bible that way

Well then it seems to follow that ultimately the Bible god is going to "do our homework" anyway. What's the implausible hold up? If we can't do it ourselves, it's going to be magic in the end and then what was the point of the evil demo and the extraordinary cost of human damnation? Are we learning anti-evil skills we'll never use again for all eternity? Not a very good explanation and a less ad hoc one is readily available.

And as I said, even apart from the evils the Bible adds to the picture, a tri-omni god that can ignore the plight of even one incident of a little girl getting raped in the woods is a god that obviously doesn't have to care about anything. It's just always a better explanation no matter what scale you look at that the world is more about "whatever the hell happens to happen" than one that is properly tended by a loving ultimate caretaker. This caretaker wouldn't have to do "everything" as you initially jumped upon, but would at least have to do something intelligible and sufficient that would could all look upon and approve as good tempered human management skills. We expect parents to do pretty much everything in their power to make sure their kids have every opportunity to succeed and this is easily noticeable behavior even if we're talking about Sue Richards (the invisible woman, teeheehee). We'd certainly expect perfect parents to do so. Can we say the same about God as the spiritual parent of us all? Otherwise, if we take some other path, the words "good" and "care" and "ethical" and "moral" cease to have any application and are merely a spin on amoral events.

Is that, how you read Matthew 7:14? Maybe the meaning is that they can't find the narrow gate on their own?

That is an interesting interpretation I'd not considered. However the reason I'd not considered it is because in context it is implausible:

13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

That gate sounds like the end of the road to me on both counts. And there's here:

23Someone asked him, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?" He said to them, 24"Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, 'Sir, open the door for us.'
"But he will answer, 'I don't know you or where you come from.'

And that sounds like Jesus saying "tough shit."

Granted, perhaps someone could dig a little deeper into the nuances of the grammar and create a bit more ambiguity than appears in our English translations. I don't know. But the Bible has a serious precedent of solipsistic salvationism. There had to be thousands of people (if not millions, according to Creationists) before Noah's flood and God didn't seem to care about any more than the 8 measly people he saved there. Of the supposed 2 million Hebrew slaves who came out of Egypt only 2(!!!) individuals made it into the Promised Land (Joshua and Caleb). Throughout the prophets, there's a particular obsession with the "remnant" few of faithful Jews that Yahweh is interested in. It's not like Jesus would be turning a sharp corner and saying anything particularly out of character with the rest of the Bible. I'd give God an "F" for all of that stuff as well. And even today, many Christians seem to have no problem disowning most of their fellow Christian population as "fake Christians." They'll do it without a second thought and Christians like Obama will be easily demonized for having a broader (aka liberal) salvation perspective as though perhaps a Hindu can go to heaven as well. The standard of "us vs the evil world at large" is firmly entrenched in the Christian mindset, it seems. If the character Jesus is the literary mouthpiece of a first century Jewish anti-worldly cult, it's not very hard to imagine them having him say something that idiotic and bigoted. It would fit right in.

I guess if Christianity is true, we could always hope Jesus is lying and the verses amount to motivational reverse psychology. That would still be a shame for a number of reasons.

Well, a parable is an analogy, so who do you think those servants are?

Well who the servants are does not seem to be very important, but if I'm answering that question anyway, I'd assume they represent either God's angels or human evangelists. Maybe both. My point was that ultimately God created the angels and doesn't even need them or the evangelists. Why have a middle man when you can omni-task yourself? So, Jesus, speaking as the farmer in the parable, is calling erroneous attention to his "limitations" in one way or another. To me, this is a convenient red herring since the problem of evil has to be avoided, but it only makes sense from one direction. It is more likely that the argument from evil is valid and that theistically inclined people living in a non-theistic world are trying to rationalize a "good" God into the picture with disastrous results.

Ben

[wiploc]

I'm confused.

If I give you an argument that evil is not necessary if there is a tri-omni being, how is it a substantive response to assert that evil is necessary? It seems to me that a claim to even the possible necessity of any intelligent being (much less one with causal powers) or property needs an argument, not simple assertion, but aside from that there is another problem.

In particular, to say "God is necessary and evil is necessary" is to say that "God is compatible with evil". But, of course, what you are trying to establish is that "God is compatible with evil"! Your circular reasoning hasn't demonstrated that your solution is possible, just that you like saying the same thing twice.

I think a substantive response to wiploc would have been to defend something like this:

(P) It is not necessary that an omni-benevolent being would totally and without conflict, desire to eliminate evil.

That would show that wiploc's LPOE has a false premise and is therefore unsound. Of course, the conclusion might still be true, so at that point you could say, oh, and by the way, the conclusion of the LPOE is false. As a defense you could go on to demonstrate how it is possible for a person to be necessary, enter Satan, blah blah blah, it is possible that God's existence is compatible with the existence of evil and get a good night's sleep.

Sadly, none of this except the Manichean fairy tale was attempted. I have no idea how hard it would be, but it probably wouldn't be as easy as some think.

I agree. That would have been a substantive response. That would have given us material to discuss.

[Jet Black]

One possible problem with the argument of evil is this;

Lets say that God eliminates evil through a very simple method; eradicating all life. This achieves the simplistic goal of eliminating evil, but without maximizing good. Could it be that evil is a necessary component in order to maximize good? From the perspective of an extremely powerful, intelligent being, the route to maximum goodness may actually be extremely nontrivial, and involve aspects that are, to lesser beings, highly non-intuitive. I think (and I like sci fi) That the Culture in the Iain M Banks novels is a good example of this, in that they will manipulate societies into wars, or various strange things, in order to achieve goals that are quite contrary to some of the short term effects.

[umop apisdn w,I]

One possible problem with the argument of evil is this;

Lets say that God eliminates evil through a very simple method; eradicating all life. This achieves the simplistic goal of eliminating evil, but without maximizing good. Could it be that evil is a necessary component in order to maximize good? From the perspective of an extremely powerful, intelligent being, the route to maximum goodness may actually be extremely nontrivial, and involve aspects that are, to lesser beings, highly non-intuitive. I think (and I like sci fi) That the Culture in the Iain M Banks novels is a good example of this, in that they will manipulate societies into wars, or various strange things, in order to achieve goals that are quite contrary to some of the short term effects.

That assumes that allowing (or even doing) some evil may be justified because it is necessary for the greater good.

Which is all very well, and we limited humans could sympathise with such an approach. A simple example is heart surgery. The surgeon injures the patient and causes them a large amount of discomfort and suffering - but the suffering is considered to be justified because it is far outweighed by the benefit to the patient of having the surgery done. No-one complains about the fact that the surgeon has cut open the patient (although they would if the surgeon cut open the patient more than was necessary for the operation).

But the PoE isn't talking about limited humans. It is talking about an omnipotent God who can just "snap his fingers" and achieve the good outcome without the suffering. To use the surgery analogy, God could simply snap his fingers and heal the person's heart without the necessity of surgery and the associated pain and suffering.

Whatever goals the omnipotent God has, he can achieve them without any suffering being involved (because he's omnipotent). Therefore any suffering at all is - by definition - unnecessary.

One could argue that even for an omnipotent being some things are simply not logically possible, and there may logically have to be a minimum amount of suffering for the greater good. But that clearly does not describe our world, where there is clearly much suffering that could be eliminated without incurring any logical contradiction.

So the PoE isn't really saying that the presence of any suffering is incompatible with a tri-omni God. It's saying that the presence of more suffering than is logically necessary is incompatible.

And if someone wants to use "All the suffering in the world is logically necessary" as a defence, they will need to justify that, and explain how whatever examples of suffering we raise are somehow logically unavoidable.

[WAR_ON_ERROR]

One possible problem with the argument of evil is this;

Lets say that God eliminates evil through a very simple method; eradicating all life. This achieves the simplistic goal of eliminating evil, but without maximizing good. Could it be that evil is a necessary component in order to maximize good? From the perspective of an extremely powerful, intelligent being, the route to maximum goodness may actually be extremely nontrivial, and involve aspects that are, to lesser beings, highly non-intuitive. I think (and I like sci fi) That the Culture in the Iain M Banks novels is a good example of this, in that they will manipulate societies into wars, or various strange things, in order to achieve goals that are quite contrary to some of the short term effects.

Making a deity about some long term science experiment that produces as an end result something that has to do with what we would consider moral, does not make that deity's science moral as though the ends justify the means. It's not "counter-intuitive" it's still evil and we do not accept such justifications on a laundry list of other such "experiments" that might benefit humanity (like literally doing science experiments on humans, as an obvious example). The fact that one ridiculous extreme or another has to be invented only proves the point. The situation of the world as is, is not compatible with the classic tri-omni god.

The example from the book you use does not appear to qualify as the exploits of an all powerful being (who would have more options) and hence is not relevant to the discussion.

Ben

[wiploc]

Could it be that evil is a necessary component in order to maximize good?
.
No. Good question, but the answer is no. We're dealing with an omnipotent god. An omnipotent god can do anything that does not violate logic. A world with maximized good and with no evil is not a logical contradiction. Therefore, an omnipotent god could create such a world.

crc

[wiploc]

So the PoE isn't really saying that the presence of any suffering is incompatible with a tri-omni God. It's saying that the presence of more suffering than is logically necessary is incompatible.

.
No, that would be the EPoE. This thread is about the LPoE. Any suffering at all proves the non-existence of the tri-omni god.




Whatever goals the omnipotent God has, he can achieve them without any suffering being involved (because he's omnipotent). Therefore any suffering at all is - by definition - unnecessary.


There you go.

[umop apisdn w,I]

So the PoE isn't really saying that the presence of any suffering is incompatible with a tri-omni God. It's saying that the presence of more suffering than is logically necessary is incompatible.

.
No, that would be the EPoE. This thread is about the LPoE. Any suffering at all proves the non-existence of the tri-omni god.

I assumed that Jet Black was talking in more general terms about all forms of the PoE (or even PoS if you prefer that formulation), rather than strictly about the LPoE.

[Jet Black]

The example from the book you use does not appear to qualify as the exploits of an all powerful being (who would have more options) and hence is not relevant to the discussion.

Ben

yeah, that much is true in that they are not all powerful.... well... they effectively are but they choose to meddle in a certain sort of way for personal reasons.

[Jet Black]

Whatever goals the omnipotent God has, he can achieve them without any suffering being involved (because he's omnipotent). Therefore any suffering at all is - by definition - unnece