God of Love and the problem of Evil

[Marin]

There's evil and good in this world thanks to morals that are established. Us becoming more intelligent as beings and creating a civilization to move forward as a species we make it obvious that doing good equals progress altogether whereas evil obviously equals several steps back. I find it funny sometimes when people think evil and good are two things that are crafted for this planet and us by a Devine creator of all living things who's really written and the main character of a famous book (multiple books too) by a man, actually multiple men, yeah you know switch up the good ol word if we don't agree with it and create other religions and gods that'll indulge us (yep us, lol tiny teeny carbon insects on a little blue dot in space) instead of just realizing that good and evil is a product of morality system from being civilized and intelligent creatures based off amazing evolution throughout time and no irony intended but a blessing lol.

I don't think you know what this thread is about.

What is God.

^ This is our start.

What exactly does the question "what is God?" have to do with the argument from evil?

 

[Adam Driver]

I don't think you know what this thread is about.



What exactly does the question "what is God?" have to do with the argument from evil?

Honestly I didnt even read most of your post lmao, I skimmed through and read through other replies in the thread and I was seeing this talk about how God has evil in the world and I shared my post on that matter. Do you disagree with what I posted?

 

[HashiraMadara]

I don't think you know what this thread is about.



What exactly does the question "what is God?" have to do with the argument from evil?

This isn't your first theism thread I've avoided :| , The God one was the first. So it's only natural to pick up where I left off.

 

[Marin]

Honestly I didnt even read most of your post lmao, I skimmed through and read through other replies in the thread and I was seeing this talk about how God has evil in the world and I shared my post on that matter. Do you disagree with what I posted?

While I do disagree with everything you said, that's not the point. The topic here is the atheistic argument from evil.

This isn't your first theism thread I've avoided :| , The God one was the first. So it's only natural to pick up where I left off.

This thread is for discussing the evidential argument from evil and in extension it's related arguments such as the logical problem of evil. If you want to discuss off-topic things, PM me.

 

[nefraiko]

It is because humans have free will to act in themselves that there is evil in the world and therefore suffering, both human and natural, in all it's measure is the result of humanity's misuse of their freedom. This is what libertarian optimism is. In a summed version the counter to the argument from evil is as follows:

1) Humanity misuses free will
2) The misuse of free will prevents God from creating an ideal world
3) God has chosen the world with least possible amount of evil in it
4) Therefore, an all-loving God and evil can plausibly co-exist

The argument's first premise is based on libertarianism while the third premise is based on philosophical optimism. Second premise relies on the fact that it is impossible to make someone freely do something (for example you cannot make someone freely do good when they desire to do evil) thus rendering an ideal world impossible as well. Given these three premises it follows that God could in all his omnibenevolence create the best possible world even though this world holds a great amount of evil in it. While gratituous evil does exist, it is the smallest possible amount.

you have forgotten a very powerfull argument, and probably the one that makes more sense.

We are on earth to be tested
the human is tested by the other human, by nature, by his body, by fate, and by his free will. What is tested is the essence of the human, unknown to us, that thing that makes a human better that the other and earns him a place in paradise.
the test called : life on earth determines if you go to paradise or if you go to hell. or if you stay in between.
it determines if you get the minimum out of paradise, or have a VIP spot. it also determines if you get the least punishment possible in hell, or if you get a place near Lucifer.
it also determines if you stay forever in hell, or get out of it.

from this perspective, Evil, sickness, madness, Joy, well being, wealth, health, long life, short life, life and death are all tests for the human.

a long healthy joyfull life are a curse to the person who has made nothing out of it.
here is how it goes :
tester : you've been given 1K billions millions trillions dollars in 120 years. what have you made of it ?
human : I've spent it all on whores and investments in wars and in banks and interests. I spent only my money to make it grow.

tester : you've been given 120 years, healthy and wealthy, you have 200 sons that you didn't recognise, you didn't worship god even a single time in those 120 years.

a human sick and who didn't live long

lifespan : 30 years, schisophrenia, poor, killed in war
somehow in his life, in this terrible environnment, something that we don't understand made him a good person worshiping god, humbeled by his sickness.
he ends up in the true life, eternal in paradise.

God didn't create conscious creatures to end their lives with death (that would have been pointless and sadistic at the same time, god isn't stupid and isn't sadistic) conscious life is meant to be eternal. earth is nothing more than a test, the true life is after you know if you've passed or not.

the problem with you people is that you know about Judaism and Christianity but know very little about Islam.

In islam, every little micro tiny thing we do is recorded by 2 angels. there are 2 angels per person, with the unique task of recording every detail.

YET, nobody enters paradise by right, nobody is that perfect even the prophets. you nly enter paradise by the grace of god. no one has any right on god that he doesn't give and grant by his grace.

ps: for the god of love thing, just look at the amazing serie WESTWORLD, you'll understand how much god is loving and how much he is giving, and how much everyone should be gratefull that we were created by him

 

[Yata Mirror]

You're making a nice point here, thanks for that! This point, however, is not without it's problems. You seem to have an improper view of God's omniscience - knowing future contingents. You say that because God knows everything a person will do that person has been fated or destined to do this while the possibility of doing something else is merely an illusion.

But I think this view is confused. God may indeed know everything a person will do, but this won't cause the person to do this something rather than something else. Instead the fact that the person freely chooses to do this will cause God to know that they have done this something and not something else. Worded differently, you're saying that if God knows something, that something is caused to happen by God's knowledge of this. I would counter that God's knowledge is that which it is and not something else because we made Him know that which He knows and not something else.

The point I'm making is that God's knowledge is logically secondary to the world God knows. Just as how our knowledge of mathematics doesn't cause mathematics to be as it is, God's knowledge of our actions doesn't cause our actions to be as they are. We might as well have done something comepletely different and in that case, God's sum of knowledge would be different as well.

I beg to differ on this matter. You're not looking at God's knowledge from far back enough. The omniscience of God gives him knowledge irrespective of time. Meaning even before any being is created, God would know the outcomes of what the person would do. So if even before I'm created, what I would do is written down and not alterable, where lies my free will? Because I can't have free will even before I'm born. Do you get what I'm saying??

Here I think it is necessary to explain a bit more about how the evidential argument from evil works, since you seem to miss something. The argument is a probability argument which aims to show that it's premises (and thus the conclusion) are more likely to be true than not. This means that unless the probability of gratituous evil existing is higher than not, the argument wouldn't work.

Having said this, the sceptical theist need not eliminate the possibility that there is gratituous evil. Possibilities come cheap after all. What they need to do is simply show that we cannot say gratituous evil does really exist. Here the burden of proof is on the atheist to justify their premises. The skeptical theist is perfectly comfortable on not being able to prove the status of gratituous evil, for all that follows from this is that we cannot determine whether there is any or not - all bets are off.

The burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim, namely there is gratutious evil. The sceptical theist doesn't really aim to prove there to be no such evil, but merely claims that we're not in a good position to evaluate whether there is evil or not. (You don't prove scepticism.)

As I said earlier, the sceptical approach is hypocritical at best.
It pounces on the fact that the atheist can't prove evil to be gratuitous. I agree it's a probabilistic argument but how are you certain the probability of evil being gratuitous is lower than the opposite??
The sceptical theist is equally counted by the skeptical atheist who asks the theist the very same question they asked.
I mean both the theist and atheist have no prove whatsoever of the status of evil. So the claims of both parties are unsubstantiated and hold equal weight until one provides definite proof

You misunderstand the position. It doesn't claim that the Bible or Christianity are true. It doesn't claim any worldview to be true. Instead, what it says is that if something is an integral part of a worldview, the mere existence of that something doesn't pose any evidence against this worldview. To put it simply, evil would provide evidence against a sort of God alienated from evil. The christian God is very familiarly tied to evil, therefore evil is exactly what we would expect given there were such a God.

Whether there really is such a thing is left wholly untouched because the position doesn't rely on that. It's a simple manner of a worldview's integrity and what this worldview would imply. According to this position, the existence of God would not imply the non-existence of evil as this concept of God would tolerate evil. Therefore, the existence of evil says nothing against the probability of this God existing.

Okay. That explains it better. Now think about it this way, the existence of God and evil may well be established in the scripture and dogma of a religion. But that means nothing to anyone who doesn't regard the scripture.
What you say is like using the Harry Potter books to explain that Magic and Humans can coexist because well it's written there. Magic is an integral part of the Harry Potter books so could I say we as Humans and magic can coexist because I've read the HP books which say so?

Ah, but now you're moving to a different question. We're no longer talking about whether God's omniscience is compatible with human freedom, but whether God's omnibenevolence is compatible with God's act of creation upon those who will, in all circumstances, reject God and doom themselves to hell.

To answer this question though, we'd have to establish what God we're talking about? Say, I believe in God who decided to create the world with minimal guidance after the Fall had occured (here I am taking a heavily interpretive understanding of the Fall). Given such a God there would be no separate creation act for every individual. Given the Big Bang and evolution, God creates no single human, he creates them in a bulk!

Given humanity's freedom and the lack of control God has on the process of creation, there would always be people who would betray God. Following this line of reasoning, all God can do in his omnibenevolence is go for the most optimal bulk - one that containst the smallest amount of people who go to hell. (This has been touched upon in the Free Will Defense part of the OP .)

Going with the most optimal bulk as you say is largely a failure on the part of an omni-present-potent-scient God. Because that will be totally unfair to the rest of the people who have been doomed to hell.
There is no prove any one religion is right. Almost all religions preach faith. Imagine being born into religion A were you according to faith practice that religion and die someday only to realise you practiced a 'wrong' religion. Would that be your fault or God's??
God didn't give you any prove that your religion was wrong.
Even say you were searching for the correct religion, chances are you might die before you find the right one because there are several religions to check in( remember each demanding faith). In that case you earnestly searched but you never got to practise God's true religion, would you be at fault??
I think not
Now we've established that it's improbable for any one religion to be correct, let's see what guides our actions. Many people are guided by religions so what would constitute betrayal of God as used in your reply?? If there's no right path, how could you possible betray a God who gave you nothing to follow??

 

[Yata Mirror]

you have forgotten a very powerfull argument, and probably the one that makes more sense.

We are on earth to be tested
the human is tested by the other human, by nature, by his body, by fate, and by his free will. What is tested is the essence of the human, unknown to us, that thing that makes a human better that the other and earns him a place in paradise.
the test called : life on earth determines if you go to paradise or if you go to hell. or if you stay in between.
it determines if you get the minimum out of paradise, or have a VIP spot. it also determines if you get the least punishment possible in hell, or if you get a place near Lucifer.
it also determines if you stay forever in hell, or get out of it.

from this perspective, Evil, sickness, madness, Joy, well being, wealth, health, long life, short life, life and death are all tests for the human.

a long healthy joyfull life are a curse to the person who has made nothing out of it.
here is how it goes :
tester : you've been given 1K billions millions trillions dollars in 120 years. what have you made of it ?
human : I've spent it all on whores and investments in wars and in banks and interests. I spent only my money to make it grow.

tester : you've been given 120 years, healthy and wealthy, you have 200 sons that you didn't recognise, you didn't worship god even a single time in those 120 years.

a human sick and who didn't live long

lifespan : 30 years, schisophrenia, poor, killed in war
somehow in his life, in this terrible environnment, something that we don't understand made him a good person worshiping god, humbeled by his sickness.
he ends up in the true life, eternal in paradise.

God didn't create conscious creatures to end their lives with death (that would have been pointless and sadistic at the same time, god isn't stupid and isn't sadistic) conscious life is meant to be eternal. earth is nothing more than a test, the true life is after you know if you've passed or not.

the problem with you people is that you know about Judaism and Christianity but know very little about Islam.

In islam, every little micro tiny thing we do is recorded by 2 angels. there are 2 angels per person, with the unique task of recording every detail.

YET, nobody enters paradise by right, nobody is that perfect even the prophets. you nly enter paradise by the grace of god. no one has any right on god that he doesn't give and grant by his grace.

ps: for the god of love thing, just look at the amazing serie WESTWORLD, you'll understand how much god is loving and how much he is giving, and how much everyone should be gratefull that we were created by him

the problem is we know little about Islam??. Who are 'we' exactly?? I come from a Muslim family, I'm the only one who is non-Muslim.
Now lemme ask you a simple question.
What prove have you that we're here to be tested?? Do you have any prove besides resorting to the Qur'an??
How can you say God tested one person with money and tested another with poverty? Does that even sound fair to you??
You can't use the Qur'an as proof because of the same reason I can't use the Harry Potter books (even if I believe Dumbledore to be a prophet)

 

[Marin]

I beg to differ on this matter. You're not looking at God's knowledge from far back enough. The omniscience of God gives him knowledge irrespective of time. Meaning even before any being is created, God would know the outcomes of what the person would do. So if even before I'm created, what I would do is written down and not alterable, where lies my free will? Because I can't have free will even before I'm born. Do you get what I'm saying??

Even if God could know everything that will happen, you still haven't explained how this would mean that it was destined to happen.

I explained how knowledge of something doesn't cause that something, but that something shapes knowledge. So far I haven't got any response from you. All you said now was that God would know what you would do before you even existed, but this was merely a reiteration of your original statement. Unless you can explain how knowledge of something causes that something the Free Will Defense will work.

As I said earlier, the sceptical approach is hypocritical at best.
It pounces on the fact that the atheist can't prove evil to be gratuitous. I agree it's a probabilistic argument but how are you certain the probability of evil being gratuitous is lower than the opposite??
The sceptical theist is equally counted by the skeptical atheist who asks the theist the very same question they asked.
I mean both the theist and atheist have no prove whatsoever of the status of evil. So the claims of both parties are unsubstantiated and hold equal weight until one provides definite proof

And as I myself have said, the sceptical theist need not work with probabilities at all. It is the very point of sceptical theism that we're not in a good position to make such a judgement of probability. Whatever burden of proof there may be to this position, it would lay in proving that we're not in a good position to say this but merely pointing to our cognitive limitations will do the job.

The sceptical theist only cares about making the matter neutral, not proving there is no gratutious evil. (One cannot prove such a negative either way so why insist on it?)

Okay. That explains it better. Now think about it this way, the existence of God and evil may well be established in the scripture and dogma of a religion. But that means nothing to anyone who doesn't regard the scripture.
What you say is like using the Harry Potter books to explain that Magic and Humans can coexist because well it's written there. Magic is an integral part of the Harry Potter books so could I say we as Humans and magic can coexist because I've read the HP books which say so?

Again, as I said in my last post:

"It [the position] doesn't claim that the Bible or Christianity are true. It doesn't claim any worldview to be true. Instead, what it says is that if something is an integral part of a worldview, the mere existence of that something doesn't pose any evidence against this worldview."

Going with the most optimal bulk as you say is largely a failure on the part of an omni-present-potent-scient God. Because that will be totally unfair to the rest of the people who have been doomed to hell.

What exactly would be unfair? God would allowing people to reject him? How is allowing a person to do what they wish unfair? If anything, it would be unfair to not give everyone a chance.

Either way, the creation thesis I presented wouldn't be a matter of fairness in God's part because it was caused by the Fall of Man. I'm assuming you are aware on the interpretive approach I'm using here, do I need to explain it?

There is no prove any one religion is right. Almost all religions preach faith. Imagine being born into religion A were you according to faith practice that religion and die someday only to realise you practiced a 'wrong' religion. Would that be your fault or God's??
God didn't give you any prove that your religion was wrong.
Even say you were searching for the correct religion, chances are you might die before you find the right one because there are several religions to check in( remember each demanding faith). In that case you earnestly searched but you never got to practise God's true religion, would you be at fault??
I think not

Given the hypothetical scenario that there is a God of classical theism, it follows that God would make the world so that, in an overwhelming majority of cases, people are morally culpable. This isn't a God who leaves the world to chance. Through providence, God could easily ordain the world in a way that everyone is morally culpable. The inherent justice of God would ensure this.

Now we've established that it's improbable for any one religion to be correct, let's see what guides our actions. Many people are guided by religions so what would constitute betrayal of God as used in your reply?? If there's no right path, how could you possible betray a God who gave you nothing to follow??

You've hardly done the bold. The rest of these paragraph you will have to rephrase as I don't understand what you're saying here.

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

I never called religious people or you stupid, don't put words in my mouth like that lol.
You reading countless books no matter how old or new, they're all written by man so at the end of the day you're just going off faith and not actual fact or evidence. You can say what you researched is true but if there's no evidence that can be used today to prove what you're saying is true then it's just assumptions based on your faith and nothing more.

Yeah science books are also written by man as well but everything in it is either clarified as a theory or a truth that has been proven through multiple tests and always provides evidence unlike religions where all their text is stating apparent truths that have never been proven once, it's just all stories much like any other fictional literature.

This is moreso a discussion of the critique of God and evil from the atheistic view than a discussion on whether morality is a process of evolution or divine. You're discussing a different topic.

 

[Yata Mirror]

Even if God could know everything that will happen, you still haven't explained how this would mean that it was destined to happen.

I explained how knowledge of something doesn't cause that something, but that something shapes knowledge. So far I haven't got any response from you. All you said now was that God would know what you would do before you even existed, but this was merely a reiteration of your original statement. Unless you can explain how knowledge of something causes that something the Free Will Defense will work.

You don't seem to understand the point I'm making.
This is what I'm saying, if God even before creating me knows I'd go hell after he creates me, what's the wisdom in creating me?? You realise that'd go against the definition of God as omni-benevolent?
Moreover if God knows what I would do before creating me, it means he/she is creating me do those very things and that is what is called fate or destiny. And in a system of Fate/Destiny there is no free Will because all your actions will always lead to a certain fate or destiny.

And as I myself have said, the sceptical theist need not work with probabilities at all. It is the very point of sceptical theism that we're not in a good position to make such a judgement of probability. Whatever burden of proof there may be to this position, it would lay in proving that we're not in a good position to say this but merely pointing to our cognitive limitations will do the job.

The sceptical theist only cares about making the matter neutral, not proving there is no gratutious evil. (One cannot prove such a negative either way so why insist on it?)

So sceptical theist in accepting our limitations would also be proving that even the sceptical theist may turn out to be wrong since currently neither the theist nor the atheist has overcome the limitations leaving them both in ignorance.

In which case the sceptical theist cannot make a claim for which party is right? and thus adds no value to the argument in any way.

Again, as I said in my last post:

"It [the position] doesn't claim that the Bible or Christianity are true. It doesn't claim any worldview to be true. Instead, what it says is that if something is an integral part of a worldview, the mere existence of that something doesn't pose any evidence against this worldview."

So it posits that according to the Bible for example, evil is part of the Christian world and it's God so evil doesn't invalidate the said God's existence, is that right??
If yes, Humans are part of the Harry Potter World together with Magic, so could a case be made for the existence of Magic in this world just because there are humans in this world?? I don't think so.

What exactly would be unfair? God would allowing people to reject him? How is allowing a person to do what they wish unfair? If anything, it would be unfair to not give everyone a chance.

Either way, the creation thesis I presented wouldn't be a matter of fairness in God's part because it was caused by the Fall of Man. I'm assuming you are aware on the interpretive approach I'm using here, do I need to explain it?

First of All, the Fall of Man is a Christian Doctrine. Why would I or any non Christian accept an explanation based the fall of man when there's no concrete proof of the fall ever happening??
Allowing us to do what we wish isn't unfair, but punishing us for doing what we wish is unfair especially after you didn't tell us what and what not to do
Now it would be unfair for any God to save just the majority. And here is why: God didn't provide each human with a manual or rules for living. How then are we breaking any rules? May be we are but wouldn't it be unfair on God's part to not educate us on the rules he/she has established??

Given the hypothetical scenario that there is a God of classical theism, it follows that God would make the world so that, in an overwhelming majority of cases, people are morally culpable. This isn't a God who leaves the world to chance. Through providence, God could easily ordain the world in a way that everyone is morally culpable. The inherent justice of God would ensure this.

It is not about whether people are morally culpable or not. It's about there being no moral standard.
The point is there are numerous religions each claiming to be right with their own set of moral rules. Since God hasn't given a specific manual or hasn't certified any religion as the legitimate source of moral rules, God would have no right to judge any man.

You've hardly done the bold. The rest of these paragraph you will have to rephrase as I don't understand what you're saying here.

God hasn't certified any one religion.
The many religions even have contradictory views on several matters.
This would imply that, either only one religion is right or they're all wrong.
Only one being right is debunked by the fact that God hasn't made any claims to any one religion.
Meaning either they are all man made or God doesn't care enough to show us which one is right.
A benevolent God won't do the latter meaning the former is most likely to be true.
If the former is true, then there's no moral code for us and there'd be no wrong anywhere.

 

[Marin]

You don't seem to understand the point I'm making.
This is what I'm saying, if God even before creating me knows I'd go hell after he creates me, what's the wisdom in creating me?? You realise that'd go against the definition of God as omni-benevolent?
Moreover if God knows what I would do before creating me, it means he/she is creating me do those very things and that is what is called fate or destiny. And in a system of Fate/Destiny there is no free Will because all your actions will always lead to a certain fate or destiny.

Remember how in my first reply to you I said (refering to your fourth paragraph) that you're moving to a different question? Well, now you're doing it again. What we were discussing in this paragraph was the logical compatibility with libertarianism and omniscience. Not compatibility between omniscience and omnibenevolence, which is what we're discussing in the bottom parts of our posts.

Having said this, you still haven't demonstrated why would God's knowledge of my future actions make them determined? So far you've simply been reiterating that they will, but unless you give me an example of this logical incompatibility you're left with empty claims.

So sceptical theist in accepting our limitations would also be proving that even the sceptical theist may turn out to be wrong since currently neither the theist nor the atheist has overcome the limitations leaving them both in ignorance.

In which case the sceptical theist cannot make a claim for which party is right? and thus adds no value to the argument in any way.

It is useful to the discussion because this cognitive limit is exactly what the proponent of the argument from evil overlooks. By turning the attention to the fact that we're not in a good position to make this type of probability estimate (since it would require omniscience) the sceptical theist attempts to show that the second premise of the argument (as presented in the OP) is not justified.

The sceptical theist is making an obviously modest claim and as such bares little to no burden of proof.

So it posits that according to the Bible for example, evil is part of the Christian world and it's God so evil doesn't invalidate the said God's existence, is that right??
If yes, Humans are part of the Harry Potter World together with Magic, so could a case be made for the existence of Magic in this world just because there are humans in this world?? I don't think so.

Despite my adherence to the principle of charity so far, my patience is running low. You are for the third time ignoring a very clear statement. The Theological Probability position doesn't try to prove the existence of anything let alone the existence of God. All it says is that since evil is an expected component of a Christian worldview, the existence of evil doesn't serve as evidence against this worldview.

Emphasis here is on "against". I never said anything about it proving the worldview.

First of All, the Fall of Man is a Christian Doctrine. Why would I or any non Christian accept an explanation based the fall of man when there's no concrete proof of the fall ever happening??
Allowing us to do what we wish isn't unfair, but punishing us for doing what we wish is unfair especially after you didn't tell us what and what not to do
Now it would be unfair for any God to save just the majority. And here is why: God didn't provide each human with a manual or rules for living. How then are we breaking any rules? May be we are but wouldn't it be unfair on God's part to not educate us on the rules he/she has established??

It is not about whether people are morally culpable or not. It's about there being no moral standard.
The point is there are numerous religions each claiming to be right with their own set of moral rules. Since God hasn't given a specific manual or hasn't certified any religion as the legitimate source of moral rules, God would have no right to judge any man.

@bold: Because this explanation isn't necessarily a description of actual events but a broad logical possibility which presents a scenario in which both omniscience and omnibenevolence are logically compatible - a claim you denied by asserting that they are incompatible. All I'm giving is a logically possible scenario, it doesn't have to be probable or even true, but so long as it is possible, it shows that these two properties are not incompatible.

You're acting like the 2 are mutually exclusive (moral standards and culpability). Unless there is a moral standard people cannot be held morally responsible and unless there is moral responsibility it makes no sense to speak of moral standards. What you're talking about here is exactly the issue of moral culpability and as I said, God has providentially ordained events so as to make the vast majority morally culpable (the mentally ill people who cannot reason properly aren't held by those measures).

God hasn't certified any one religion.
The many religions even have contradictory views on several matters.
This would imply that, either only one religion is right or they're all wrong.
Only one being right is debunked by the fact that God hasn't made any claims to any one religion.
Meaning either they are all man made or God doesn't care enough to show us which one is right.
A benevolent God won't do the latter meaning the former is most likely to be true.
If the former is true, then there's no moral code for us and there'd be no wrong anywhere.

Support the bold.

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

now that's some evidence as you perceive them of your stupid and ignorant mind.



and him quoting me in his signature is also not making fun of and insulting me ?
he was just pretending to seriously debate and to respect each others opinions. but, running out of arguments, he reveiled himself stincking of ignorance.
I came here replying to the OP which is a good post, but I was wrong in debating with atheists, as they are generally this type, ignorant and dogmatic. There is no room for discussion with these people.

Ignore his condescension. Him displaying your beliefs shouldn't get to you, since you should hold them proud.

He's the one who failed to understand the point of the thread.

 

[Hyun ryu]

now that's some evidence as you perceive them of your stupid and ignorant mind.



and him quoting me in his signature is also not making fun of and insulting me ?
he was just pretending to seriously debate and to respect each others opinions. but, running out of arguments, he reveiled himself stincking of ignorance.
I came here replying to the OP which is a good post, but I was wrong in debating with atheists, as they are generally this type, ignorant and dogmatic. There is no room for discussion with these people.

he manifests the exact same behaviour of the stupid bully in the classroom, or the white racist that burned black people and called them ******s. he is just like these people.

Well, him using in his signature what you said about angels is just spreading a teaching of islam so the guy unknowingly and unintentionally contributes to raising attention towards islam. Leave him be.

 

[hypocritical]

Too much of a read..... Is rather go study for exams...

 

[Yata Mirror]

Remember how in my first reply to you I said (refering to your fourth paragraph) that you're moving to a different question? Well, now you're doing it again. What we were discussing in this paragraph was the logical compatibility with libertarianism and omniscience. Not compatibility between omniscience and omnibenevolence, which is what we're discussing in the bottom parts of our posts.

Having said this, you still haven't demonstrated why would God's knowledge of my future actions make them determined? So far you've simply been reiterating that they will, but unless you give me an example of this logical incompatibility you're left with empty claims.

Refer back to the my first reply and you'd notice I said the classical definition of God has him satisfying Omniscience, Omnipotence and Omnipresence. Nowhere did I mention there were the only conditions surrounding God. And so speaking of God, I could bring in any of the classical conditions as and when needed and that wouldn't be violating any rules in the argument.
Unless you'd want me to believe Omni-benevolence isn't an attribute of God.
I established that the Omniscience and Omni-benevolence of God is a contradiction to the Free Will you claim we have. Here's an example
Imagine an Engineer building a laptop from scratch. The Engineer knows just how exactly the Laptop is suppose to perform. So if after building it, the laptop is performing just what the engineer foresaw, would you say the laptop has a free will because I mean the Engineer's knowledge doesn't change Free Will right??
Forgetting about all the above, you're asking for proof of the absence of free will when you have no proof of its existence either.

It is useful to the discussion because this cognitive limit is exactly what the proponent of the argument from evil overlooks. By turning the attention to the fact that we're not in a good position to make this type of probability estimate (since it would require omniscience) the sceptical theist attempts to show that the second premise of the argument (as presented in the OP) is not justified.

The sceptical theist is making an obviously modest claim and as such bares little to no burden of proof.

This is your summary of the sceptical theist approach:
1) God is omniscient and all-loving
2) All evil serves a purpose
3) Due to human limitations we cannot know this purpose
4) Therefore, there is no gratituous evil

Let's take the one after the other
Assuming 1 is right.
2 may or may not be true
3 is true
4 is an incorrect conclusion.
Considering we have a limitation in how much we can know, how can you be certain there's a no gratuitous evil? Our lack of knowledge simply means we do not know the purpose of evil(if there is any), it doesn't mean for a fact that there's a purpose to all evil.
Your should look at your conclusions more closely.

Despite my adherence to the principle of charity so far, my patience is running low. You are for the third time ignoring a very clear statement. The Theological Probability position doesn't try to prove the existence of anything let alone the existence of God. All it says is that since evil is an expected component of a Christian worldview, the existence of evil doesn't serve as evidence against this worldview.

Emphasis here is on "against". I never said anything about it proving the worldview.

I'll take NO responsibility for you running out of patience.
The argument clearly tries to say because A is a subset of B then the existence of A won't proof B doesn't exist. That is true. But it fails to show us if A is truly a subset of B or even if B really exist.
If it doesn't prove the whether the worldview is right, what use is it?

@bold: Because this explanation isn't necessarily a description of actual events but a broad logical possibility which presents a scenario in which both omniscience and omnibenevolence are logically compatible - a claim you denied by asserting that they are incompatible. All I'm giving is a logically possible scenario, it doesn't have to be probable or even true, but so long as it is possible, it shows that these two properties are not incompatible.

You're acting like the 2 are mutually exclusive (moral standards and culpability). Unless there is a moral standard people cannot be held morally responsible and unless there is moral responsibility it makes no sense to speak of moral standards. What you're talking about here is exactly the issue of moral culpability and as I said, God has providentially ordained events so as to make the vast majority morally culpable (the mentally ill people who cannot reason properly aren't held by those measures).



Support the bold.

@Bold... And you know this how?? God personally told you?
I didn't act as if they're mutually exclusive, I acted as if I didn't concern myself with moral culpability because it couldn't change my answer in any way. I said God hasn't given anybody a manual to live their lives by hence there's is logically no moral standard.
In the case where there exist a moral standard that'd make God unfair since he hasn't given us a moral standard (at least God hasn't given me any). If we both agree that God can't be unfair then there is no moral standard and no moral culpability as a result(not that it matters)

 

[Kishi Uzumaki]

Isn't good and evil is man made concepts ? and from what i know what i thinks as good or evil might not be same for another person .

for example,

i might tell the truth to someone but in that process hurt that person too .

now it's my intention to tell the truth ( the good ) but I've hurt that person trying to do it ( the evil ) so what it would've made me a good person or a evil person ?

and if i think about the god as a being that's perfect then i could look up to him to be someone same as him at least if i looked at in a idealistic religious view though personally i think humans are capable of both ( as we are flawed in some way or other ) be good or evil; it's just what we choose to be that will make us good or evil .

 

[Marin]

Refer back to the my first reply and you'd notice I said the classical definition of God has him satisfying Omniscience, Omnipotence and Omnipresence. Nowhere did I mention there were the only conditions surrounding God. And so speaking of God, I could bring in any of the classical conditions as and when needed and that wouldn't be violating any rules in the argument.
Unless you'd want me to believe Omni-benevolence isn't an attribute of God.

And in omitting the omnibenevolence of God and merely saying that free will is incompatible with knowledge of future events you have proposed one objection. If you wish to add other objections (an example of which is contradiction with omnibenevolence) you are indeed free to do so but that is a seperate objection. It's ok to present multiple objections as the debate progresses but you don't just keep adding on to the same objection trying to turn it into something it originally wasn't. I'm not saying you purposefully did this, but the way you wrote it and the way you word it now are two different things.

This was the original objection:

"The problem here is that if God is Omniscient and Omnipresent, he/she would know or at least have the ability to know the outcomes of everyone's life even before they begin. If he/she did know then it'd mean I have no free will since I cannot alter what God has fated/seen."

You're clearly presenting a case for logical incompatibility of omniscience and libertarian freedom. Omnibenevolence isn't a part of the package.

I established that the Omniscience and Omni-benevolence of God is a contradiction to the Free Will you claim we have. Here's an example
Imagine an Engineer building a laptop from scratch. The Engineer knows just how exactly the Laptop is suppose to perform. So if after building it, the laptop is performing just what the engineer foresaw, would you say the laptop has a free will because I mean the Engineer's knowledge doesn't change Free Will right??
Forgetting about all the above, you're asking for proof of the absence of free will when you have no proof of its existence either.

The disanalogy here is that a laptop isn't a sentinent, self-conscious, libertarian agent.

@bold: I never did such a thing. This place isn't at all for arguing about the existence free will, this is a completely separate problem which is more closely related to the philosophy of mind than philosophy of religion. What is being explored here is a hypothetical scenario (a logical framework) in which libertarian freedom is pressuposed.

This is your summary of the sceptical theist approach:
1) God is omniscient and all-loving
2) All evil serves a purpose
3) Due to human limitations we cannot know this purpose
4) Therefore, there is no gratituous evil

Let's take the one after the other
Assuming 1 is right.
2 may or may not be true
3 is true
4 is an incorrect conclusion.
Considering we have a limitation in how much we can know, how can you be certain there's a no gratuitous evil? Our lack of knowledge simply means we do not know the purpose of evil(if there is any), it doesn't mean for a fact that there's a purpose to all evil.
Your should look at your conclusions more closely.

What you're reffering to is a counter-argument from a skeptical theist's perspective. It goes to show that we cannot determine the probability. It doesn't represent the core of skeptical theism but merely parodies the atheist's jump from "maybe" to "is". As I said multiple times, it doesn't really try to show there really be no gratutious evil. All that is required here is to neutralise the argument from evil.

I'll take NO responsibility for you running out of patience.
The argument clearly tries to say because A is a subset of B then the existence of A won't proof B doesn't exist. That is true. But it fails to show us if A is truly a subset of B or even if B really exist.
If it doesn't prove the whether the worldview is right, what use is it?

I said this already, the point of these arguments isn't to lay a positive case for theism, but merely to rebut the argument from evil. These arguments hold the purpose of a defeater not an enforcer and as such they establish exactly what they're supposed to.

@Bold... And you know this how?? God personally told you?

I know it because it is a logical consequence that follows from an intristic property of my conception of God - justice.

I didn't act as if they're mutually exclusive, I acted as if I didn't concern myself with moral culpability because it couldn't change my answer in any way.

"Imagine there is a hell and heaven after here. Even before God created us he knew how our lives would end and whether we'd go to heaven or hell.
So why would God create someone knowing very well the person would go to hell?? Do you get what I mean??"

This was your original objection in response to Pumpkin Ninja. ^ In it you're clearly presenting a conflict between God's knowledge and justice. What reason could God possibly have for creating an individual He knows would be doomed? This is how your question reads. My argument from the Fall and bulk-creation was merely a response to this, not at all an actual state of affairs. If, however you didn't mean this it would've been helpful if you clarified it earlier.

I said God hasn't given anybody a manual to live their lives by hence there's is logically no moral standard.
In the case where there exist a moral standard that'd make God unfair since he hasn't given us a moral standard (at least God hasn't given me any). If we both agree that God can't be unfair then there is no moral standard and no moral culpability as a result(not that it matters)

@bold: I don't see where you're coming with this. Every major religion is based on direct revalation of God so how much more of a manual can you get then the Ten Commandments or the Five Pillars? No, I think what you really meant to say is that there are different versions of these manuals so it is difficult to know which is true, but this is no longer saying there is no manual or there is no revalation. It is actually too many manuals!

And so we get to the problem of religious plurality which is only a problem if you think that God judges solely on one's adherence to a certain religion, which is not a necessary component of any major religion, let alone classic theism. But who is to say God doesn't judge people in a 1:1 relation. What I mean by 1:1 is that there is no one single standard according to which everyone will be judged (such as pure adherence to a certain religion), but instead that each person is individually judged based on his potentialities (what they could've done) and their actualisations (what they have done).

You mentioned an example of a person who was born into a wrong religion and never found the "right" way to God, but this need not be a definitive obstacle to that person's salvation. After all, plenty of people in the past such as Abraham and Moses were undeniably considered saved despite not following a specific set of rules which became realised later on. (Which puts more emphasis on the different criteria for salvation.) So I don't think simple non-belief in a given circumstance will be a definitive obstacle to one's salvation. (Yes, this can even include atheists.) I would like to comment that what we're discussing now is basically theology and not philosophy so I'd rather we go back on topic now.

 

[Marin]

Isn't good and evil is man made concepts ? and from what i know what i thinks as good or evil might not be same for another person .

for example,

i might tell the truth to someone but in that process hurt that person too .

now it's my intention to tell the truth ( the good ) but I've hurt that person trying to do it ( the evil ) so what it would've made me a good person or a evil person ?

and if i think about the god as a being that's perfect then i could look up to him to be someone same as him at least if i looked at in a idealistic religious view though personally i think humans are capable of both ( as we are flawed in some way or other ) be good or evil; it's just what we choose to be that will make us good or evil .

That's moral relativism and while a strategy may be made to work with it, I don't think it has much bearing against the evidential argument from evil since it doesn't talk about evil in the sense of moral wrongness, but suffering. The proponents of such an argument will insist that there is too much pointless suffering in the world which God if He existed would prevent but since He doesn't prevent it, they conclude that God does not exist.

 

[Yata Mirror]

And in omitting the omnibenevolence of God and merely saying that free will is incompatible with knowledge of future events you have proposed one objection. If you wish to add other objections (an example of which is contradiction with omnibenevolence) you are indeed free to do so but that is a seperate objection. It's ok to present multiple objections as the debate progresses but you don't just keep adding on to the same objection trying to turn it into something it originally wasn't. I'm not saying you purposefully did this, but the way you wrote it and the way you word it now are two different things.

This was the original objection:

"The problem here is that if God is Omniscient and Omnipresent, he/she would know or at least have the ability to know the outcomes of everyone's life even before they begin. If he/she did know then it'd mean I have no free will since I cannot alter what God has fated/seen."

You're clearly presenting a case for logical incompatibility of omniscience and libertarian freedom. Omnibenevolence isn't a part of the package.

I see the point you're making. You're right, that'd sound a bit confusing.
I should have brought in the omni-benevolence from the start.
I used the classical definition of God with all His/Her attributes.
Now what I am saying is that even considering just the Omni-benevolence and Omniscience of God would make the concept of Free Will null and void.

The disanalogy here is that a laptop isn't a sentinent, self-conscious, libertarian agent.

@bold: I never did such a thing. This place isn't at all for arguing about the existence free will, this is a completely separate problem which is more closely related to the philosophy of mind than philosophy of religion. What is being explored here is a hypothetical scenario (a logical framework) in which libertarian freedom is pressuposed.

1. The laptop may not have a brain exactly like ours but how do you know it isn't sentient?? How do you know it doesn't feel?? How do you know it isn't conscious?? We may just not have the technology to know this yet.
So in fact the analogy stands, and you might want to go back and look at it.

Yes it's a hypothetical situation that uses Free Will to explain a concept. The problem is free will in itself isn't proven so the proof gotten from Free Will cannot hold.


What you're reffering to is a counter-argument from a skeptical theist's perspective. It goes to show that we cannot determine the probability. It doesn't represent the core of skeptical theism but merely parodies the atheist's jump from "maybe" to "is". As I said multiple times, it doesn't really try to show there really be no gratutious evil. All that is required here is to neutralise the argument from evil.
[/QUOTE]

You keep saying it doesn't try to proof there's is no gratuitous evil yet your conclusion says otherwise.
I'll quote it for you again:

4. Therefore, there is no gratuitous evil.

How is that's neutral conclusion?? A neutral conclusion would concede that both lack the requirements to know with certainty thus, there may or may not be gratuitous evil.

I said this already, the point of these arguments isn't to lay a positive case for theism, but merely to rebut the argument from evil. These arguments hold the purpose of a defeater not an enforcer and as such they establish exactly what they're supposed to.

See the answer above.

I know it because it is a logical consequence that follows from an intristic property of my conception of God - justice.

But before you can make a such a case, your concept of God has to be true. Else any derivation from it fails.
All I saw was you claiming:
1. God has made the majority of people morally culpable
2. The mentally ill are not held by those measures? So the mentally ill are not accountable for their actions??
These are claims are without substance.

"Imagine there is a hell and heaven after here. Even before God created us he knew how our lives would end and whether we'd go to heaven or hell.
So why would God create someone knowing very well the person would go to hell?? Do you get what I mean??"

This was your original objection in response to Pumpkin Ninja. ^ In it you're clearly presenting a conflict between God's knowledge and justice. What reason could God possibly have for creating an individual He knows would be doomed? This is how your question reads. My argument from the Fall and bulk-creation was merely a response to this, not at all an actual state of affairs. If, however you didn't mean this it would've been helpful if you clarified it earlier.

And I'll repeat what I said about The Fall.
The Fall has never been proven and most likely never will be proven.
So to explain your reasoning using The Fall won't be convincing in any way unless the listener is a Christian who believes in The Fall.

@bold: I don't see where you're coming with this. Every major religion is based on direct revalation of God so how much more of a manual can you get then the Ten Commandments or the Five Pillars? No, I think what you really meant to say is that there are different versions of these manuals so it is difficult to know which is true, but this is no longer saying there is no manual or there is no revalation. It is actually too many manuals!

And so we get to the problem of religious plurality which is only a problem if you think that God judges solely on one's adherence to a certain religion, which is not a necessary component of any major religion, let alone classic theism. But who is to say God doesn't judge people in a 1:1 relation. What I mean by 1:1 is that there is no one single standard according to which everyone will be judged (such as pure adherence to a certain religion), but instead that each person is individually judged based on his potentialities (what they could've done) and their actualisations (what they have done).

You mentioned an example of a person who was born into a wrong religion and never found the "right" way to God, but this need not be a definitive obstacle to that person's salvation. After all, plenty of people in the past such as Abraham and Moses were undeniably considered saved despite not following a specific set of rules which became realised later on. (Which puts more emphasis on the different criteria for salvation.) So I don't think simple non-belief in a given circumstance will be a definitive obstacle to one's salvation. (Yes, this can even include atheists.) I would like to comment that what we're discussing now is basically theology and not philosophy so I'd rather we go back on topic now.

If there's are several manuals and none of them is a true manual, how could anyone say there's a manual??
All the world religions have been unable to bring proof of their scripture coming from God so there's may be manuals from wherever they got their manuals but there is NO manual from God.
You mention Abraham and Moses, but there's no proof of their existence outside Christianity, Judaism and Islam which means I'd have to believe one of those before I can accept the existence of their prophets.
I also mentioned that even though these religions have no proof of their books coming from God, there's still the possibility that they came from God. But for such a possibility to be real it would mean God doesn't care enough to show us the way since he hasn't shown us which is right. I'm pretty sure the Gods they preach are said to care hence nullifying that possibility.

And about God judging people based in a 1:1 relation as you explained. That is an assumption with no backing whatsoever.

 

[Marin]

I see the point you're making. You're right, that'd sound a bit confusing.
I should have brought in the omni-benevolence from the start.
I used the classical definition of God with all His/Her attributes.
Now what I am saying is that even considering just the Omni-benevolence and Omniscience of God would make the concept of Free Will null and void.

I'm glad we sorted that out, if this is all we're gonna be discussing I'll just save my response for the bottom paragraphs of my post so no more confusion arises.

1. The laptop may not have a brain exactly like ours but how do you know it isn't sentient?? How do you know it doesn't feel?? How do you know it isn't conscious?? We may just not have the technology to know this yet.
So in fact the analogy stands, and you might want to go back and look at it.

Yes it's a hypothetical situation that uses Free Will to explain a concept. The problem is free will in itself isn't proven so the proof gotten from Free Will cannot hold.

How do I know an inanimate object isn't sentinent? Well, perhaps because it doesn't show any characteristics of sentinence. Sure, you could say that for all we know it may have some sort of sentinence, but this is awfully contradictive to the rest of your post in which you insist that a possibility be proven to be considered. (As you say here the problem with free will is that it isn't proven.)

Even if I were to concede that a machine is a sentinent being it is still greatly different from the sentinence and personhood we hold. So again, there is a disanalogy in the fact that we function differently and exhibit different properties. Atleast this should be self-evident.

And again, whether libertarian freedom is proven isn't important here since the argument from evil looks at the case of a hypothetical God. You don't need to prove a hypothetical in order to consider it as a genuine possibility because if you proved it it would no longer be any question about what is probable - the hypothetical would obviously be true!

You keep saying it doesn't try to proof there's is no gratuitous evil yet your conclusion says otherwise.
I'll quote it for you again:

4. Therefore, there is no gratuitous evil.

How is that's neutral conclusion?? A neutral conclusion would concede that both lack the requirements to know with certainty thus, there may or may not be gratuitous evil.

Re-read what I just said. The conclusion is a parodical jump from "may be" to "is". I feel like you're more hung up on the presence of this parody in the OP rather than the actual position presented. I'll try to make it easy for you:

We're not in a good position to make a probability estimate on gratituous evil, therefore the atheist cannot make such a probability estimate. In the abscence of this probability estimate, the atheist cannot say the probability of there being gratutious evil is more likely than not, therefore preventing the atheist from using the evidential argument from evil.

You can ignore the parody presented in the OP completely (honestly I'm starting to regret putting it there lol) and you'd be left with a functional position which makes no claims to knowledge besides the self-evident cognitive limitations. The burden of proof is not equal.

But before you can make a such a case, your concept of God has to be true. Else any derivation from it fails.
All I saw was you claiming:
1. God has made the majority of people morally culpable
2. The mentally ill are not held by those measures? So the mentally ill are not accountable for their actions??
These are claims are without substance.

If the concept of God were true there would be no need for any derivations as it doesn't make sense to wonder how probable it is that something which is true is true.

If there's are several manuals and none of them is a true manual, how could anyone say there's a manual??

All the world religions have been unable to bring proof of their scripture coming from God so there's may be manuals from wherever they got their manuals but there is NO manual from God.

@bold: There is a difference between us being unable to discern the true manual and there really being no true manual.

Why should there be proof for a manual? As I said in my last post, even if we cannot decide which religion is true (and I disagree with this, I think we can do so) there is a universal moral law which most of these religions do follow and we as rational beings are able, from a purely secular position (which I assume you don't deny) construct a moral code which most of us won't dispute. (For example, we all agree that we shouldn't kill, steal or rape, that we should be kind and help each other etc.) It's not like humans are completely blind to moral truths, in fact it is on the very foundation that we can discover moral realities that many people argue for the existence of God.

In fact, the whole project of Natural Theology (as I said in the OP) is dedicated to this and in order for the evidential argument to work, these arguments for God must be false. Whether they are false or not is another topic (which if you wish to discuss you can see

You must be registered for see links

) but to simply claim it as obvious that they are is unjustified.

You mention Abraham and Moses, but there's no proof of their existence outside Christianity, Judaism and Islam which means I'd have to believe one of those before I can accept the existence of their prophets.
I also mentioned that even though these religions have no proof of their books coming from God, there's still the possibility that they came from God. But for such a possibility to be real it would mean God doesn't care enough to show us the way since he hasn't shown us which is right. I'm pretty sure the Gods they preach are said to care hence nullifying that possibility.

And about God judging people based in a 1:1 relation as you explained. That is an assumption with no backing whatsoever.

Again, your lack of understanding of the type of discussion we're having betrays you. I need not prove that Abraham and Moses existed or let alone were saved, all I need to do is point your attention to the fact that Christianity needs not assume all who didn't abide to a specific set of rules declared by the Church today are doomed. (Which is basically what you said by bringing the problem of "being born in the wrong religion" to the table.)

By this very same token, I cannot back it up any more than pointing you to the fact that, according to (for example) Christianity, God does treat people exactly like that. So if the atheist insists a God who doesn't treat people like this is unfair, the christian will wholeheartedly agree since this isn't the God they believe in!