The Problem of Evil does not justify disbelief in God's existence.

Chat viewable by general public

Moderator: Moderators

Mattman
Student
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2022 2:07 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 3 times

The Problem of Evil does not justify disbelief in God's existence.

Post #1

Post by Mattman »

Hello!

I love discussing/debating arguments related to God's existence and Christianity, and I have a voice chat group I'm putting together to do that. Send me a PM if you're interested.

Below is a brief summarized version of an argument. I'd love to hear your thoughts!
____
CLAIM: The Problem of Evil does not justify disbelief in God's existence.

DEFINITIONS: I'll refer to the proponent of this argument as the "non-Theist" and the defender as the "Theist."

PRESUPPOSITIONS:
The problem of evil is an *internal* challenge to God's existence. As such, it assumes the worldview it challenges and attempts to point out some internal contradiction in the tenets of the worldview. In particular, the problem of evil makes the case that the concept of God as omnibenevolent and omnipotent is incompatible with the existence of evil.

BRIEF:
We all have some awareness of horrendous evils.

Child human trafficking is a prime example. If God were all-good, he seems to want to prevent such evils, and God could stop such evils if he were all-powerful. Since such evils do exist, it follows that an all-good and omnipotent God does not exist.

The properties of goodness and power are essential to God. So if there is no being that is all-good and omnipotent, there is no God.

We don't have to run this argument in absolutist terms. It needn't be the case that God's existence and the existence of horrendous evil is *literally* impossible. It need only be the case that the two are unlikely to coexist for the argument to provide some reason to reject God's existence.
-----
RESPONSE: The problem of evil argument assumes more than is justified.

For horrendous evil to be a challenge to God's existence, it must be the case that God lacks morally sufficient reasons to permit them. If God has morally sufficient reasons to allow evil, evil is no challenge to his goodness, and neither is evil a challenge to God's power since he could prevent it.

Remember that the burden for this argument is on the non-Theist. He is the one contending that such evils and God cannot coexist. Therefore, it is his burden to show that God lacks morally sufficient reasons. He cannot simply appeal to our ignorance of such reasons; he needs to give us some positive reason to think that God lacks these reasons.

The non-Theist typically supports his argument by appealing to moral intuition (which he may call a "common sense" appeal). The non-Theist will say that we should consider horrendous evils and realize that no one could be justified in permitting them. If no one could be justified to allow the evil, that includes God.

This move, however, is a misstep on the part of the non-Theist.

The non-Theist asks his faculties to provide more information than they can. Notice that all of our faculties are ego-centric. You only see what you see; you don't see what others see. You only remember your past; you don't remember anyone else's past. If you survey any of your faculties, you will find the same. All your faculties only deliver information from your own subjective experience. The information may be objective (objects are there when you see them), but the information is ego-centric (from your perspective).

I've pointed out that the non-Theist supports his claim that God lacks morally sufficient reasons by appealing to moral intuition. I've pointed out that our faculties (including moral intuition) deliver only ego-centric information. The next thing to consider is whether the state of God's moral justification is within the ego-centric information available to the non-Theist.

It seems very clear that it is not. The non-Theist's moral intuition can tell him only his justification (that the *non-Theist* would be unjustified in permitting evil). Perhaps the non-Theist could go further and say he could *never* be justified in allowing evil. At best, this intuition can tell the non-Theist that if *the non-Theist* were God, then *he* would be unjustified in permitting horrendous evils (all other things being equal). None of this gives us any reason to think that *God* is unjustified in allowing evil. Since the state of God's moral justification is not within the ego-centric information available to the non-Theist, he cannot say God lacks moral justification. Moral intuition cannot support the problem of evil; the non-Theist must provide alternative reasons.

REBUTTAL: We infer the state of other people's moral justifications all the time in criminal law.

We certainly do, but such inferences are from ego-centric information. We reflect on the state of *our* justification if we were in the accused's circumstances. We picture ourselves in their circumstances and ask, "Would it be reasonable to act as they did?" Such a maneuver requires that we are similar to the accused in relevant ways and sufficiently understand their circumstances.

There are plenty of cases where we don't make these inferences. For example, we do not infer moral justifications in the animal kingdom. Lions brutally kill and eat gazelle all the time, and we make no inferences about the morality of the lions. We recognize that we are different from lions and cannot expect lions to behave like us. This principle also works in reverse. If a murderer tried to justify his crimes by an appeal to lions, we'd rightly respond, "But you're not a lion!"

On the point that we sufficiently understand the accused's circumstances, such information seems crucial to our moral reasoning. Consider the question, "Is it OK to lie?" Well, it depends. If someone is in Nazi Germany and lies to the Gestapo to protect Jews, then we'd probably recognize the lie as morally permissible. If someone is lying to the police to help a friend get away with murder, we'd probably recognize it as impermissible. On reflection, it should be evident that one's circumstances impact one's justification.

We've seen two requirements to make inferences about someone's justification: we must be similar to the accused and understand their circumstances. Are we similar enough to God to infer his moral justifications from our own? Are we familiar enough with God's circumstances? At first blush, it certainly seems like a "no" on both accounts.

Remember that the non-Theist has the burden of proof since they put forward the argument.

The non-Theist needs to show that we *probably are* similar enough to God and know enough of his circumstances to make these judgments. Without this, we are left unable to make inferences about God's moral justifications and therefore cannot say that God is unjustified in permitting evil.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: The Problem of Evil does not justify disbelief in God's existence.

Post #31

Post by alexxcJRO »

Mattman wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2022 7:51 am

Unfortunately, your posts are too long for this format. I can only respond to one point at at time.

You suggest that God is not omnipotent because he cannot cause you to freely put your faith in him. Omnipotence does not require that God can do logically contradictory things, and forcing a free will choice is logically contradictory.
Let's not construct straw-mans. I never said Yahweh-Jesus needs to cause me to freely put my faith in him.
Conform the bible Yahweh-Jesus wants me to believe in him and have a relationship based on love with me.
Therefore I should believe in Yahweh-Jesus because Yahweh-Jesus is omnipotent, omniscient.
Since I don't believe in Yahweh-Jesus, it follows Yahweh-Jesus does not exists.
Sir one does not choose to genuinely believe in something. One is either convinced of something and therefore genuinely believes or its not convinced of something and therefore genuinely does not believe.

Let's not invent excuses. Either respond or else go play with toys if its too hard for you to debate.

So let's not ignore this please:

Free will argument problems:

1. Problem of past interventions
Your objection that Yahweh-Jesus does not intervene to preserve our free will does not work for Yahweh-Jesus has intervene in the past(hardened Pharaoh’s heart, appeared to multiple people)

2. Problem of imperfect free will
We don’t have perfect free will. There are many things we cannot do.
Q: Why some things are allowed and some not? Based on what?
If some things are not allowed why not restrict evil too. We can still have free will but its even more imperfect, limited.
If for example I cannot go and kill infants-children, rape infants-children I can still go and choose all kinds of things to do that do not involve evil.
I could still play football for example with my brothers, could still go and hang with them on holidays, could still travel through out nature and the cosmos revel in the beauty and complexity of it all. I could still do trillions of things.
So the choosing where free will stops seem arbitrary and capricious, illogical in consistency.

3. Problem of Heaven
If humans in Heaven have free will and do no evil then evil its not hampering free will. Therefore the objection of free will is meaningless.
If humans in Heaven don’t have free will therefore free will is not that important. Therefore the objection of free will is meaningless.

4. Problem of hell
4.1 Hell is a place of forever punishment and a forever physical and/or psychological torment.
Therefore we have forever punishment for finite crimes. This is unjust and therefore disproves an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being-perfectly good being and Christianity is false.
4.2 Hell is just separation from Yahweh-Jesus. Yahweh-Jesus does not punish anyone.
Because humans have free will therefore its possible for them to repent while in Hell.
Its logically impossible for billions of humans to not choose to repent while having an infinite opportunities to do so while in Hell. Therefore Christianity is false.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: The Problem of Evil does not justify disbelief in God's existence.

Post #32

Post by Bust Nak »

Mattman wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2022 8:00 am Such a result [everyone freely choosing to put their faith in God], however, relies on the free will choices of the multitude of people. Saying that God can bring this about via his omnipotence is tantamount to saying that God can force free will choices (a contradiction).
Why can't God bring this about without forcing free will choices? Right off the top of my head, keeping things similar to this world, plus the extra step where God checks in advance if a potential soul would freely choose to put their faith in God before creating it, sounds like a logically coherent way of achieve your proposed heaven without forcing any free will choices.
The original issue is, "Is God justified in creating *this* world?" It seems we can show that he is justified on the basis of the people who live here. He creates the world so that you and I (and everyone else) can exist since this is the only way we can exist.
Morally justified, not just justified. Where does morality come into making sure you or I or everyone else come into existence? The kind of justification you proposed here can justify literally anything. "Why did you stab him to death?" I had to, logically it was literally the only way to ensure he would die in this exact manner.
You then seem to raise a new and separate question, "Why didn't God create a *better* world?" The first question refers to this world, the second refers to a different world and suggests that God should have created a different world from our own.
Not a separate question at all, I am answering "Is God justified in creating this world" question with a "no, he is not justified because he could have created a better world."
For any world we may consider, there will always be better worlds possible. There could always be one more person who has a joyous existence with God.
So make an infinite world, if you want to measure goodness by man count. There is still a best possible world by that standard. You need a better example if you want to justify the "there will always be better worlds possible."
1) If God is never justified in creating a world when a better world is possible, then God is not justified in creating any world at all.
2) If God is justified in creating our world, then it is not the case that God is not justified in creating any world at all.
3) God is justified in creating our world.
4) Therefore, it is not the case that God is not justified in creating any world at all.
5) Therefore, it is not the case that God is never justified in creating a world when a better world is possible.
If you insist of keeping premise 1 and circling back to our question above, why circle back your way and not:

1) If God is never justified in creating a world when a better world is possible, then God is not justified in creating any world at all.
2) God is never justified in creating a world when a better world is possible.
3) Therefore God is not justified in creating any world
4) Therefore God is not justified in creating our world.

Mattman
Student
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2022 2:07 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: The Problem of Evil does not justify disbelief in God's existence.

Post #33

Post by Mattman »

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #31]
Either respond or else go play with toys if its too hard for you to debate.
This sort of comment has no place in civil dialogue. It marks the end of our discussion but I appreciate your engagement with the OP and your thoughts.

Mattman
Student
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2022 2:07 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: The Problem of Evil does not justify disbelief in God's existence.

Post #34

Post by Mattman »

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #32]
God checks in advance if a potential soul would freely choose to put their faith in God before creating it
Your comment seems to assume that God creates souls whenever someone is born? I certainly don't see the plausibility of that. It certainly isn't taught in the Bible. The Bible teaches that people reproduce themselves. I don't accept what seems to be a presupposition of your suggestion here.
Morally justified, not just justified. Where does morality come into making sure you or I or everyone else come into existence? The kind of justification you proposed here can justify literally anything. "Why did you stab him to death?" I had to, logically it was literally the only way to ensure he would die in this exact manner.
I'm not sure how this comment connects with the point that I've made. I've suggested that God is justified in bringing about our world in virtue of the moral goods present in it.
So make an infinite world, if you want to measure goodness by man count.
There can't be an infinite number of worlds. Arguably there can't be more than one world. When I say "world" here I am referring to all things that exist. If God created more than one universe, then the "world" would include multiple universes. Perhaps he has done that, I've no idea.
1) If God is never justified in creating a world when a better world is possible, then God is not justified in creating any world at all.
2) God is never justified in creating a world when a better world is possible.
3) Therefore God is not justified in creating any world
4) Therefore God is not justified in creating our world.
I reject premise 2. Do you have any support for it?

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: The Problem of Evil does not justify disbelief in God's existence.

Post #35

Post by Bust Nak »

Mattman wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2022 10:30 am Your comment seems to assume that God creates souls whenever someone is born? I certainly don't see the plausibility of that. It certainly isn't taught in the Bible. The Bible teaches that people reproduce themselves.
What happened "children are a gift from the Lord?" He just need to be more selective in dishing out gifts to get the result you proposed. Whatever, just modify my scenario to one where God fiddle with the sperm and egg to stop fertilisation to side step the question of souls.
I'm not sure how this comment connects with the point that I've made. I've suggested that God is justified in bringing about our world in virtue of the moral goods present in it.
"Why did you stab him to death?" I am justified in virtue of the moral goods present in the scenario where he dies in this exact manner. "But there could have been more moral goodness if you hadn't stabbed him!" But that would have resulted a different world to the one we are living in right now.

Do you see the analogy now?
There can't be an infinite number of worlds.
Not infinite number of worlds, one singular infinite world.
I reject premise 2. Do you have any support for it?
Sure, given two options, a rational being is bounded by his rational nature to pick the better one. Given two options, a moral being is bounded by his nature to pick the more moral one.

Mattman
Student
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2022 2:07 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: The Problem of Evil does not justify disbelief in God's existence.

Post #36

Post by Mattman »

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #35]
What happened "children are a gift from the Lord?"
Well they are, but we thank him for our meals as well. We aren't committed to the view that he spontaneously creates food on my plate any more than we are that he spontaneously creates a soul.
I am justified in virtue of the moral goods present in the scenario where he dies in this exact manner.
Part of the scenario is that you have the moral duty to refrain from stabbing him, so no, you wouldn't be justified. Generally speaking, we have the moral duty not to stab other people as far as I can tell.
Not infinite number of worlds, one singular infinite world.
There can't be a single infinite world. It is impossible that an infinite collection of things exists. I'd feel like we're getting a bit off-topic, but we can show that intuitively obvious mathematical axioms are violated if an actually infinite collection of things exist.
Sure, given two options, a rational being is bounded by his rational nature to pick the better one. Given two options, a moral being is bounded by his nature to pick the more moral one.
Your scenario doesn't imagine God having only two options but an infinite number of options. The ability to compare between two things doesn't imply that there could be a comparison between an infinite collection of things.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: The Problem of Evil does not justify disbelief in God's existence.

Post #37

Post by Bust Nak »

Mattman wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2022 11:14 am Well they are, but we thank him for our meals as well. We aren't committed to the view that he spontaneously creates food on my plate any more than we are that he spontaneously creates a soul.
That's fine, so like I said, God being more selective with his gifts, whether it is spontaneously created or not, sounds like it would result in everyone freely choosing to put their faith in God, without logical contradictions. What do you have to say for that?
Part of the scenario is that you have the moral duty to refrain from stabbing him, so no, you wouldn't be justified. Generally speaking, we have the moral duty not to stab other people as far as I can tell.
And God has a moral duty not to create a world that contains evil. You've already granted that much when the whole point of your thesis is that given sufficient reason, that moral duty can be outweighed, right?
we can show that intuitively obvious mathematical axioms are violated if an actually infinite collection of things exist.
Can you though?

And while we are here, if actual infinite is logically impossible, then you are casting doubt over your last objection re: There could always be one more person who has a joyous existence with God... Well, can there always be more if actual infinite is impossible? What's wrong with just a potentially infinite world where the population just keeps growing indefinitely, that would then be the best possible world.
Your scenario doesn't imagine God having only two options but an infinite number of options. The ability to compare between two things doesn't imply that there could be a comparison between an infinite collection of things.
a) Why not? God is omnipotent, what logical contradiction results from comparing an infinite number of things? Are there even infinitely number of options, if actual infinity is impossible?
b) It's irrelevant, the premise you asked me to support was "God is never justified in creating a world when a better world is possible." That's two options, namely: a world vs a better world. Not infinitely many. It doesn't matter how many other options there are outside of these two, of the two, God is never justified in picking the lesser option.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: The Problem of Evil does not justify disbelief in God's existence.

Post #38

Post by alexxcJRO »

Mattman wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2022 10:21 am [Replying to alexxcJRO in post #31]
Either respond or else go play with toys if its too hard for you to debate.
This sort of comment has no place in civil dialogue. It marks the end of our discussion but I appreciate your engagement with the OP and your thoughts.
Q: But avoidance of most of one's argument is good debate form? :P

Lets not invent excuses and avoid.
Let's not construct straw-mans. I never said Yahweh-Jesus needs to cause me to freely put my faith in him.
Conform the bible Yahweh-Jesus wants me to believe in him and have a relationship based on love with me.
Therefore I should believe in Yahweh-Jesus because Yahweh-Jesus is omnipotent, omniscient.
Since I don't believe in Yahweh-Jesus, it follows Yahweh-Jesus does not exists.
Sir one does not choose to genuinely believe in something. One is either convinced of something and therefore genuinely believes or its not convinced of something and therefore genuinely does not believe.

Free will argument problems:

1. Problem of past interventions
Your objection that Yahweh-Jesus does not intervene to preserve our free will does not work for Yahweh-Jesus has intervene in the past(hardened Pharaoh’s heart, appeared to multiple people)

2. Problem of imperfect free will
We don’t have perfect free will. There are many things we cannot do.
Q: Why some things are allowed and some not? Based on what?
If some things are not allowed why not restrict evil too. We can still have free will but its even more imperfect, limited.
If for example I cannot go and kill infants-children, rape infants-children I can still go and choose all kinds of things to do that do not involve evil.
I could still play football for example with my brothers, could still go and hang with them on holidays, could still travel through out nature and the cosmos revel in the beauty and complexity of it all. I could still do trillions of things.
So the choosing where free will stops seem arbitrary and capricious, illogical in consistency.

3. Problem of Heaven
If humans in Heaven have free will and do no evil then evil its not hampering free will. Therefore the objection of free will is meaningless.
If humans in Heaven don’t have free will therefore free will is not that important. Therefore the objection of free will is meaningless.

4. Problem of hell
4.1 Hell is a place of forever punishment and a forever physical and/or psychological torment.
Therefore we have forever punishment for finite crimes. This is unjust and therefore disproves an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being-perfectly good being and Christianity is false.
4.2 Hell is just separation from Yahweh-Jesus. Yahweh-Jesus does not punish anyone.
Because humans have free will therefore its possible for them to repent while in Hell.
Its logically impossible for billions of humans to not choose to repent while having an infinite opportunities to do so while in Hell. Therefore Christianity is false.




Notation:
G = God: on omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being-perfectly good being who wants me to believe in him and a personal relationship with me based on trust, love.

P = People born with psychopathy.
E = Instances where gratuitous evils, gratuitous suffering happen -> the innocent-non-moral agents(non-human animals and/or infants and severely mentally impaired) suffer indiscriminately because of non-moral/natural evils(cancer, genetic diseases, earthquakes, hurricanes, asteroids, natural forest fires).
C = Instances where Christians/Islamists/Israelites are confused what G wants(existence of mutual exclusive claims), how to achieve salvation, unconditional election vs conditional election, many denominations, schisms and evident quarrel, hell as a forever punishment or just separation from G, Jesus just a prophet/exalted prophet/son of G/G himself/Trinity, Christians committing genocides in the bible in the name of G, Christians holy wars(crusades), mass killing of women-“witches”-Christian inquisition, Islam holly war, Islamists killing in the name of G and saying Allahu Akbar: G is great, gay intolerance and other kinds of intolerances “because of what god said”.

Definitions:
Omnipotent being = a being that can do anything
(Matthew 19:26, Job 42:1-2, Luke 1:37, Jeremiah 32:27)

Omniscient being = a being that knows everything, has perfect knowledge
(Psalm 147:5, Psalm 139:4, Hebrews 4:13, 1 John 3:20, Job 37:16)

Omnibenevolent-perfectly good being = a being that will do only good as oppose to evil all the time, a being that is morally perfect, perfectly just, benevolent towards all, cares and loves all equally.
(Deuteronomy 32:4, 2 Samuel 22:31, Matthew 5:48, Psalm 100:5, Psalm 145:17, 1 John 4:16, 1 John 1:5, Heb. 6:18, Romans 5:8, 1 John 4:8)
(1 John 4:15, John 3:16-17, Matthew 22:36-38, Exodus 20)

Observations:
Psychopaths can’t feel and experience love, trust, bond(psychopaths don't process oxytocin like neurotypicals do), have a problem with their affective empathy.
(https://modlab.yale.edu/news/my-life-psychopath-cut, https://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/16/heal ... index.html)
For the most part these E happened there were not Homo Sapiens Sapiens on the planet.

Problem of gratuitous evils, gratuitous suffering

Logical deduction by reduction ad absurdum:

P1. G exists.
P2. An omniscient being knows of a way to stop E.
P3. An omnipotent being who knows a way to stop E has the power to do so.
P4. A being who knows of a way to stop E, has the power to do so, and who wants to do so, would do it.
P5. If there exists G then E would not exist.
P6. Because G exists then E does not exist.
P7. E exists.(Logical contradiction)
C: Therefore G does not exist.

Problem of psychopathy

Logical deduction by reduction ad absurdum:
P1. G exists.
P2. An omniscient being knows of a way to stop P.
P3. An omnipotent being who knows a way to stop P has the power to do so.
P4. A being who knows of a way to stop P, has the power to do so, and who wants to do so, would do it.
P5. If there exists G then P would not exist.
P6. Because G exists then P does not exist.
P7. P exists.(Logical contradiction)
C: Therefore G does not exist.

Problem of confusion
Logical deduction by reduction ad absurdum:
P1. G exists.
P2. An omniscient being knows of a way to stop C.
P3. An omnipotent being who knows a way to stop C has the power to do so.
P4. A being who knows of a way to stop C, has the power to do so, and who wants to do so, would do it.
P5. If there exists G then C would not exist.
P6. Because G exists then C does not exist.
P7. C exists.(Logical contradiction)
C: Therefore G does not exist.

Also we have:
G saying:
-kills gays just for being gays,
-kill a fortuneteller just for practicing fortunetelling,
-kill the sons for the sins of the fathers,
-“Go, now but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses”( infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses being non-moral agents, inocents)
-“I will stir up the Medes against Babylon… They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.”
-“when a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property”
-“If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her”
Last edited by alexxcJRO on Thu Feb 10, 2022 3:43 am, edited 2 times in total.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

Mattman
Student
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2022 2:07 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: The Problem of Evil does not justify disbelief in God's existence.

Post #39

Post by Mattman »

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #37]
That's fine, so like I said, God being more selective with his gifts, whether it is spontaneously created or not, sounds like it would result in everyone freely choosing to put their faith in God, without logical contradictions. What do you have to say for that?
I guess I don't follow your reasoning here. I suspect that I've done a poor job explaining the view I'm suggesting. Below is a 7-minute video that illustrates it probably more effectively than I've been communicating it.


And God has a moral duty not to create a world that contains evil.
This seems questionable. To whom would he owe this moral duty? Moral duties are identical to God's commands on Divine Command Theory. Does he issue commands to himself?

I don't think that God has moral duties. Rather I think we can say whether doing or not doing something is an affront to his character. I don't think that creating the world is an affront to his character. It seems to me that, on balance, it's good that humanity exists. If that's the case then, on balance, God is morally justified in creating humanity (even if evil is a necessary and unfortunate byproduct).
Can you though?
Yeah, a German mathematician named David Hilbert showed that the presence of an actual infinite runs in conflict with at least one of two intuitively obvious mathematical axioms. That's a bit off-topic, though, so I'd like to resist getting into mathematics if we can (for this post anyway).
you are casting doubt over your last objection re: There could always be one more person who has a joyous existence with God... Well, can there always be more if actual infinite is impossible?
That would be a potential infinite rather than an actual infinite. There are all sorts of potential infinities (an infinite number of natural numbers, an infinite number of points on a line, etc).
What's wrong with just a potentially infinite world where the population just keeps growing indefinitely, that would then be the best possible world.
Great, that's a fair objection. In that case, however, you have a growing number of people who are damned that approaches infinity. I'm not sure that this would really be a better world after all. In addition to that, we have no idea what the ratio of people who freely choose to put their faith in God vs those who reject him. It could be the case that, if God brought about such a world, that more people would be damned than saved. So there are different ways we can think of that world being worse than the actual world.
a) Why not? God is omnipotent, what logical contradiction results from comparing an infinite number of things? Are there even infinitely number of options, if actual infinity is impossible?
It's got nothing to do with omnipotence. The point is that there is no "best" world on such a scenario because there could always be a better world. The video I linked above gives a good summary here as well.
That's two options, namely: a world vs a better world. Not infinitely many. It doesn't matter how many other options there are outside of these two, of the two, God is never justified in picking the lesser option.
Ok, then I'd just say that God didn't choose the lesser option. It sounds like your response here forecloses the response from you, "But for any world he chooses, it is the lesser option of some other world!" That would, again, introduce a scenario where no ultimate comparison can be made.

On a separate note, you seem thoughtful and courteous despite our disagreement. Do you have any interest in joining a voiced discussion group for this? If so, PM me and I'll send you a link to add your name to the contact list.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: The Problem of Evil does not justify disbelief in God's existence.

Post #40

Post by Bust Nak »

Mattman wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2022 4:13 pm I guess I don't follow your reasoning here. I suspect that I've done a poor job explaining the view I'm suggesting. Below is a 7-minute video that illustrates it probably more effectively than I've been communicating it...
Yep, that's a pretty concise video. I am proposing the "one last objection" mentioned at the 5:41 mark. The first counter-argument was that since there is no best world, God is excused from comparing alternative options altogether. The second counter-argument was that God isn't trying to maximise goodness in the first place, his goal was to specifically create a world where particular goodness appears. Is that a fair summary of the two counter-arguments?
This seems questionable. To whom would he owe this moral duty? Moral duties are identical to God's commands on Divine Command Theory. Does he issue commands to himself? I don't think that God has moral duties. Rather I think we can say whether doing or not doing something is an affront to his character.
That's fine, what I said could be rephrased to say affront to his character instead: In general it is an affront to God's character to create a world with evil, which means God needs sufficient justification to create this world. The video says God treats you as an end rather than means to an end, but that's not a sufficient justification because it rises the question of why these particular ends and not others, that's the part which needs justifying. (Looking at the video timestamp 6:36, why W1 with person z y z and not W2 with person a b c.) The author also says W1 has some unique goodness, but why these unique goodness but not others? It boils down to because God wants to, is that a good enough justification in your book?
I don't think that creating the world is an affront to his character. It seems to me that, on balance, it's good that humanity exists. If that's the case then, on balance, God is morally justified in creating humanity (even if evil is a necessary and unfortunate byproduct).
This sounds the second counter-argument to the "one last objection" in the video. How do you reconcile the God's omnibenevolent nature with this low standard of good on balance? Why this world and not a slightly worse one where it is still good on balance, if maximum goodness isn't the bar for omnibenevolence?
Yeah, a German mathematician named David Hilbert showed that the presence of an actual infinite runs in conflict with at least one of two intuitively obvious mathematical axioms. That's a bit off-topic, though, so I'd like to resist getting into mathematics if we can (for this post anyway).
I am familiar with Hibert's hotel, it's counter-intuitive, sure; but conflict with mathematical axioms? That's quite the claim, Hilbert didn't go as far as to declare actual infinity impossible. I want to explore this, please consider starting a new thread.
Great, that's a fair objection. In that case, however, you have a growing number of people who are damned that approaches infinity. In addition to that, we have no idea what the ratio of people who freely choose to put their faith in God vs those who reject him.
I have some idea, given omnipotence the ratio can be as high as 1:0. We can come to this conclusion since rejecting God isn't a logical necessity, there doesn't need to be anyone who rejects him. It need not be the case that there is a growing number of people who are damned. While it could be the case that more people would be damned than saved, but it doesn't have to be. The world where the ratio is 1:0 is the best one.
It's got nothing to do with omnipotence. The point is that there is no "best" world on such a scenario because there could always be a better world. The video I linked above gives a good summary here as well.
Okay, setting my argument for the existence of a "best" world aside for now. The count-argument in the video says, if there is no "best" world, then God must debar comparing one world to another. It seems to me like you can't make that argument unless you reject the premise that "out of two options, God is not justified for picking the worse."
Ok, then I'd just say that God didn't choose the lesser option. It sounds like your response here forecloses the response from you, "But for any world he chooses, it is the lesser option of some other world!" That would, again, introduce a scenario where no ultimate comparison can be made.
That's not a problem for me, I am happy to accept that scenario and draw the conclusion that since no ultimate comparison can be made and God must make the best one, God cannot create any world.
On a separate note, you seem thoughtful and courteous despite our disagreement. Do you have any interest in joining a voiced discussion group for this? If so, PM me and I'll send you a link to add your name to the contact list.
No, thank you. Too much of a recluse to join a voice chat.

Post Reply