The Argument From Evil Explained

_{Barry Arrington
August 28, 2018

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Many times we hear about the “argument from evil” as a knock-down argument for the non-existence of God. For those of you who are not familiar with the argument, I will explain it. It goes like this:

All good arguments depend on the precise, clear and unambiguous use of language. The argument from evil is no exception. It obviously demands an exacting definition of the word “evil.” Richard Dawkins, the world’s most famous atheist, says the universe has “no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” If he is right and there is no evil, that might seem like a problem for an argument from, well, evil. But it is not. Dawkins means there is no objective transcendent morality. Stuff just happens for no reason and it is neither good nor evil in the sense of “conforming to an objective moral code” since there is no objective moral code. But that does not mean we cannot nevertheless employ the word “evil” in a way that is useful for our argument. We just have to define the word to mean “that which I do not subjectively prefer” or more loosely “icky stuff I don’t like.”

Now that we have the definitional issue out of the way, we can go on to the argument. It is a simple augment really. It amounts to the following syllogism that any child can understand:

Major Premise: If God exists, he would prevent evil (remember our definition “icky stuff I don’t like) from happening.

Minor Premise: Icky stuff I don’t like happens all the time.

Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.

QED

Comments

daveS, Regarding 305. Please, would you mind answering the questions in 294? Your answer, not someone else’s. Thanks.PaoloV_{September 2, 2018
September
09
Sep
2
02
2018
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

PaoloV, My revised guess is that you believe that God has absolutely no obligations towards us, and may treat us in any way He likes. Is that more accurate? I suspect that your position is actually more nuanced than that, so please correct me if necessary.daveS_{September 2, 2018
September
09
Sep
2
02
2018
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

KF, Can we at least agree that God never in fact does violate principles of objective morality? I don't know if this will advance the discussion at all, but it's something.daveS_{September 2, 2018
September
09
Sep
2
02
2018
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

DS, I have repeatedly pointed out a key role, supreme judge -- enforcing the core principles. Even human judges have very different responsibilities and duties than those who come before them. A linked role is, Saviour who provides a path of rescue for those in material breach -- us. Behind, lies the responsibilities and powers of creator-sustainer who judges how to make a world in which moral good obtains. KFkairosfocus_{September 2, 2018
September
09
Sep
2
02
2018
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

KF, Would you be able to illustrate this difference by naming a principle of objective morality which God is exempt from?daveS_{September 2, 2018
September
09
Sep
2
02
2018
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

DS, I have already pointed out the ontological differences at stake, which make for significant differences. God is creator, Lord and judge. We, properly, are accountable before him. As would be other creatures of like morally governed nature. KFkairosfocus_{September 2, 2018
September
09
Sep
2
02
2018
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

KF,
That said, the code — actually, core, intelligible principles on the duties of neighbour love, service to truth, sound readon, justice etc — is not arbitrary and imposed by might or manipulation.
That's close to what I'm saying. My understanding was that this objective/universal morality is literally universal, and not specific to humans. If there is other intelligent life in the universe, then they would have discovered these same principles. And they apply to God as well. Now God is perfect, so He would never violate the code; that would be as impossible as 1 + 1 = 3 being true or a square circle existing. Do you agree?daveS_{September 2, 2018
September
09
Sep
2
02
2018
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

PaoloV, I appreciate your efforts, but I think if we follow this strict Socratic dialog format it's going to take forever to get anywhere. Remember we're speaking across a cultural divide, so some of your questions appear very open-ended to me, even if to you there is an obvious and clear answer.daveS_{September 2, 2018
September
09
Sep
2
02
2018
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

daveS, Regarding 298. Your guess is off target in this case. It seems like you’ve missed important points in our conversation. Please, try again. No rush. Take your time. Read well our mutually addressed posts. Don’t mix our conversation with other discussions in this thread. Thus you should be able to correct your guess. Thanks.PaoloV_{September 2, 2018
September
09
Sep
2
02
2018
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

DS, the code such as it is, reflects God's character as creator-sustainer. However, one of the differences is, God is Lord and judge who acts in defense of the right. That said, the code -- actually, core, intelligible principles on the duties of neighbour love, service to truth, sound readon, justice etc -- is not arbitrary and imposed by might or manipulation. Though, given the crooked yardstick problem, we can become blind, numb and utterly resistant to the manifest truth and right, ending up as a destructive, menacing plague upon the earth. Hitler, Stalin, Mao et al seem to be capital cases in point in the past 100 years. KFkairosfocus_{September 2, 2018
September
09
Sep
2
02
2018
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

Sev argues that free will is incompatible with God's omniscience. It is not. Foreknowledge does not equal coercion. On the other hand, free will is completely incompatible with Sev's atheistic materialism. Moreover, Sev's denial of free will directly undermines his claim that he is making a logically coherent argument against the reality of free will in general and/or against the validity of "the free will defense" in particular.
Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html "It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere byproduct of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." Haldane - "When I am Dead" in Possible Worlds (1927)
The denial of free will by atheists such as Sev should be the very definition of a 'self-refuting idea'.
Self-refuting ideas or self-defeating ideas are ideas or statements whose falsehood is a logical consequence of the act or situation of holding them to be true. - Self-refuting idea - Wikipedia
bornagain77_{September 2, 2018
September
09
Sep
2
02
2018
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

KF, Is God obliged to adhere to the universal moral code?daveS_{September 2, 2018
September
09
Sep
2
02
2018
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

PS: God is situated quite differently from us in the system of a morally pervaded world, as creator and sustainer.kairosfocus_{September 2, 2018
September
09
Sep
2
02
2018
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

DS, the context for such yardstick cases is our manifest human nature, with the self-referential point that absent responsible, rational freedom even argument collapses. KFkairosfocus_{September 2, 2018
September
09
Sep
2
02
2018
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

PaoloV, KF's post #296 might be helpful. I'm assuming you believe that self-evident moral truths exist, but please correct me if I'm wrong. One example which is cited here frequently is that is immoral to torture a person for pleasure. I don't know whether these truths have to be based on anything; perhaps they exist necessarily. Anyway I'm guessing that you believe this moral code exists and that God cannot and would not violate it.daveS_{September 2, 2018
September
09
Sep
2
02
2018
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

PS: Evils, of course will parasite on and violate oughts. That is, they frustrate, twist out of line with, divert from etc, moving towards proper purpose, which in many cases is naturally evident. They profit from the fact that most of the time we don't act like that: if Cretans were lying 100% of the time, Cretan society would collapse, lying is indulged in hope of profiting from deceit or misleading those who take what is said or suggested without regard for conformity to reality for truth. A community in which deceit was the universal pattern would collapse through fatal disconnect from reality. Likewise if Cretans were 100% lazy and gluttonous, they would collectively starve. Similarly, the example of a yardstick in points 7 - 10 above pivots on our intuitive recognition that a child is valuable in himself and is not a disposable toy to be sexually abused and murdered for someone's sick pleasure. Something that is pretty hard to deny but we can see the warning flags trip when an objector becomes evasive or tries to distract focus or studiously ignore. Resemblance to the about 250 comments since 49 above is NOT coincidental. That noted, this case then allows us to draw out much broader principles, on close reflection. We should beware of worldviews that undermine core moral thought and principles as they are not compatible with human thriving, regardless of what they pretend otherwise.kairosfocus_{September 2, 2018
September
09
Sep
2
02
2018
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT}

F/N: The issue of universal or objective morality has been raised, let me clip from 49 above (which in turn comes from a 101 discussion elsewhere):
We may elaborate on Paul, Locke, Hooker and Aristotle, laying out several manifestly evident and historically widely acknowledged core moral principles; for which the attempted denial is instantly and patently absurd for most people — that is, they are arguably self-evident (thus, warranted and objective) moral truths; not just optional opinions. So also, it is not only possible to (a) be in demonstrable moral error, but also (b) there is hope that such moral errors can be corrected by appealing to manifestly sound core principles of the natural moral law. For instance: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought. (This is manifest in even an objector’s implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.) 2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.) 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. (That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity.) 4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise. 5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do. 6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. If a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT — so that IS and OUGHT are inextricably fused at that level, it fails decisively.*) 7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare; usurping the sword of justice to impose a ruthless policy agenda in fundamental breach of that civil peace which must ever pivot on manifest justice. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.) 8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity. 9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd. 10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. (In Aristotle’s terms as cited by Hooker: “because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like .”) Thus also, 11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly. (NB: This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting — again — nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation — or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an insitutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases.) 12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil. _________________ * F/N: After centuries of debates and assessment of alternatives per comparative difficulties, there is in fact just one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. (And instantly, such generic ethical theism answers also to the accusation oh this is “religion”; that term being used as a dirty word — no, this is philosophy. If you doubt this, simply put forth a different candidate that meets the required criteria and passes the comparative difficulties test: _________ . Likewise, an inherently good, maximally great being will not be arbitrary or deceitful etc, that is why such is fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. As a serious candidate necessary being, such would be eternal and embedded in the frame for a world to exist at all. Thus such a candidate is either impossible as a square circle is impossible due to mutual ruin of core characteristics, or else it is actual. For simple instance no world is possible without two-ness in it, a necessary basis for distinct identity inter alia. But, widespread or even general acknowledgement of many or most of the above as more or less useful rules of conduct is not the same as to further acknowledge that the sort of wrong we are contemplating is bindingly, objectively, universally something that OUGHT not to be done. And indeed, many will boldly assert today that it cannot be proved that it is absurd to reject the notion that core moral principles are objective and universally binding. Indeed an actual argument made is oh, how can you PROVE that such a list of truths is coherent? (My reply was, after several rounds: “truths must all be so together, a key point of a coherent world: on distinct identity the triple first principles obtain and so no x is both A and not-A, and so too no two truths x and y can be such that y = NOT-x. In this context, each of the 12 being in turn directly credibly true on grounds of patent absurdities on attempted denial, they are immediately credibly coherent. Next, it so happens that the principles are in fact linked together in a chain so they are mutually supportive and relevant, in fact framing the basis for moral principles in governance.” The onward question was absolute certainty regarding coherence, to which I responded that not even Mathematics — the logical study of structure and quantity — post Godel is absolutely certain, and that the relevant degree of certainty is moral, where I would be confidently willing to cast the weight of my soul on the above, and would be prepared to bet the future of civilisation on them. [Indeed, whatever moral view we take, we are casting the weight of our souls and the future of civilisation on it. The ethical component of our worldviews is awesomely momentous.]) So in the view of too many today, we are left to the feelings of revulsion and the community consensus backed up by police and courts on this. Not so. Compare a fish, that we lure to bite on a hook, then land, kill and eat for lunch without compunction. And even for those who object, they will do so by extension of the protective sense we have about say the young child — not the other way around. But, unless there is a material difference between a young child and a fish, that sense of wrong is frankly delusional, it is just a disguised preference, one that we are simply willing to back up with force. So, already, once we let radical relativism and subjectivism loose, we are looking at the absurdity and chaos of the nihilist abyss, might (and manipulation) makes for ‘right.’ Oops. At the pivot of the skeptical objections to objective moral truth, notwithstanding persistent reduction to absurdity, is the pose that since we may err and since famously there are disagreements on morality, we can reduce moral feelings to subjective perceptions tastes and preferences, dismissing any and all claims of objectivity much less self evidence. So, the objector triumphantly announces: there is an unbridgeable IS-OUGHT gap, game over. Not so fast, as there is no better reason to imagine that we live in a moral Plato’s Cave world, than that we live in a physical or intellectual Plato’s Cave world. That is, we consider the imagined world of Plato where the denizens, having been imprisoned from childhood, all imagine that the shadow shows portrayed for their benefit are reality. Until, one is loosed, sees the apparatus of manipulation, then is led outside and learns of the reality that is there to be discovered. Then he tries to rescue his fellows, only to be ridiculed and attacked: Video: Where, again, let us understand how worldviews shape community life: Now, the skeptical question is, do we live in such a delusional world (maybe in another form such as the brains in vats or the Matrix’s pods . . . ), and can we reliably tell the difference? The best answer to such is, that such a scenario implies general delusion and the general un-trustworthiness of our senses and reasoning powers. So, it undercuts itself in a turtles all the way down chain of possible delusions — an infinite regress of Plato’s cave delusions. Common good sense then tells us that the skeptic has caught himself up in his own web, his argument is self referentially incoherent.
KFkairosfocus_{September 2, 2018
September
09
Sep
2
02
2018
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT}

“Another point, any free will defense founders on a God with foreknowledge of our future. What God knows will be, will be. We can do nothing to change it, so how can we have free will?” This gambit always amuses me. Not because of anything inherently funny in the argument itself but because it is so poorly aimed at Christians. It only has traction with those Christians that don't know the Word in any detail. "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men" and "Put not your trust in princes." You see, Seversky, God tells us two things: 1. He knows the end from the beginning 2. Choose. None of your inability to understand HOW these can both be valid has any impact on our understanding that they ARE both valid. For we know whom we have believed, and are persuaded ...ScuzzaMan_{September 2, 2018
September
09
Sep
2
02
2018
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PDT}

daveS, Regarding 278. Maybe I don’t understand your comment. What do you mean by “universal moral code”? Based on what? ThanksPaoloV_{September 1, 2018
September
09
Sep
1
01
2018
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

Sev “So, I’m still not clear what is meant by evil here. Is personified in a being such as Satan? Is it a force such as electromagnetism or gravity to which we are all subject to some degree or is it how we judge the acts of other human beings and, by extension, other intelligent beings?” I can tell you what it is not. Evil is not a thing. “Another point, any free will defense founders on a God with foreknowledge of our future. What God knows will be, will be. We can do nothing to change it, so how can we have free will?” If you mean by free willl self determined choice to know what someone will do necessarily Is not at odds with self determination. For example a coach may manuever a game in a manner that that he knows ahead of time that the other coach will call a timeout? Will the other coach call a timeout? Yes. Is he he free to not call the timeout? Yes Vividvividbleau_{September 1, 2018
September
09
Sep
1
01
2018
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT}

Seversky:
Another point, any free will defense founders on a God with foreknowledge of our future.
Cuz you say so, really? And if God knows ALL possible futures that negates your strawman
Yet another point, if you argue that God is unable to prevent a lesser evil because He wants to achieve some greater good then you are conceding He is less than omnipotent.
And another cuz you say so. God is able to prevent any and everything. What would be the point? If this is a universe designed for scientific discovery that would mean at all levels. Look how much we have learned about biology thanks to the impetus of imperfection.
Finally, why should we not be told why and how this is the case? Why shouldn’t we know why and how God arrived at His moral prescriptions for us?
Willful ignorance isn't an argument, SeverskyET_{September 1, 2018
September
09
Sep
1
01
2018
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

Seversky, I note on points for reference, though some (such as the first) were already answered above: >>I’m still not clear what is meant by evil here.>> 1: The "here" is probably operative, as it projects questions of arbitrary imposition or question begging. So, we first note that evil is generally recognised intuitively (e,g. murder, rape, abuse of the state powers of policing, judgement, the sword, media dominance etc), which is a likely start point for those favouring this now dead objection. And, as Boethius noted, it is also intimately connected to another intuitive and commonplace concept, the good. 2: Evil is directly connected to the is-ought issue, e.g. in reasoning we sense that we ought to seek and logically assess truth, warranting it, which is a good. By contrast, to miss the mark of truth, sound reasoning and warranting what we accept is evil, and to be avoided. 3: Where, too, this is self-referential: we find ourselves under government of duties of care to truth, logic, wisdom, prudence etc. If that sense of oughtness is delusional, then it radically undermines mindedness, communication and argument into little more than tools to take advantage of the weak. Such nihilism is absurd and we have good cause to accept that we are under government of duties, and enjoy responsible, rational freedom which allows us to ground conclusions etc. 4: Evil, then is evident as what twists good capabilities out of track with their proper ends; which ends are often naturally evident or self evident. The privation, perversion, frustration, etc of things out of line with their proper ends is evil. This will be seen to be useful on many key cases, justifying -- another oughtness word -- general use. 5: And yes this then raises big questions about the roots of a world that has purpose embedded in such pivotal domains as the life of the mind. 6: By contrast, many popular or dominant worldviews and cultural agendas today are radically nhostile to the purposive, and this rapidly leads to their amorality and chaotic impact, starting with the life nof the mind. Hence the degree of ruthless manipulation, deceit and rhetoric games evident all around and patently destructive to human community and thriving. Evolutionary materialistic scientism, I am looking straight at you. 7: Likewise, after a 100-year run which saw the likes of a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao and others of like ilk, to see a rhetorical stance that even remotely suggests that evil is a dubious concept trips a rhetorical hurricane warning. >> Is personified in a being such as Satan?>> 8: Evil, patently is not a person, it is the privation of the good, but many persons can so fill themselves with evil ways that their names become bywords for evil. >> Is it a force such as electromagnetism or gravity to which we are all subject to some degree or is it how we judge the acts of other human beings and, by extension, other intelligent beings?>> 9: Evil is a destructive perverted parasite on the good. >>Another point, any free will defense founders on a God with foreknowledge of our future. What God knows will be, will be. We can do nothing to change it, so how can we have free will?>> 10: I have seen this ill-advised objection, which works by getting things twisted out of proper order. 11: God is creator and sustainer, actively supporting the world. So, he is naturally aware of every event. That by no means implies that the after the fact outcome and knowledge of it have causal power to reach back to force the outcome. Cause runs forward temporally. 12: Where also, our very mindedness we use to reason, warrant and acknowledge conclusions critically depends on our having significant responsible, rational freedom. Consequently, any argument that implies that we lack that rational freedom is self-defeating. 13: That holds for the futuristic determinism fallacy, and it holds for the evolutionary materialism that would reduce mindedness to GIGO-limited computation on a wetware substrate. >>Yet another point, if you argue that God is unable to prevent a lesser evil because He wants to achieve some greater good then you are conceding He is less than omnipotent.>> 14: Unable is error, and the implicit definition of omnipotence is just as flawed. It would have been helpful if you had first interacted with the above thread, which would have made for a more constructive engagement. 15: I just note, that key theological terms are very carefully structured, as are mathematical definitions and the wording of laws, for very similar reasons, they can be twisted into destructive or chaotic errors. That said, let me again cite the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible. These last words of the definition do not imply any imperfection, since a power that extends to every possibility must be perfect. The universality of the object of the Divine power is not merely relative but absolute, so that the true nature of omnipotence is not clearly expressed by saying that God can do all things that are possible to Him; it requires the further statement that all things are possible to God. The intrinsically impossible is the self-contradictory, and its mutually exclusive elements could result only in nothingness. “Hence,” says Thomas (Summa I, Q. xxv, a. 3), “it is more exact to say that the intrinsically impossible is incapable of production, than to say that God cannot produce it.” To include the contradictory within the range of omnipotence, as does the Calvinist Vorstius, is to acknowledge the absurd as an object of the Divine intellect, and nothingness as an object of the Divine will and power. “God can do all things the accomplishment of which is a manifestation of power,” says Hugh of St. Victor, “and He is almighty because He cannot be powerless” (De sacram., I, ii, 22). As intrinsically impossible must be classed: 1] Any action on the part of God which would be out of harmony with His nature and attributes; 2] Any action that would simultaneously connote mutually repellent elements, e.g. a square circle, an infinite creature, etc.
>>Unless you can demonstrate that it is logically and physically impossible to achieve this greater good without the lesser evil then an omnipotent being should not be so constrained.>> 16: All that is required is to first open eyes and see that freedom is the key to creative, rational mind, to love, to relationships, to virtue and more, then to realise the problem of galloping cases that start from some X but then that is just X1, 2, 3 . . . follow and the argument seeks to eliminate an entire order of being including the basis for argument itself. 17: This also misdirects responsibility, in effect trying to blame God for our willful moral failures. Why have you, Mr Potter made me a bowl capable of holding fluid, don't you see I can hold poison? Shouldn't you eliminate bowls to prevent poisoning? Of course, we are more active than a bowl is. >>Finally, why should we not be told why and how this is the case? Why shouldn’t we know why and how God arrived at His moral prescriptions for us?>> 18: Of course, as say 49 above drew out, core morality is quite substantially evident to the willing eye of reason. But if one insists on making a crooked yardstick his standard for straight, upright and accurate, what is actually so will never pass the crookedness test and too often such a party will look at a plumbline and will dismiss its correction to the crooked yardstick. KFkairosfocus_{September 1, 2018
September
09
Sep
1
01
2018
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

So, I'm still not clear what is meant by evil here. Is personified in a being such as Satan? Is it a force such as electromagnetism or gravity to which we are all subject to some degree or is it how we judge the acts of other human beings and, by extension, other intelligent beings? Another point, any free will defense founders on a God with foreknowledge of our future. What God knows will be, will be. We can do nothing to change it, so how can we have free will? Yet another point, if you argue that God is unable to prevent a lesser evil because He wants to achieve some greater good then you are conceding He is less than omnipotent. Unless you can demonstrate that it is logically and physically impossible to achieve this greater good without the lesser evil then an omnipotent being should not be so constrained. Finally, why should we not be told why and how this is the case? Why shouldn't we know why and how God arrived at His moral prescriptions for us?Seversky_{September 1, 2018
September
09
Sep
1
01
2018
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

F/N: One of the telltale signs that something is amiss with the attempt to pull what I discussed into the slippery slope debate [which now also stands duly corrected], is that I actually gave a specific dynamic at work that creates the galloping cases problem, that picking case X has no inherent reason to stop the chain X1, 2, 3 . . . so that we end up in the problem the very precise wording of 2b above correctively speaks to. We are dealing with yet another subject where very careful thought and vetting of wording are called for, to get concepts right. A survey of the thread above will show that for over 200 onward comments, there has not been a proper reckoning on the objectors side with the reasoning behind the vetting Plantinga gave, and how it contributes to the defense. KFkairosfocus_{September 1, 2018
September
09
Sep
1
01
2018
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

RJS, if you mean to say that which is conceded by all -- e.g. safe ground contrasts with slippery slopes leading to cliffs -- then please don't use what is a patent a case in point of sliding or galloping (both are possible together as traction is lost) towards that crumbling cliff's edge. KF PS: We must not ever forget that we have nukes and similar horrors in play. Ponder, S Manhattan as a smoking hole in the ground, with radioactive clouds rising as the waters begin to rush in. Then, please, please, please, let us think twice, thrice, a dozen times on what we are collectively doing as a civilisation.kairosfocus_{September 1, 2018
September
09
Sep
1
01
2018
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

KF@286. I think that you are reading something into my comment that isn’t there. I was just trying to understand what you meant by ‘galloping case’. In my opinion, ‘slippery slope’ arguments are valid in some cases and not valid in others.R J Sawyer_{September 1, 2018
September
09
Sep
1
01
2018
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

PS: RJS, since you insist on using a loaded example to try to pretend that "slippery slopes" don't exist and pointing to such is inevitably fallacious -- BTW, after the history of WW1 then the rise of Bolshevism and that of the 3rd Reich and WW2 I don't know how such can be said with a straight face by any reasonably historically informed person! -- not all that is under colour of law is lawful. For cause, despite a crooked yardstick imposition, there is and can be no same sex "marriage." Marriage, being rooted in naturally evident creation order, is simply not something we can redefine at pleasure. What we face is an utterly ill-advised imposition under false colour of law, part of the ongoing disintegration of a civilisation insistently in rebellion against all that is good and sound. I draw the attention of those willing to set aside crooked yardsticks, here. I fear, we will only wake up to our folly as a civilisation when we lie broken-backed at the foot of a cliff.kairosfocus_{September 1, 2018
September
09
Sep
1
01
2018
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

RJS, kindly see the just above. Note, too, that all too soon for us, time up prevents unlimited growth of evils, as does the point that if evil is in entrenched power in a community it soon becomes a menace, a plague upon the earth that leads others to band together in their common defence. Likewise, the Categorical Imperative shows how major evils become self-limiting through the premise that evils profit only as a parasite, that this is not the universal praxis. Classically, Cretans are liars, lazy and gluttonous. But if any or all of these three were to be the all Cretans every time praxis, Cretan society would collapse. Lying profits from that normal speech is truthful, laziness and gluttony from the diligence of others. Universalise and collapse. And yes, real slippery slopes over a cliff. In my native land checks are effectively dead because too many were rubbery. My neighbourhood supermarket posted a board with a few dozen, to explain why. So, there are built in limits on evils. Beyond, further, we must apply Plantinga's 2b i/l/o the gap in understanding at work, recognising also that there is sufficient evidence to warrant reasonable trust in God. But of course in a world of selective hyperskepticism and crooked yardsticks imposed as standards of straight, upright and accurate, the willingness to be led by a plumbline is too often a very relevant question. KFkairosfocus_{September 1, 2018
September
09
Sep
1
01
2018
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

JDK, there goes the gallop down that slope heading over the cliff again. The problem contemplated is not God, but us in our argument tendencies. What of case X? But X is only X1, 2, 3, . . . are to follow without any but an arbitrary terminus on our part. Lost in the cloud of the gallop is respect for the wisdom and purpose of God, as well as Plantinga's very careful vetting as summarised in proposition 2b, which requires very careful, balanced reading. Observe, from 49:
Plantinga’s free-will defense, in a skeletal form, allows us to effectively address the problem. For, it is claimed that the following set of theistic beliefs embed an unresolvable contradiction: 1. God exists 2. God is omnipotent – all powerful 3. God is omniscient – all-knowing 4. God is omni-benevolent – all-good 5. God created the world 6. The world contains evil To do so, there is an implicit claim that, (2a) if he exists, God is omnipotent and so capable of — but obviously does not eliminate — evil. So, at least one of 2 – 5 should be surrendered. But all of these claims are central to the notion of God, so it is held that the problem is actually 1. Therefore, NOT-1: God does not exist. However, it has been pointed out by Plantinga and others that: 2a is not consistent with what theists actually believe: if the elimination of some evil would lead to a worse evil, or prevent the emergence of a greater good, then God might have a good reason to permit some evil in the cosmos. Specifically, what if “many evils result from human free will or from the fact that our universe operates under natural laws or from the fact that humans exist in a setting that fosters soul-making . . . [and that such a world] contains more good than a world that does not” ? In this case, Theists propose that 2a should be revised: 2b: “A good, omnipotent God will eliminate evil as far as he can without either losing a greater good or bringing about a greater evil.” But, once this is done, the alleged contradiction collapses.
This obtains globally and locally, in the context where we have long since been cautioned on good authority:
Isa 55:7 Let the wicked leave (behind) his way And the unrighteous man his thoughts; And let him return to the Lord, And He will have compassion (mercy) on him, And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon. 8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord. 9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts higher than your thoughts. [AMP]
The issue is, to so reflect and turn that we trust the infinitely wise and good beyond beyond what we can see. In that context, we trust that he has given us sufficient to guide us to the right, also that in his acts that go beyond the ordinary course of morally governed day to day responsibility and rationality are judged in his wisdom that immeasurably exceeds ours. That is part of the existential, pastoral challenge we face. And here, I think John Locke's counsel in the introduction, sec 5, of his essay on human understanding has a telling force:
Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says [NB: i.e. 2 Pet 1:2 - 4]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments [Prov 1: 1 - 7], that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties [cf Rom 1 - 2, Ac 17, etc, etc]. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [Matt 24:42 - 51], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27] shines bright enough for all our purposes . . . If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.
KFkairosfocus_{September 1, 2018
September
09
Sep
1
01
2018
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

KF, I don’t think that you have answered my earlier question. I apologize if you have and I just haven’t understood it. How would we know that there are not possible evils out there that are worse than any we are aware of, that God simply has not allowed us the free will to perpetrate? Where I am getting to with this is that the severity of some of the evils that have been perpetrated are largely dependent on the knowledge, and the tools derived from this knowledge. For example, mass killings along the scale we have recently seen would not be possible without the knowledge to build weapons and explosives. Before the discovery of metallurgy and chemistry, the ability for a single person to kill large numbers of people simply did not exist. Yet I don’t think that anyone is suggesting that they were any less morally governed or have any less responsible rational freedom than we have today. Is it not possible that God prevents us from the freedom to perpetrate some evil simply by denying us the knowledge necessary to doing so?R J Sawyer_{September 1, 2018
September
09
Sep
1
01
2018
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply