The Logical Problem of Evil: Mackie's World

[anonymous person]

It's an implication of omnibenevolence, among other things - that such an entity would necessarily create the best possible world it could, and an omnipotent entity could create a world it was not possible to better.

I see no reason why omnibenevolence and omnipotence would entail or imply this.

One could argue that there's no best possible world, or that a better world is always possible,

Seems like that would be the case to me.

but that leads to the reductio ad absurdum that an omnibenevolent could create a world of evil without any moral difficulties, which is troubling.

I'm not following you here.

It's not the most robust flag that the POE rebuttal is flaky - there are better ones, but it is easier to follow in a forum.

The logical problem of evil has been dissolved. Evidential or probabilistic versions fare better, but they are not insurmountable.

With regards to an example of a morally sufficient reason for God allowing evil for a greater good, I can think of no better example than the crucifixion of Christ whose death and resurrection makes it possible for men to be reconciled to God and to be able to know God and to enter into an intimate relationship with Him, an incommensurable good.

 

[Job8]

'Divine logic' is it?

I didn't get an explanation of 'spiritual logic' from Steve; it's clearly easy enough to appeal to some esoteric form of logic, but meaningless without some definition - perhaps you can tell me something about 'Divine logic' - what are its axioms? in what ways does it differ from human logic? how is it used? what are some examples?

Divine logic is paradoxical in human terms, e.g. the first shall be last, and the last shall be first, many are called but few are chosen, etc.

The fundamental axiom is that God's ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts.

 

[quatona]

With regards to an example of a morally sufficient reason for God allowing evil for a greater good, I can think of no better example than the crucifixion of Christ whose death and resurrection makes it possible for men to be reconciled to God and to be able to know God and to enter into an intimate relationship with Him, an incommensurable good.

Without there being evil the problem solved here wouldn´t even have existed.

 

[quatona]

Divine logic is paradoxical in human terms, e.g. the first shall be last, and the last shall be first, many are called but few are chosen, etc.

For purposes of these threads - do you think we should use "human logic" or "paradoxical logic"?

 

[anonymous person]

Without there being evil the problem solved here wouldn´t even have existed.

That's right.

And while there is nothing logically incoherent in the notion of a world of free moral creatures who always freely choose to do right, such a world may not be feasible for God to actualize if they have free will, for it may be that in every world wherein they exist, they freely choose to do evil. It would then be argued that any other world that has less evil in it than this world has may also have less good in it than this world has.

So as long as it is logically possible humans have free will, then it is not necessarily true that God can create any world He prefers.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Divine logic is paradoxical in human terms, e.g. the first shall be last, and the last shall be first, many are called but few are chosen, etc.

Lol! Under those terms, atheists will be first and believers last.

The fundamental axiom is that God's ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts.

Well it's certainly not logical to claim what something is not as its fundamental axiom, so kudos for that; and like all the other excuses for why the world isn't as one would expect if the Christian belief system bore any relation to reality, it's disturbingly irrational.

 

[anonymous person]

Lol! Under those terms, atheists will be first and believers last.
Well it's certainly not logical to claim what something is not as its fundamental axiom, so kudos for that; and like all the other excuses for why the world isn't as one would expect if the Christian belief system bore any relation to reality, it's disturbingly irrational.

Maybe that's Job8's point. I think your response and others here support the teachings of the bible Job8 alluded to in his post.

We tend to think if God exists, He would be someone we could control, someone we can understand on our own, someone who's ways would always make sense to us and when we find life running contrary to our preconceived ideas, we tend to want to throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak and get rid of God altogether instead of adopting, what was it.... the "epistemic humility" that allows one to admit without shame, that God's ways are not our ways. That He sits high and looks low. That we are of the dust with our breath in our nostrils but He is from above and we are the work of His hands.

We all see now dimly, if we see at all.

But take comfort in this, all injustices, all wrongs, all evils that have been done under the sun shall soon be called into judgment and it is there that many will hear, "Depart from me, for I knew you not, you workers of iniquity.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Maybe that's Job8's point. I think your response and others here support the teachings of the bible Job8 alluded to in his post.

Wow - that's really grasping at straws...

We tend to think if God exists, He would be someone we could control, someone we can understand on our own...

We? project not unto me. And who else thinks of an omnipotent, omniscient entity as 'someone they could control'??!

... we tend to want to throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak and get rid of God altogether instead of adopting, what was it.... the "epistemic humility" that allows one to admit without shame, that God's ways are not our ways. That He sits high and looks low.

What other choice have you than admitting it seems completely irrationally bonkers because it is, and it's meant to be...? One can't help but wonder at the level of 'epistemic humility' that enables you to close your mind to rationality and swallow that.

 

[quatona]

That's right.

And while there is nothing logically incoherent in the notion of a world of free moral creatures who always freely choose to do right, such a world may not be feasible for God to actualize if they have free will, for it may be that in every world wherein they exist, they freely choose to do evil. It would then be argued that any other world that has less evil in it than this world has may also have less good in it than this world has.

Sure - it can be argued for anything that it is better than any other thing.
That´s the problem with circling a logical discussion around morality.

So as long as it is logically possible humans have free will, then it is not necessarily true that God can create any world He prefers.

Correction: So long as you assume "free will" exists and you think that the existence of "free will" is the greatest good that trumps everything else, God cannot create a world to your liking and a world without suffering.
Whatever, since the bible clearly says that God not only tolerates evil that is caused by freewillies but creates evil/calamities/disasters/bad days - the "free will"-defense is besides the point I was making, anyway.
Let alone the fact that God alleged interfered with people´s "free will" on several occasion (but not on others), so "free will" can logically not be God´s greatest good or preference.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If it is possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil and suffering to occur, then the logical problem of evil fails to prove the non-existence of God. http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/#H3

And it certainly is logically possible. It need not be true that God has morally sufficient reasons, it need not be plausible. But if it is merely logically possible, then the argument fails.

Top notch cut and paste job Jeremy.

It's not logically possible that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god could allow suffering for whatever reason, based on my understanding of the words "omnipotent", "omnibenevolent" and "suffering". The set of things an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god would do could not include allowing suffering, which actually does make this a p = !p contradiction.

And, like I keep saying, your definitions may not match mine. If that's the case, then you'd come up with a different result. I'm only discussing the concepts as they apply to what the Christians I know have described omnipotence and omnibenevolence, which has informed my definitions of those terms.

 

[anonymous person]

Sure - it can be argued for anything that it is better than any other thing.
That´s the problem with circling a logical discussion around morality.


Correction: So long as you assume "free will" exists and you think that the existence of "free will" is the greatest good that trumps everything else, God cannot create a world to your liking and a world without suffering.
Whatever, since the bible clearly says that God not only tolerates evil that is caused by freewillies but creates evil/calamities/disasters/bad days - the "free will"-defense is besides the point I was making, anyway.
Let alone the fact that God alleged interfered with people´s "free will" on several occasion (but not on others), so "free will" can logically not be God´s greatest good or preference.

Have you read the article in my post #144?

 

[anonymous person]

Top notch cut and paste job Jeremy.

It's not logically possible that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god could allow suffering for whatever reason, based on my understanding of the words "omnipotent", "omnibenevolent" and "suffering". The set of things an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god would do could not include allowing suffering, which actually does make this a p = !p contradiction.

And, like I keep saying, your definitions may not match mine. If that's the case, then you'd come up with a different result. I'm only discussing the concepts as they apply to what the Christians I know have described omnipotence and omnibenevolence, which has informed my definitions of those terms.

Did you read the article?

 

[anonymous person]

Wow - that's really grasping at straws...

We? project not unto me. And who else thinks of an omnipotent, omniscient entity as 'someone they could control'??!

What other choice have you than admitting it seems completely irrationally bonkers because it is, and it's meant to be...? One can't help but wonder at the level of 'epistemic humility' that enables you to close your mind to rationality and swallow that.

What makes you think I've closed my mind to rationality?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I see no reason why omnibenevolence and omnipotence would entail or imply this.

It's not so difficult. If god could make a better world, and didn't, then he's not omnibenevolent.

 

[anonymous person]

It's not so difficult. If god could make a better world, and didn't, then he's not omnibenevolent.

I don't see how that follows. Especially if it is possible God has a good reason for creating the world the way He did, i.e. with free moral agents.

I am persuaded a world full of people capable of genuinely loving each other is a better world than a world full of, oh let's say, animals or androids.

I see this world perfectly compatible and if fact, what we would expect if God is love and whose very essence is graciousness and goodness. True love requires the possibility of rejecting God and that is where evil comes from.

So I'm just not persuaded by your argument.

In addition, evil is something you have to account for too. It is not just an issue Christians have to deal with. Where does evil come from, what is it, and what is the solution for it in your worldview?

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2013/why-the-problem-of-evil-is-a-problem-3/

 

[anonymous person]

If Jesus had never come, said the things He did, lived the way He did, give Himself the way He did, died the way He did, and rose the way He did, then I would say that certain versions of the POE would be more compelling. As it stands, The Cross is exactly what we would expect if God was omnibenevolent. Wait a minute....let me rephrase that. The Cross is exactly what I would expect if God was omnibenevolent.

I realize people have different understandings of what omnibenevolence is. If omnibenevolence means to you the inability to create this world then obviously there's an issue for such a one who holds that such a being exists, unless of course he insists this world does not exist, which is absurd.

I hold to no such view of omnibenevolence however. So I can happily leave it at that.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Did you read the article?

I've read it before. Are you capable of understanding my argument?

Given your long history of posting what other people write instead of actually thinking for yourself, I'm betting not. But I'd like to be mistaken on this point.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I don't see how that follows. Especially if it is possible God has a good reason for creating the world the way He did, i.e. with free moral agents.

It's demonstrably true that an omnipotent god could have created free moral agents without any inclination to cause suffering. So the "free moral agents" rebuttal doesn't stand up at all.

 

[anonymous person]

It's demonstrably true that an omnipotent god could have created free moral agents without any inclination to cause suffering. So the "free moral agents" rebuttal doesn't stand up at all.

You're attacking a view I don't hold. I don't believe Adam and Eve were created with an inclination to cause suffering. I don't think the angels were created with any such inclination either.

 

[anonymous person]

I've read it before. Are you capable of understanding my argument?

Given your long history of posting what other people write instead of actually thinking for yourself, I'm betting not. But I'd like to be mistaken on this point.

I provided the article as proof that what I am saying is not something I just made up. The version of the argument which intends to prove a logical inconsistency between the existence of evil and God is a version that has largely been abandoned in favor of less ambitious ones which focus not on the existence of evil per se, but the existence of certain types of evil or certain amounts of it.

And no, if something already exists which says what I aim to get across, I will copy and paste it and reference it because that is the best way for me to get my point across. Turning attention to how I deliver my argument to you instead of addressing the argument is to introduce a red herring into the mix.

Just tell me if you think these articles are wrong and if so, where is their error?