The Logical Problem of Evil: Mackie's World

[quatona]

Isaiah was originally written in Hebrew. Do you agree?

So?

 

[anonymous person]

So?

Do you agree?

 

[quatona]

Do you agree?

Don´t play games with me. Make your point - if you have one, that is.

 

[anonymous person]

Don´t play games with me. Make your point - if you have one, that is.

I don't want to spend time making my point if after I do, you are going to respond by taking issue with whether or not the book was written in Hebrew. A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[quatona]

I don't want to spend time making my point if after I do, you are going to respond by taking issue with whether or not the book was written in Hebrew. A simple yes or no will suffice.

Present your argument or leave it.
I can´t wait for you to explain how all bible translations (which are actually the basis for mainstream Christian beliefs) got it all wrong.

 

[anonymous person]

Present your argument or leave it.
I can´t wait for you to explain how all bible translations (which are actually the basis for mainstream Christian beliefs) got it all wrong.

I sense you are agitated. You may not be but that is how you come across. That in combination with my desire not to derail this thread will be my reason for refraining from making my argument here. I will write an article on my blog and then link it in a new thread. Thanks and quatona, relax.

 

[quatona]

I sense you are agitated.

1. Irrelevant.
2. Inaccurate.

You may not be but that is how you come across.

Do you want to distract by starting an exchange of mind reading attempts?
Ok, so here´s me doing my best to humour you:
You come across as desperate. It looks like you need to win time because you don´t know how to solve this issue that flies directly in the face of your argument. (Hasn´t Willy answered your request for help yet? )

Now, could we possibly abstain from such distractions (particularly since further down you are going to tell me how interested you are in being on topic)?

That in combination with my desire not to derail this thread will be my reason for refraining from making my argument here.

LOL - it´s always entertaining to see how you derail threads to your heart´s desire, but when it gets your argument in trouble, you suddenly get very strict about being on topic, even when the point in question is totally on topic.

Oh, so your remark "I believe evil isn´t created" was irrelevant and/or an attempt to derail the thread?

1. I don´t speak Hebrew, and neither do the vast majority of Christians.
2. All English bible translations of this passage are making a statement that is irreconcilable with omnibenevolence; and all of them explicitly contradict your proposition that evil and darkness aren´t created.
3. This is exactly the point that renders the PoE a completely coherent and logical argument in regards to BibleGod (unless you can show that all English bible translations are not only a little unprecise here but actually mean pretty much the opposite of what the original says).


From biblehub:
New International Version
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

New Living Translation
I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, the LORD, am the one who does these things.

English Standard Version
I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things.

New American Standard Bible
The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.

King James Bible
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
I form light and create darkness, I make success and create disaster; I, Yahweh, do all these things."

International Standard Version
"I form light and create darkness, I make goodness and create disaster. I am the LORD, who does all these things.

NET Bible
I am the one who forms light and creates darkness; the one who brings about peace and creates calamity. I am the LORD, who accomplishes all these things.

New Heart English Bible
I form the light, and create darkness. I make peace, and create calamity. I am the LORD, who does all these things.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
I make light and create darkness. I make blessings and create disasters. I, the LORD, do all these things.

JPS Tanakh 1917
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.

New American Standard 1977
The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating calamity;
I am the LORD who does all these.

Jubilee Bible 2000
I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil: I am the LORD that does all this.

King James 2000 Bible
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create calamity: I the LORD do all these things.

American King James Version
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

American Standard Version
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

Douay-Rheims Bible
I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.

Darby Bible Translation
forming the light and creating darkness, making peace and creating evil: I, Jehovah, do all these things.

English Revised Version
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.

Webster's Bible Translation
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

World English Bible
I form the light, and create darkness. I make peace, and create calamity. I am Yahweh, who does all these things.

Young's Literal Translation
Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I am Jehovah, doing all these things.'

We get: "create evil", "create disaster", "create calamity", "create calamities", "send bad times", "prepare evil". None of these are reconcilable with omnibenevolence.
Now, it´s possible they got it all completely wrong (and in Hebrew the passage says "I´ll send you flowers for your birthday" or something) - in which case you (apparently an expert in Hebrew, since you started to head in that direction) are welcome to explain this. Until then, the PoE (or the problem of calamity, or the problem of disaster, or the problem of bad times - whatever translation may be the most accurate one) is spot on in regards to the bible as it´s currently used.
Whereas if your point isn´t relevant or on topic, we can discuss the problem as pointed out without considering it quite fine.
Pick your choices.

 

[anonymous person]

1. Irrelevant.
2. Inaccurate.

Do you want to distract by starting an exchange of mind reading attempts?
Ok, so here´s me doing my best to humour you:
You come across as desperate. It looks like you need to win time because you don´t know how to solve this issue that flies directly in the face of your argument. (Hasn´t Willy answered your request for help yet? )

Now, could we possibly abstain from such distractions (particularly since further down you are going to tell me how interested you are in being on topic)?


LOL - it´s always entertaining to see how you derail threads to your heart´s desire, but when it gets your argument in trouble, you suddenly get very strict about being on topic, even when the point in question is totally on topic.

Oh, so your remark "I believe evil isn´t created" was irrelevant and/or an attempt to derail the thread?

1. I don´t speak Hebrew, and neither do the vast majority of Christians.
2. All English bible translations of this passage are making a statement that is irreconcilable with omnibenevolence; and all of them explicitly contradict your proposition that evil and darkness aren´t created.
3. This is exactly the point that renders the PoE a completely coherent and logical argument in regards to BibleGod (unless you can show that all English bible translations are not only a little unprecise here but actually mean pretty much the opposite of what the original says).


From biblehub:
New International Version
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

New Living Translation
I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, the LORD, am the one who does these things.

English Standard Version
I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things.

New American Standard Bible
The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.

King James Bible
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
I form light and create darkness, I make success and create disaster; I, Yahweh, do all these things."

International Standard Version
"I form light and create darkness, I make goodness and create disaster. I am the LORD, who does all these things.

NET Bible
I am the one who forms light and creates darkness; the one who brings about peace and creates calamity. I am the LORD, who accomplishes all these things.

New Heart English Bible
I form the light, and create darkness. I make peace, and create calamity. I am the LORD, who does all these things.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
I make light and create darkness. I make blessings and create disasters. I, the LORD, do all these things.

JPS Tanakh 1917
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.

New American Standard 1977
The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating calamity;
I am the LORD who does all these.

Jubilee Bible 2000
I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil: I am the LORD that does all this.

King James 2000 Bible
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create calamity: I the LORD do all these things.

American King James Version
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

American Standard Version
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

Douay-Rheims Bible
I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.

Darby Bible Translation
forming the light and creating darkness, making peace and creating evil: I, Jehovah, do all these things.

English Revised Version
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.

Webster's Bible Translation
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

World English Bible
I form the light, and create darkness. I make peace, and create calamity. I am Yahweh, who does all these things.

Young's Literal Translation
Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I am Jehovah, doing all these things.'

We get: "create evil", "create disaster", "create calamity", "create calamities", "send bad times", "prepare evil". None of these are reconcilable with omnibenevolence.
Now, it´s possible they got it all completely wrong (and in Hebrew the passage says "I´ll send you flowers for your birthday" or something) - in which case you (apparently an expert in Hebrew, since you started to head in that direction) are welcome to explain this. Until then, the PoE (or the problem of calamity, or the problem of disaster, or the problem of bad times - whatever translation may be the most accurate one) is spot on in regards to the bible as it´s currently used.
Whereas if your point isn´t relevant or on topic, we can discuss the problem as pointed out without considering it quite fine.
Pick your choices.

I will take all of this into consideration in compiling my article.

I see you have put forward an argument to me.

 

[quatona]

I will take all of this into consideration in compiling my argument on my blog. Thanks!

So at this point you have nothing to bring to the table in defense of your argument? Ok.

 

[anonymous person]

So at this point you have nothing to bring to the table in defense of your argument? Ok.

My argument is going to be why the Isaiah passage is not speaking of moral evil, as such, I don't think it is pertinent here in this thread. It will be presented in a thread of its own. Thanks.

 

[quatona]

My argument is going to be why the Isaiah passage is not speaking of moral evil, as such,

Which is completely irrelevant - because it describes a behaviour which is - by any workable and common definition - the very hallmark of "evil".
It is speaking of intentionally inflicting evil/calamity/calamities/bad times on others.
This behaviour is irreconcilable with being omnibenevolent.

 

[anonymous person]

Which is completely irrelevant - because it describes a behaviour which is - by any workable and common definition - the very hallmark of "evil".
It is speaking of intentionally inflicting evil/calamity/calamities/bad times on others.
This behaviour is irreconcilable with being omnibenevolent.

I will address this in my blog and link the article here.

 

[anonymous person]

Which is completely irrelevant - because it describes a behaviour which is - by any workable and common definition - the very hallmark of "evil".
It is speaking of intentionally inflicting evil/calamity/calamities/bad times on others.
This behaviour is irreconcilable with being omnibenevolent.

While I am writing my article, I will give you a swift refutation of your argument until the completed work is ready.

Since you are arguing that two things are irreconcilable one with another, namely God's omnibenevolence with Him causing calamity and adversity to befall people (for that is the meaning of the term in question determined by the context), and since there is no explicit contradiction between the two, there must be an implicit assumption that one can deduce an explicit contradiction from and it is:

1. If God is omnibenevolent, He would prefer not to cause calamity and adversity to befall people.

Such an assumption is not necessarily true however, if God has a morally sufficient reason for causing such things to occur, and thus the argument is invalid.

 

[quatona]

I will address this in my blog and link the article here.

I understand you are unable to continue the defense of your line of reasoning against the PoE at this point.

 

[quatona]

While I am writing my article, I will give you a swift refutation of your argument until the completed work is ready.

Since you are arguing that two things are irreconcilable one with another, namely God's omnibenevolence with Him causing calamity and adversity to befall people (for that is the meaning of the term in question determined by the context), and since there is no explicit contradiction between the two, there must be an implicit assumption that one can deduce an explicit contradiction from and it is:

1. If God is omnibenevolent, He would prefer not to cause calamity and adversity to befall people.

Indeed. Intentionally inflicting calamities, disasters and bad times on other people is, per definition, the opposite of benevolence.

Such an assumption is not necessarily true however,

As I predicted, you will have to stretch the term "benevolence" to the point of absurdity in order to show how they are reconcilable. As I also said before, this won´t come as a surprise to anyone that has seen the flexibility of your moral relativism and your genocide apologetics before.

if God has a morally sufficient reason for causing such things to occur,

1. A "morally sufficient reason" doesn´t render an action benevolent (and even less omnibenevolent).
2. Good luck with fabricating such a "morally sufficient reason" for an omnipotent, omniscient creator-entity of everything.

 

[anonymous person]

Indeed. Benevolence and being the author of calamities, disasters and bad times for other people is, per definition, the opposite of benevolence.


As I predicted, you will have to stretch the term "benevolence" to the point of absurdity in order to show how they are reconcilable. As I also said before, this won´t come as a surprise to anyone that has seen the flexibility of your moral relativism and your genocide apologetics before.

1. A "morally sufficient reason" doesn´t render an action benevolent (and even less omnibenevolent).
2. Good luck with fabricating such a "morally sufficient reason" for an omnipotent, omniscient creator-entity of everything.

I don't have to come up with an actual morally sufficient reason. I simply need to point out that it is logically possible God has one to render the argument invalid. Please reference my previous posts and the IEP on why this is so if you have not already done so.

 

[quatona]

I don't have to come up with an actual morally sufficient reason.

In view of God´s alleged omnipotence and omniscience there logically can´t be such a "morally sufficient reason". An omnipotent and omniscient entity doesn´t have those excuses of circumstances, lack of resources, "greater good", "necessary byproducts", collateral damage by which humans can justify atrocious actions.

Btw. you forgot to address this: "having morally sufficient reasons" isn´t the same as "being (omni)benevolent". Claiming God´s omnibenevolence sets the bar quite a few yards higher.

I simply need to point out that it is logically possible God has one to render the argument invalid.

Since you are the one claiming the entity in question to be omni-three, you would have to show that a certain "greater good (for all the persons involved)" without inflicting these atrocities is logically impossible. Good luck with that.

 

[anonymous person]

In view of God´s alleged omnipotence and omniscience there logically can´t be such a "morally sufficient reason". An omnipotent and omniscient entity doesn´t have those excuses of circumstances, lack of resources, "greater good", "necessary byproducts", collateral damage by which humans can justify atrocious actions.

Btw. you forgot to address this: "having morally sufficient reasons" isn´t the same as "being (omni)benevolent". Claiming God´s omnibenevolence sets the bar quite a few yards higher.


Since you are the one claiming the entity in question to be omni-three, you would have to show that a certain "greater good (for all the persons involved)" without inflicting these atrocities is logically impossible. Good luck with that.

I don't think you understand what you are arguing and thus you think my refutation fails.

Simply reference my previous posts.

 

[quatona]

I don't think you understand what you are arguing and thus you think my refutation fails.

What a brilliant retort!
Hey, Walker, if you don´t understand it, feel free to ask.
Here it is again, in simple terms.

You´re the one claiming the omni-three God.
So I we can conveniently consider God to be capable of doing anything (except the illogical).
You are also the one claiming that God can´t achieve a certain goal without resorting to creating "evil" (calamities, disaster, bad times) for his creatures - IOW you are claiming it´s logically impossible.
So go ahead and show how it´s logically impossible.

 

[anonymous person]

You´re the one claiming the omni-three God.

I think we can derive from the scriptures that God is all good, all powerful, and all knowing. So yes I make that claim.

So I we can conveniently consider God to be capable of doing anything (except the illogical).

I take issue with this conception of omnipotence. While I agree it entails not being able to do the illogical, I see the concept as having more to do with being able to actualize any logically possible state of affairs that is in accord with one's nature, as opposed to just having the ability to do certain things.

Remember my post #143 where I supplied a link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on omnipotence? Reference that for a detailed explication if you have not done so ok?

You are also the one claiming that God can´t achieve a certain goal without resorting to creating "evil" (calamities, disaster, bad times) for his creatures - IOW you are claiming it´s logically impossible.
So go ahead and show how it´s logically impossible.

No sir, I have never made that claim. Such a claim is made in certain theodicies which attempt to show why God does certain things like cause adversity etc, but I have not attempted to present a theodicy here.

All I need to do quatona, is to show that the assumptions you are making are not necessarily true because it is you that is making the claim of a logical inconsistency.

Do you understand what is entailed in claiming that a set of propositions are logically inconsistent? If you did, then you would understand that it must be the case that the propositions are either explicitly contradictory, or that there are assumptions from which one can deduce an explicit contradiction.

Do you understand the concept of logical inconsistency?