Thanks, Viraldi, for picking up where I left off with 92majestic. It is interesting that as a supposed ex-atheist he immediately went for the 'it's faith too' equation. He should have known better. I suppose he could have held to some strongly irrational atheism. Not a well thought out position, that.

Although GakuseiDon's faith assumption is unwarranted, and nunnington's assertion that suffering is necessary in a material universe is also unwarranted, I did point out earlier that these choices, in theory, by the god-concept require some explanation. Things like wanting a material universe, wanting free willed human beings. If these things are necessary, and result in evil, then the god-concept is still responsible for choosing evil.

Anyway, that's a nice argument by authority you have there GakuseiDon, but as it's fallacious, I don't buy it. All you've done by calling evil mysteriously necessary is to take the argument up a level. You are still left having to explain why your god-concept would in theory make such a choice: why would god create. And you're still left with faith assumptions to back it up. That's no solution at all; just more baseless assumptions.

So go ahead, if you wish; take it up a level from 'why is there evil' to 'evil is necessary when god created.' Answer 'why did god create'. So far, the nonsensical responses (he just had to) lead to a malicious choice, in contradiction with the god-concept's proposed properties, and so once again it fails on absurdity.

tytalus

Interesting point about the necessity of suffering. It's true that suffering is not inevitable in a material universe, if it was without sentient life. But sentient beings must presumably experience suffering?

If they don't, then probably they wouldn't experience joy and fulfilment?

As to the question of why God creates, there have been many answers to that, including love, creativity, boredom, loneliness, play, and so on. Most of those are not compatible with the Greek-style God, who is impassible. However, God in Judaism possibly could experience those things.

I haven't read this thread, but here goes...

God wanted people to have free will, so he let then do evil. But in Heaven evil is not suppose to exist, so how do you explain free will in Heaven?

Also, why do millions of people have to burn in Hell? What kinda punishment is that just for not worshiping God? How can you claim God is love when that is the punishment?

Birdcrazy

You had better find a fundie to answer that one, since I don't believe in a physical heaven and hell.

Curious what bird that is in your avatar, as I am fairly bird crazy.

nunnington wrote:tytalus

Interesting point about the necessity of suffering. It's true that suffering is not inevitable in a material universe, if it was without sentient life. But sentient beings must presumably experience suffering?

If they don't, then probably they wouldn't experience joy and fulfilment?

As to the question of why God creates, there have been many answers to that, including love, creativity, boredom, loneliness, play, and so on. Most of those are not compatible with the Greek-style God, who is impassible. However, God in Judaism possibly could experience those things.

I don't know that sentient beings must suffer, or that a consequence of not suffering would be no joy or fulfillment. If you wish to assert such, demonstrate the point(s).

As for your responses on why your god-concept chooses to create, do you think any of these reconcile the problem of evil, and if so how? You may of course go on evading the point of the question, and I am content to point it out, and to be amused by it.

tytalus

Well, I am very gratified that you are amused, and so, you see, my day has not been in vain. I have brought some light relief into your day, and even, perhaps some contentment.

I just knew when I got up that I was destined to bring a little light into someone else's life. Isn't life strange and unexpected?

tytalus wrote:Although GakuseiDon's faith assumption is unwarranted...

What "faith assumption"?

tytalus wrote:Anyway, that's a nice argument by authority you have there GakuseiDon, but as it's fallacious, I don't buy it.

"Argument by authority": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

A solution for the Logical Problem of Evil -- at least currently -- appears to have been generally accepted. True or false?

tytalus wrote:All you've done by calling evil mysteriously necessary is to take the argument up a level.

Nitpick: I didn't say evil is "mysteriously necessary". I said that the empirical problem of evil is unsolvable. Is that true or false?

tytalus wrote:You are still left having to explain why your god-concept would in theory make such a choice: why would god create.

True. I don't see the relevance at this time, though, unless you are making assumptions about what I believe. (We need a "mind reader alert!" icon, I think)

tytalus wrote:And you're still left with faith assumptions to back it up. That's no solution at all; just more baseless assumptions.

What "baseless assumptions" have I made so far? Are we still talking about the answer to the problem of evil? Or has the topic moved on? You may need to use a truck: those goal posts don't move themselves, you know.

tytalus wrote:So go ahead, if you wish; take it up a level from 'why is there evil' to 'evil is necessary when god created.' Answer 'why did god create'. So far, the nonsensical responses (he just had to) lead to a malicious choice, in contradiction with the god-concept's proposed properties, and so once again it fails on absurdity.

I just talk about/ask about "free will" and how it doesn't--can't!--make any damn sense. This also works for people (nonreligious people included) who have a retributive attitude in regards to justice.

Here's one that accepts the theology of atonement, but throws a curveball.

Even if Jesus's death is necessary for salvation, why did Jesus he have to die in the manner he did? Why couldn't he die in childbirth? Or of a heart attack, in his sleep. A quick and lethal bandit attack could have been arranged.

If suffering was necessary, why to that degree? Jesus could've been born a Roman citizen, which would've spared him the scourging, and lead to a quick beheading.

Given this, what's likelier: that an omniscient God, who had foreknowledge of everything that would occur, chose to die in that specific way; or that a 1st century rogue rabbi was offed by a ruthless imperial thug, and subject to a lot of post facto rationalisation and mythologising?

Byron

Are you really accepting atonement?

One of the meanings that can be taken from the crucifixion is how much human beings hate God. I take this as a universal, that all humans hate God and want to murder him.

This gets us in some pretty complex theology, if you think that you are also a divine being, (which is really frowned on in Christianity, but never mind,) since then you are simultaneously part of God, or potentially Christ-like, if you like, but also in rebellion against God.

Obviously, Nietzsche had some sort of insight into this: 'God remains dead. And we have killed him'.

nunnington wrote:Byron

Are you really accepting atonement?

Goodness no! (Certainly not the penal atonement of the crucifixion. At least the Torah only lumps sins onto a hapless goat, and lets it go.) It's just a tactic to get past the mental barriers that the more zealot-y believers have erected against direct criticism. They're used to arguing with people who "deny Christ died for their sins" and "reject his free gift of salvation". Accepting it as an axiom, then asking about the details, tends to throw them. (Best answer I got was that Jesus dying as an infant was impossible, since he'd have to arrange his own death in advance, and suicide's a sin; how this squares with the fact that any death of an omniscient and omnipotent being would be suicide, I'm not sure.)

Deicide is a whole other bundle of fun.

Byron

Ah, very cunning. I quite like the New Agey view that atonement is at-one-ment, which takes you off into all sorts of delicious territory, to do with dualism, ego-splits, and the healing of said split. However, I must admit, this is not straight down the line, hard-core, penal substitution, type stuff. Still, as the bishop said to the actress, who gives a fuck anyway for free? Well, I do, she said, but not to you. Theology, theology, there's no end of it.

That depends on the variety of Christian I'm dealing with. I have usually no motive at all for challenging your decent, charitable, non-fundamentalist, so I say nothing unless I'm asked.

But if fundamentalists get under my skin, as they are wont to do, I will ask them what they think has become of the billions of human beings who lived and died in "pagan" countries without ever hearing their great Message of Salvation.

If they say those people are in the hands of a just God and will be judged according to what they knew, they open the way for some leniency toward people who honestly can't believe (what the Catholics arrogantly call "invincible ignorance"). But they seldom do that. The overwhelming majority will say those people are in hell or will be there when the Day of Judgment arrives. So then the way is open to ask what becomes of the loving God "who wishes all to come to salvation" yet made it impossible for these people by allowing them to be born in some benighted place that was beyond the first-strike capability of the Roman Empire.

Andy-Q wrote:I think a question that can easily generate answers that wrap the answerer in knots comes from the argument from design.

"A watch looks designed, therefore there was a designer. We look designed, blah blah."

"Yes, but a watch looks as though it was designed for a specific purpose. It wasn't designed as an abstract thing, it was designed to do something. So the question is what specific purpose were we designed for?".

Actually, you needn't go even as far as us. Did God DESIGN lion claws for the express purpose of disemboweling antelopes? But if human beings are to be in the picture, why did God design diseases that wipe out little babies by the tens of thousands every year?

nunnington wrote:Birdcrazy

You had better find a fundie to answer that one, since I don't believe in a physical heaven and hell.

Curious what bird that is in your avatar, as I am fairly bird crazy.

It's and Acadian Flycatcher

GakuseiDon wrote:

tytalus wrote:Although GakuseiDon's faith assumption is unwarranted...

What "faith assumption"?

This one:

GakuseiDon wrote:The evidential problem of evil deals with the actual evil we see in this universe. It seems to be unsolvable, since if God does have a purpose or a reason for this evil, He isn't saying. And unless you are omniscient yourself, I'm not sure how you can show that any piece of evil is unnecessary. For liberal Christians like me, it comes down to having faith that God does in fact have a good reason. If He does, then all is good. If He doesn't, then He isn't God. QED, AFAICS.

"faith that God does in fact have a good reason"

Although you throw in a 'QED' as if the problem is solved for you, doing it by making assumptions doesn't seem to help; so I found it unwarranted.

GakuseiDon wrote:

tytalus wrote:Anyway, that's a nice argument by authority you have there GakuseiDon, but as it's fallacious, I don't buy it.

"Argument by authority": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

A solution for the Logical Problem of Evil -- at least currently -- appears to have been generally accepted. True or false?

Sorry, you're right as far as I can tell. This was my mistake in just finding the 'solution' unsatisfying, since it rests on a few baseless assumptions like

(MSR2) God allowed natural evil to enter the world as part of Adam and Eve's punishment for their sin in the Garden of Eden.

But as far as theoretically possible, you're right. I should consider the logical part solved (based on some faith assumptions, which are not demonstrated as of yet).

GakuseiDon wrote:

tytalus wrote:All you've done by calling evil mysteriously necessary is to take the argument up a level.

Nitpick: I didn't say evil is "mysteriously necessary". I said that the empirical problem of evil is unsolvable. Is that true or false?

That's true, but that is not all you said; what you said is copied above. This is after all your unwarranted assumption, that it is necessary, and since you don't know how, mysterious. You may not like the wording but the shoe fits.

GakuseiDon wrote:

tytalus wrote:You are still left having to explain why your god-concept would in theory make such a choice: why would god create.

True. I don't see the relevance at this time, though, unless you are making assumptions about what I believe. (We need a "mind reader alert!" icon, I think)

I don't have to make assumptions; it is a conclusion based on the arguments you've put forth and the beliefs you've described. It's a simple question, really. If you accept the limitations put forth by Plantinga's argument, and you have faith that that it's all for good reason, then obviously 'why would god create' is the question you have left hanging. It seems a simple question, really, something people handle all the time. Do you choose to do a thing, knowing that it will turn out bad? And normal people don't even have access to the omni-powers and know for sure. They can make mistakes. This god-concept couldn't possibly have. In theory.

GakuseiDon wrote:

tytalus wrote:And you're still left with faith assumptions to back it up. That's no solution at all; just more baseless assumptions.

What "baseless assumptions" have I made so far? Are we still talking about the answer to the problem of evil? Or has the topic moved on? You may need to use a truck: those goal posts don't move themselves, you know.

tytalus wrote:So go ahead, if you wish; take it up a level from 'why is there evil' to 'evil is necessary when god created.' Answer 'why did god create'. So far, the nonsensical responses (he just had to) lead to a malicious choice, in contradiction with the god-concept's proposed properties, and so once again it fails on absurdity.

Unfortunately, you and nunnington moved the goalposts from the problem of evil as described. If you don't like the goalpost-moving, then why do it? I'm just looking for an answer to the question. Your answer raises another question. At least nunnington seems to have acknowledged the absurd corner this has been backed into, now. What about you? Do you still find it irrelevant that your response to the problem of evil raises new questions? Would you rather not answer them? That's fine, but it merely demonstrates why it is a good question to ask.

tytalus wrote:

GakuseiDon wrote:

tytalus wrote:Although GakuseiDon's faith assumption is unwarranted...

What "faith assumption"?

This one:

GakuseiDon wrote:The evidential problem of evil deals with the actual evil we see in this universe. It seems to be unsolvable, since if God does have a purpose or a reason for this evil, He isn't saying. And unless you are omniscient yourself, I'm not sure how you can show that any piece of evil is unnecessary. For liberal Christians like me, it comes down to having faith that God does in fact have a good reason. If He does, then all is good. If He doesn't, then He isn't God. QED, AFAICS.

"faith that God does in fact have a good reason"

Sigh. No, no unwarranted assumption there. I think you saw the "f" word, and that started the blood pumping! "'Faith'? He said 'faith'"??? "Faithhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!"

That God must have a good reason is a perfectly reasonable assumption. For example: Imagine there is Mr X, whom we KNOW is good, and is good by definition. Mr X does something that appears bad. You can't say that Mr X is bad, because by definition he is good. Therefore he must have a good reason for his action. It is informal logic but sound. Is my conclusion reasonable?

If God is defined as good, and God appears to do something bad, then either He is not good (in which case He isn't God) or He has a good reason for it. That's the "unwarranted assumption" that I am making. It appears to be reasonable to me, though. Are there any other possible options?

tytalus wrote:Although you throw in a 'QED' as if the problem is solved for you, doing it by making assumptions doesn't seem to help; so I found it unwarranted.

The only "faith assumption" is that being granted as part of the exercise is this: God exists, and God as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. The rest then follows.

tytalus wrote:But as far as theoretically possible, you're right. I should consider the logical part solved (based on some faith assumptions, which are not demonstrated as of yet).

Thank you. I have no idea how "having faith that God has a good reason" applies to the Logical Problem of Evil, though. That's to do with the empirical PoE.

tytalus wrote:

GakuseiDon wrote:

tytalus wrote:All you've done by calling evil mysteriously necessary is to take the argument up a level.

Nitpick: I didn't say evil is "mysteriously necessary". I said that the empirical problem of evil is unsolvable. Is that true or false?

That's true, but that is not all you said; what you said is copied above. This is after all your unwarranted assumption, that it is necessary, and since you don't know how, mysterious. You may not like the wording but the shoe fits.

It only fits if it is noted that it is a **conclusion** and not an **explanation**. "Evil" may or may not be "mysteriously necessary". Using my "Mr X" scenario: I don't know why he does bad action A, but I conclude that it must be for some ultimate good based on the premise that Mr X is inherently good. It is not an unwarranted assumption, but a perfectly valid one.

tytalus wrote:

GakuseiDon wrote:

tytalus wrote:You are still left having to explain why your god-concept would in theory make such a choice: why would god create.

True. I don't see the relevance at this time, though, unless you are making assumptions about what I believe. (We need a "mind reader alert!" icon, I think)

I don't have to make assumptions; it is a conclusion based on the arguments you've put forth and the beliefs you've described. It's a simple question, really. If you accept the limitations put forth by Plantinga's argument, and you have faith that that it's all for good reason, then obviously 'why would god create' is the question you have left hanging. It seems a simple question, really, something people handle all the time. Do you choose to do a thing, knowing that it will turn out bad?

That makes no sense it all, I'm afraid. If it is for a good reason, how can it be described as (ultimately) bad? If it turns out bad, then God doesn't exist (see my "Bad God" comment below). If it turns out good, then the question "why would god create" is redundant. He creates because it is ultimately good.

God is defined as omnibenevolent. If God does ANYTHING, knowing that it will turn out bad, then God doesn't exist. If you have any examples of that, then congratulations! you have disproven the existence of God.

tytalus wrote:And normal people don't even have access to the omni-powers and know for sure. They can make mistakes. This god-concept couldn't possibly have. In theory.

Agreed, and if "God couldn't possibly have", therefore "He must have a good reason for it." Correct?

I think part of the problem in discussions like these is the implied existence of a third alternative: the "Bad God". But God is **defined** as good. Therefore there is no "Bad God" option. Now, we know from experience that sometimes things we regard as "bad" turn out, ultimately, to be a good. If God does some action that is ultimately bad, then He doesn't exist. If it is unknown whether it is ultimately bad or not AND we grant that God is omnimax, then (from a Problem of Evil perspective) God must have a good reason for it. If God doesn't, then He doesn't exist.

Let me go over it again, without using the "f" word:

1. The premise in this argument is that God exists as an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being.
2. We know that some things that we think are bad in the short term, are ultimately a good.
3. It appears that the Logical PoE is solvable.
4. It appears that the Empirical PoE is unsolvable.

Since the Empirical PoE is unsolvable AND we assume that an omnibenevolent God exists AND we know that some things that we think are bad in the short term are ultimately a good, THEN I conclude that God must have a good reason for the empirical evil in this world. Any disagreement with the above?

Although you've framed the argument as if your baseless belief is a logical conclusion, GakuseiDon, you've simply answered the question with the baseless belief. It is interesting that it puts you in the position of believing that everything 'bad' or 'evil' in the world is just a short term inconvenience, and ultimately a good thing. I will refrain from listing a few of these short term inconveniences and just relate that I am amused. I wonder where you see the great anger in my argument, but I suppose that, failing to answer the question adequately, you must instead heap derision upon it. When you can demonstrate your belief to be true, then I will be impressed.

Why does an All-Powerful/Knowing God need to split himself into three different simultaneous versions of himself and then send one of those pieces to Earth to "die" for the "sins" of finite beings that he created already knowing that it would be argued over across the ages, why not just forgive the sins and call it a day and spare us all these problems?

GakuseiDon wrote:
Sigh. No, no unwarranted assumption there. I think you saw the "f" word, and that started the blood pumping! "'Faith'? He said 'faith'"??? "Faithhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!"

I seldom debate this issue, since I know there are perfectly logical ways of rationalizing evil: (1) All human beings deserve to suffer, and any non-suffering is by God's grace, entirely undeserved. (The problem I personally have with that one is that I simply can't believe it about an 18-month-old baby. And I have some reservations about shaking hands with anyone who can.)

(2) This world we inhabit in time and space is not the "true" world. The past isn't real in the sense that the history books try to make it. The headache I had yesterday isn't a present evil, and what isn't present isn't entirely real to me, even living as I do in a universe where time is one of the dimensions. In the eternal reality of God's presence, the suffering that took place in the temporal world is entirely unmade, "and God will wipe away every tear." (The problem I have with that one is that this hypothesized eternal world is utterly unknowable, and that includes its existence. If it's real, the problem of evil is solved. Yup, and if your aunt had cojones, she'd be your uncle.)

Anyway, I'm not sure what role the magical invocation of "faith" is supposed to play. It's a universal trump card for anyone who wants to play it. Anybody can say they have faith at any convenient point in the argument, and no longer have to face any difficult questioning. But then, there was no point in arguing in the first place, as far as I can see. Faith is impervious to argument and makes argument useless.