Mick wrote:


The problem from evil is unsound.

Unsound? You got that right.

May as well debate if unicorn horns have clockwise or anti-clockwise spirals.

Just as well this was posted in the Nontheism subforum or it might've been mistaken for an invitation to debate the moral character and ethical integrity of a fictional tyrant.

The_Metatron wrote:May as well debate if unicorn horns have clockwise or anti-clockwise spirals.

Natural law indicates that it depends on the hemisphere in which they were born.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

andrewk wrote:The problem of evil isn't very tempting as a debate topic because the Christian can just resort to the Augustinian axiom that a world with free will and some evil is more valuable than a world with no free will and no evil.

Not creating evil doesn't hinder free-will.

The traditional Christian theodicy argues that God didn't create evil. He created people with free will, and some of them chose to do evil things. The argument also goes that he could not have created a world in which the sentient beings had free will and yet did not choose to do evil. Cue tangential debate about the meaning of omnipotence.

andrewk wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

andrewk wrote:The problem of evil isn't very tempting as a debate topic because the Christian can just resort to the Augustinian axiom that a world with free will and some evil is more valuable than a world with no free will and no evil.

Not creating evil doesn't hinder free-will.

The traditional Christian theodicy argues that God didn't create evil.

So there's something God has no control over?
How did evil come to be if God did not create it? Isn't he the alpha who created all things?
Also how could there be a tree with fruits containing knowledge of gooda nd evil, if evil didn't exist?

andrewk wrote:He created people with free will, and some of them chose to do evil things.

How is that possible without knowledge of good and evil?

andrewk wrote:The argument also goes that he could not have created a world in which the sentient beings had free will and yet did not choose to do evil. Cue tangential debate about the meaning of omnipotence.

Cue the point that, if evil neve existed in the first place, it doesn't exist and hence won't hinder free will.
It's a selfrefuting argument.
Also if God created beings with free will, which includes doing evil things, he did in fact create evil.

So... have we figured out the problem with evil debate?

Unless I'm mistaken, this "problem of evil" is often trotted out as an argument that the christian god does not or cannot exist. Like I fucking care. Like I fucking care about trying to demonstrate an imagined thing does not exist.

Bullshit. Let's get a theist in here and for once, just once, show us some unambiguous evidence for the fucker. Demonstrate the imaginary skyman exists, then we may talk about what imaginary skyman can or can't do.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:So there's something God has no control over?

I don't think the Christian would put it like that. Rather they would say there are some things even God cannot do, and those are the things that are logically impossible. I think the position is that God's omnipotence can overcome physical impossibility, but not logical impossibility. Hence the comment at the end of my post to which you were replying Thomas.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:if God created beings with free will, which includes doing evil things, he did in fact create evil.

You can interpret it in that way if you wish. I wouldn't. The same argument says that I created every disease that my children have ever had, however unpleasant, because I created them. I don't see that as a productive line of argument as it's really just arguing over definitions.
The interesting question (to me at least) is not 'do we think God created evil' but rather 'is it consistent with God being good, for God to have created this world, given that he knew great suffering (which is a better term than evil by the way) would arise in it?'

andrewk wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:So there's something God has no control over?

I don't think the Christian would put it like that. Rather they would say there are some things even God cannot do, and those are the things that are logically impossible. I think the position is that God's omnipotence can overcome physical impossibility, but not logical impossibility. Hence the comment at the end of my post to which you were replying Thomas.

That's special pleading. Either god is omnipotent or not. Either he created everything or he didn't.

andrewk wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:if God created beings with free will, which includes doing evil things, he did in fact create evil.

You can interpret it in that way if you wish. I wouldn't. The same argument says that I created every disease that my children have ever had, however unpleasant, because I created them. I don't see that as a productive line of argument as it's really just arguing over definitions.
The interesting question (to me at least) is not 'do we think God created evil' but rather 'is it consistent with God being good, for God to have created this world, given that he knew great suffering (which is a better term than evil by the way) would arise in it?'

Also a valid question.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Either god is omnipotent or not.

There's no problem there. The Christian would say he is, despite the inability to create a logically impossible world, and a non-Christian might argue that that inability means He isn't.

The Christian and the non-Christian are just using different definitions of 'omnipotent'. This is an example of what David Chalmers calls a 'verbal dispute'. It is easily resolved by CHalmers' 'elimination method' of just agreeing to remove the word 'omnipotent' from the discussion, substituting other words on whose meanings the two parties agree..

Hey, everyone. Let's leave something to be debated in the debate itself.

There will be a debate, right? That's what this thread is about.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:May as well debate if unicorn horns have clockwise or anti-clockwise spirals.

Natural law indicates that it depends on the hemisphere in which they were born.

You silly, it depends on whether you are riding on the unicorn or someone else is leading it up to you for inspection.

andrewk wrote:This is an example of what David Chalmers calls a 'verbal dispute'. It is easily resolved by CHalmers' 'elimination method' of just agreeing to remove the word 'omnipotent' from the discussion, substituting other words on whose meanings the two parties agree..

Chalmers is on the right track, there. But Chalmers is not an eliminativist when it comes to the word 'consciousness', which is (not coincidentally) related to the problem of 'evil'. And that's just evil.

Next on the agenda, the problem of 'word salad'.

Shrunk wrote:Hey, everyone. Let's leave something to be debated in the debate itself.

There will be a debate, right? That's what this thread is about.

You're right, of course.

And I've changed my mind. I think a reasonable debate could be had, with a variety of interesting moves available to either side.

What we need is a volunteer to take on Mick, who has already graciously volunteered to promote the pro-theodicy case.

What about Cito, since he has poked his head in here? I think we could sell tickets to that. I'd buy one, for starters.

andrewk wrote:

Shrunk wrote:Hey, everyone. Let's leave something to be debated in the debate itself.

There will be a debate, right? That's what this thread is about.

You're right, of course.

And I've changed my mind. I think a reasonable debate could be had, with a variety of interesting moves available to either side.

What we need is a volunteer to take on Mick, who has already graciously volunteered to promote the pro-theodicy case.

What about Cito, since he has poked his head in here? I think we could sell tickets to that. I'd buy one, for starters.

It might be good for a few lulz, but my gauging of the general mood (from threads in which Mick's take on theology makes an appearance) is that somebody more versed in formal theology would be better-suited.

My sense of where Mick is going with this is not to the point of using it to ponder God's existence, but only to ponder whether or not it is a legitimate problem within theology itself. In that case, it is only a rehash of the theological discussion of the problem of evil.

Mick wrote:Any argument from evil will be argued to be unsound, period. It's up to my opponent to offer one.

I could whoosh away the PoE simply by spouting platitudes on how victory is only about developing competence but defeat is about developing character. Within theology, God's plan is about developing character. Doing an end around to questioning God's competence is what Mick would call an 'unsound' argument. There's no point in debating God's plan without faith, but that may not be a plank in Catholicism. In a way, my simply debating theology with Mick is a victory for God.

andrewk wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Either god is omnipotent or not.

There's no problem there. The Christian would say he is, despite the inability to create a logically impossible world, and a non-Christian might argue that that inability means He isn't.

The Christian and the non-Christian are just using different definitions of 'omnipotent'. This is an example of what David Chalmers calls a 'verbal dispute'. It is easily resolved by CHalmers' 'elimination method' of just agreeing to remove the word 'omnipotent' from the discussion, substituting other words on whose meanings the two parties agree..

In this case, whether God created everything or not.

Actually, I don't use theodicy and the like. My plan on addressing the PoE would have two prongs.

Firstly, I'd offer an epistemological objection against the justification of thinking that there is gratuitous evil. I might argue that we just don't have that sort of epistemic oversight. Nothing here suggests a particular reason of a sort that God has to allow evil, it just throws a roadblock.

Secondly, I'd offer reason to think that God does exist and that He is good, and all-powerful and the the like. Given this, we have good reason to think that if there is evil within the world, then there is good reason for it; and furthermore, if there is evil within the world, then given the things I'd argue (mentioned above), they must be compatible with the existence of God. In other words, the particular reason for there being evil in the world, if it exists at all (though I'll deny it was creatively caused by God) will remain unmentioned, a mystery not yet unveiled, though not obscured for my desire for secrecy. indeed, I haven't a clue what His reason is; it is a mystery.

Also: the PoE does not require one to offer 'God exists' as a premise. For one, it can be a presumption later shown to be contradictory. Secondly, PoEs can function as hypotheticals. Follow:

1.If God exists, evil does not.
2.If evil does not exist, then there is no rape.
3. there is rape.
4.Thus: God does not exist.

I'm off on a vacation for a week; and so I'll have to get back to this discussion when I get back.

That I'd be arguing that God exists should be good bait for many, but note that I'll be arguing as a Thomist. Science, while great, won't help you here. If you're down for attacking any cosmological argument, then this might be for you, but I wont be using anything of science.

Mick wrote: Follow:

1.If God exists, evil does not.
2.If evil does not exist, then there is no rape.
3. there is rape.
4.Thus: God does not exist.

I'm off on a vacation for a week; and so I'll have to get back to this discussion when I get back.

While on hols you might want to reconsider the above. (2 has problems) (So do others)