Bumble Bee Tuna

So the most popular argument for atheism in respect toward YHWH is the good ol' Argument from Evil.
And we all know the popular defense to it:

This is the best possible world. The good of free will outweighs the bad of evil. After all, God doesn't want mindless robots!
(Yeah, he only wants mindless sycophants...)

Anyway this response just doesn't seem to fit to me with omnipotence. I think people have trouble understanding the concept of omnipotence, like just about all infinite concepts.

So I'm just wondering- Why can't God make a world with free will where everyone chooses good? That would certainly be a better world than this one! If God can't do that, he's not omnipotent. And if he can, but he doesn't...Why doesn't he?

Seems to me omnipotence is just an impossible attribute. I'm dreading the latest Jim Carrey movie coming out where he's an ordinary man who questions God's work, and then is granted omnipotence for a week. Then he realizes how hard it is to be omnipotent. How could it be hard? It's omnipotence! Infinite power! You can do anything, perfectly, instantly. I don't think people were thinking when they decided to make their God omnipotent.

-B

Edited for spelling

Theli

*sigh*
I feel your pain, stupidity is omnipresent and hollywood is god.

Silent Acorns

A possible xian response:

1) God can do everything that is possible for him to do
2) God didn't "make a world with free will where everyone chooses good"
3) God would have made "a world with free will where everyone chooses good" if he could

Therefore, God can't "make a world with free will where everyone chooses good".

QED

DarkBronzePlant

I personally find the Argument-From-Evil to be rather counter-productive, form an atheist point of view. The bible is riddled with examples, of course, that demonstrate the "loving, compassionate" Christian god to be nothing more than a murderous egomaniac. But pointing out these examples does nothing to establish the existence of said god. Furthermore, it makes the atheist who is hauling out these arguments seem like the typical TV-character atheist who really does believe in god, and simply hates god because of some tragic occurance.

I've gotten more mileage out of stating (somewhat truthfully, in fact) that I actually wish there was such a god in existence. Sure, the guy (thing?) may be egotistical and cruel to some, but if all you need to do is believe in his existence (which, given proper evidence would be no skin off of my nose) and lead a good life (which I would do anyway), and you'd be rewarded with blissful eternal life, I'd be all for it!

It lends credibility in discussions/arguments with theists who clearly have a vested interest in finding any shred of evidence to demonstrate the existence of their god. I mean, it's pretty traumatic to believe in such a god, and then ultimately admit that he is mere fiction. I, on the other hand, have no vested interest in disproving god (it doesn't help me out any that god doesn't exist), and if anything, I'd have a vested interest in uncovering evidence that the Christian god does exist.

Anyway, something to think about when going down the Argument-From-Evil path.

Jamie_L

The best-possible-world response seems to imply some odd things. First, it implies that even though we can envision a world that SEEMS better than this one, it must not ACTUALLY be better than this one, otherwise God would make that world instead. So, right off the bat this argument informs us we can't trust our sense of right and wrong.

This leads to the next odd thing: the evil in this world must be necessary for some greater good. Combine this with the first item above, and it leads to the conclusion that we shouldn't strive to do stop bad things. Firstly, we can't trust that we're really doing good. Secondly, those bad things must be necessary for some greater good.

Ultimately, it kind of deteriorates to a moral nihilism. Whatever is, is here because God wants it. Don't argue. Don't try to fix it. Just worship and pray and let that poor girl get raped by her father in the house next door.

Like DBP, I lean towards another arguement more than the Arguement from Evil these days. I like the Arguement from Non-belief. There's TONS of scripture supporting the notion that God wants more than anything else for me to believe in him. Yet I don't. If he's omnipotent, that makes no sense. If he doesn't exist, it makes perfect sense.

Jamie

beastmaster

Well, this is horrible apologetics because, according to Xn theology, Heaven is the best possible world, not Earth.

Which raises the question: is there free will in Heaven?

(1) If so, free will can exist in a world perfectly free from evil (as you suggest in your post).

(2) If not, it would be a better world to sacrifice free will to be free from evil.

Either way, the apology fails and the Problem of Evil remains.

Now, the correct Xn response to the PoE is the Adam and Eve story in Genesis: evil exists in the world because our common ancestors chose for evil to exist by defying god.

But the story of the Fall explains too little. Sure, it explains why our *physical bodies* are trapped in a flawed world (because our parents are located here and not "up there"). But the story of the Fall doesn't explain why we are *spiritually* born into a flawed world in the first place. I didn't eat the fruit, so why am I being punished? Why am I here and not in paradise already?

In any event, I am skeptical how much mileage one can get out of the PoE. All it seems to show is that the English word "good" has little relation to god's confoundingly mysterious idea of justice.

Jamie_L

Actually, it seems the idea of omnibenevolence is one dreamed up by modern Christians, without much foundation in the Bible. It seems like scripture shows God to be not particularly concerned about earthly evils. His primary goals appear to be getting us to do what he says and getting us to believe in him. Oh, and Free Will(TM) doesn't seem to be there much either.

Which is why I like the problem of non-belief. Clearly he DOES want us to believe in him (according to scripture). So why doesn't he do anything to convince me he's real?

Jamie

ex-xian

When Liebnitz (independent co-inventer of calculus, and all round great guy) concieved of the "best of all possible worlds" scenario, he had a few assumptions that he based it on.

Rather than atoms, Liebnitz concieved on infinitly small object called monads that were the basis of reality. The definition of monads is kind of technical, but basically, the monads were windowless, that is, they are unable to causitily effect change in other monads. That holds true for everything built up of monads. The only way change happens is through the structure and relation of monads to each other. So everything is interconnected and influences everything else.

Also, Liebnitz assumed God an infinite. Based on this, he created the best of possible worlds argument.

Leibnitz also created the principle of indiscernibles. Given any being with properties (p1, p2, ..., pn) and another being with properties (q1, q2, ..., qn), if properties p and q map directly and perfectly onto each other, then the two being are identical.
So God is logically prevented from created a perfect universe because anything that possesses utter perfection is identical God himself.

First, God is omniscient, so he able to imagine all possible worlds and the infinite consequences that would result from each possible creation. Second, God is omnibenevolent so he will choose the world that has the least of evil and the most amount of good. Thirdly, God's omnipotence allows him to create the best of all possible worlds.

Worlds is used to mean the universe as a whole, not this world specifically.


I don't think it implies that we can't trust our sense of right and wrong, only that our ability to predict the consequences of the different relations of monads is limited by our finite-ness.

I also don't think it implies this. Evil does not exist redemptively, it is merely a exists necesarily as a result of creation.
Well, the best of possible worlds actually mean the universe, but I think this is a good point. A reply may be that in order for the monads to make the transition from "earth" to "heaven" is to experience the "earth" first.