Defiant Heretic

What about eliminating evil to the extent that such is logically possible?

rainbow walking

Defiant Heretic: What about eliminating evil to the extent that such is logically possible?

rw: We do this everytime we initiate capital punishment. It is logically possible, in this state of affairs to eliminate evil, but highly improbable that we ever will. Under this condition omnipotence isn't needed and PoE still fails to obtain.

Theli

I don't think PoE proclaims that god should wave his magic wand and eliminate evil while his creation is existing, but that certain conditions in our reality speaks for the nonexistence of that god. If the world would have been created without needless suffering (or evil) in the first place, then that would not consistute a change. As there was no point in time before that when evil did exist. Neither does PoE suggest that god should go back and remake the world, that would defy the point of the argument.
The only concept PoE claims is consistent with our reality is the existence of needless suffering, or what we call "evil". If PoE did claim that the attribute omnipotence, and a being with this attribute was consistent with the present state of affairs, then PoE would argue for the existence of god and not against.
No, you propose the existence of this world that includes evil, PoE does not propose the existence of any alternative world.
I think you engaged these claims with a base assumption that god exist and did create this world, and then you build your argument on it. You said that it would be more likely for god to have created a world with evil, as means to an end, than it is for god to have created a world with no evil (because the evidence supports the existence of evil).
The difference is between possible action and probable action. If god is called good, then his actions must be consistent with goodness. If it is not, then the person calling that god "good" is mistaken. The logic/label does not in any way handicap god, or change his abilities, but it does change his attributes as those are applied by us (the nonomnipotent beings). Attributes does not exist in the object, but in the observation and the language.
Yes it does, it is how we learn. Every time we learn a new thing it slightly or drasticly changes our perception of the world.

An interesting topic, I hope you stick around.

rainbow walking

theli: I don't think PoE proclaims that god should wave his magic wand and eliminate evil while his creation is existing, but that certain conditions in our reality speaks for the nonexistence of that god. If the world would have been created without needless suffering (or evil) in the first place, then that would not consistute a change. As there was no point in time before that when evil did exist. Neither does PoE suggest that god should go back and remake the world, that would defy the point of the argument.

rw: Were conditions not as they now are the proponent of PoE would have no basis for his argument. It is precisely because of the current state of affairs that PoE is offered as an argument.

Let us say you and I are standing on either side of this being prior to the creation of anything and examining all the possibilities along with him. You encourage him to create a universe sans evil and suffering where PoE does not obtain. He, on the other hand, is opting for a state of affairs consistent to the one in which we now find ourselves. Now you protest that such a state of affairs is inconsistent to his attributes and he could do better. At this point he reminds you of his omni-benevolence and that, for there to be any concept of good there must necessarily be a concept of evil, else good ceases to have any meaning, thus your protests, while admirably intentioned, are inconsistent with his attributes. At this point I interject with the suggestion that perhaps he could use his attributes to ensure that every instance of evil is reciprocated at some point in time with a proportional instance of good. Since it is logically impossible for the concept of good to have any meaning without the concept of evil, which of our suggestions is more consistent with his attributes? Remember, PoE builds its case from his attributes. If a state of affairs ensues that negates one of his attributes PoE fails to obtain. Without the existence of both good and evil the concept of omni-benevolence becomes meaningless. If you negate omni-benevolence, PoE has no basis to say he “should have”, and fails to obtain. PoE’s line of reasoning must be able to progress beyond the “could have-should have” in order to arrive at the conclusion, “therefore he doesn’t exist”.




theli: The only concept PoE claims is consistent with our reality is the existence of needless suffering, or what we call "evil". If PoE did claim that the attribute omnipotence, and a being with this attribute was consistent with the present state of affairs, then PoE would argue for the existence of god and not against.

rw: My statement above, to which you appear to be responding with this reply, does not state or imply that PoE is arguing for the existence of this being, so you are basically just restating my statement here, or am I missing something?

However, I do feel I need to address some of what you’ve said here. The “existence of needless suffering” is not a concept but a conglomeration of concepts that contain some assumption in the term “needless”. Or, are you defining “evil” as the existence of needless suffering? Obviously, to humanity, all suffering would appear needless, especially if we have access to omnipotence for rectification…yes? Unfortunately, if we eliminate the concept of “evil” then we have no basis for the concept of “good” and are stuck in an amoral state of affairs where there is no motivation for logic to arise, since every thought and action would have equal force, total equilibrium would ensue with a subsequent end to all thought and action, period.


theli: No, you propose the existence of this world that includes evil, PoE does not propose the existence of any alternative world.

rw: Any proposal that uses omnipotence to alter this world is necessarily a proposal for an alternative state. I also propose the existence of this world along with a reciprocal good in proportion to the evil, which is consistent to this world and requires no alternative action from this being.

theli: I think you engaged these claims with a base assumption that god exist and did create this world, and then you build your argument on it. You said that it would be more likely for god to have created a world with evil, as means to an end, than it is for god to have created a world with no evil (because the evidence supports the existence of evil).

rw: It isn’t necessary that I argue from any committed position other than the commitment to truth in respect to PoE. If PoE is inconsistent and I can demonstrate that inconsistency, everyone benefits. There is, after all, nothing to be gained from putting a saddle on the wrong horse. Would we jettison Einstein’s theory of relativity in favor of Newtonian physics just because Newton’s physics have some basis in reality?

Additionally, I’m not arguing “likelihood” but consistency. PoE is inconsistent in a number of areas.

For instance, it is inconsistent to argue for the eradication of evil from the basis of omni-benevolence, or the “should have”, when such eradication would cancel out omni-benevolence. As I said above, if omni-benevolence is equivalent to all-good, there must be evil in order for good to have any meaning. How would you define good as a concept without the backdrop of evil? If there is no potential to do something other than good then there is no potential to do good either. One is left without any potential to do anything. Nothingness, IMO, is not good, therefore, the elimination of evil would not result in all good but in total nothingness. So we have a contradiction in the definition of omni-benevolence that negates PoE. Such a being cannot be omni-benevolent…unless there is a backdrop of potential evil somewhere. Thus if we incorporate omnipotence to eradicate all evil we eradicate one of this being’s attributes, ironically, the attribute PoE needs to complete the line of reasoning in its argument.


theli: The difference is between possible action and probable action. If god is called good, then his actions must be consistent with goodness. If it is not, then the person calling that god "good" is mistaken.



rw: Yabut PoE is not about discrediting the existence of an attribute but an object. If an object does not exist then neither do its attributes. The converse, however, is not always true. If there are contradictions in its attributes it does not necessarily follow that the object does not exist. If those attributes are ill-defined this could very well be the source of the contradiction and, in PoE’s case, is. If you remember, I began my reflections on this very observation.

theli:The logic/label does not in any way handicap god, or change his abilities, but it does change his attributes as those are applied by us (the nonomnipotent beings). Attributes do not exist in the object, but in the observation and the language.

rw: Well, if the object exists then so must its attributes regardless of whether they can be observed or defined. If we allowed this line of reasoning it would mean that microbes didn’t exist until we invented microscopes.


theli: Yes it does, it is how we learn. Every time we learn a new thing it slightly or drasticly changes our perception of the world.

An interesting topic, I hope you stick around.

rw: Thank you Theli. I’ll stick as long as opportunity permits.

Jamie_L

I'm no logic student, so bear with me:

Just from perusing these forums, I've discovered there are two versions of the PoE, one that rests purely on logic and one that is "evidential". Don't know enough to speak fully on the differences, but as I understand it, the evidential arguement is more robust. It resembles what beastmaster is talking about: a conclusion that if God were omnipotent and omniscient, there would probably be less suffering in the world.

Now, for my take:
Under omnipotence definition B, a version of the PoE still stands. If there is any gratuitous suffering (i.e. evil) in this world that is not logically possible to eliminate, God would eliminate if he were omnipotent (B) and omnibenevolent. It seems clear that there are many evils that are not logically impossible to eliminate: A human being can stop a woman from being raped. Certainly God could do the same thing. Floods do not always kill people. Surely it is not logically impossible for flooding to kill one less person every year. And so on.

In order for this rejection of the PoE to stand, one must claim that it is logically impossible to eliminate any evil in the world today. That not only seems absurd, but if true, argues that humans should not bother to try to eliminate any suffering - because it's logically impossible to do so.

Jamie

rainbow walking

Jamie: I'm no logic student, so bear with me:

rw: Hi Jamie, neither am I, so please bear with me also.

Jamie: Just from perusing these forums, I've discovered there are two versions of the PoE, one that rests purely on logic and one that is "evidential". Don't know enough to speak fully on the differences, but as I understand it, the evidential argument is more robust. It resembles what beastmaster is talking about: a conclusion that if God were omnipotent and omniscient, there would probably be less suffering in the world.

Now, for my take:
Under omnipotence definition B, a version of the PoE still stands. If there is any gratuitous suffering (i.e. evil) in this world that is not logically possible to eliminate, God would eliminate if he were omnipotent (B) and omnibenevolent. It seems clear that there are many evils that are not logically impossible to eliminate: A human being can stop a woman from being raped. Certainly God could do the same thing. Floods do not always kill people. Surely it is not logically impossible for flooding to kill one less person every year. And so on.

In order for this rejection of the PoE to stand, one must claim that it is logically impossible to eliminate any evil in the world today. That not only seems absurd, but if true, argues that humans should not bother to try to eliminate any suffering - because it's logically impossible to do so.

Jamie

rw: You bring out some interesting points Jamie, that warrant serious consideration. IMO, in order to respond adequately, I need to address your subjective judgment of the robustness of the evidential claim versus the logical claim. In this way, hopefully, we can test its merits for loopholes or weaknesses the cautious theist is likely to spot and use to counter with.

In order to do so let’s use your example of a flood and place ourselves in the aftermath of such a phenomenon where there have been X number of victims and X number of survivors.

Now you are standing here examining the carnage and counting the bodies, head and spirits hanging low and begin thinking out loud”, Dammit, if an omnimax god existed these people wouldn’t have had to die.”

I, standing beside you, turn to you aghast and respond, “Yabut, if there wasn’t an omnimax god these other people probably wouldn’t have survived.”

Now it is clear that we have both made equally valid statements which, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, do not advance the argument for or against his existence in any positive way. The evidence itself does not suffice to render PoE’s conclusion valid.

So let’s move on to your other points.

You said: Under omnipotence definition B, a version of the PoE still stands. If there is any gratuitous suffering (i.e. evil) in this world that is not logically possible to eliminate, God would eliminate if he were omnipotent (B) and omnibenevolent. It seems clear that there are many evils that are not logically impossible to eliminate: A human being can stop a woman from being raped. Certainly God could do the same thing. Floods do not always kill people. Surely it is not logically impossible for flooding to kill one less person every year. And so on.


rw: In the first place I can think of no gratuitous suffering in this world that is not logically possible for man to eliminate or circumvent. But, to accentuate this, let’s use your example of the flood once again.

Now there are two ways PoE can be applied in this example:

A. That an omnimax being ought to eliminate ALL flooding as a phenomenon capable of causing suffering, or

B. That an omnimax being ought to intervene at every such case to ensure that suffering doesn’t occur.

If you argue PoE from A then the cautious theist is likely to point out that you have shifted the game from the evidential arena to the logic arena, in which case we’re back to my original objections.
If you argue PoE from B then the cautious theist is likely to point out that minimizing and or eliminating the suffering caused by such phenomena is well within the scope of man’s current capabilities and list such things as early warning systems, preparations for mass exodus, better watershed techniques and heartier construction practices in terrain identified as potential flood areas, such that PoE is again nullified by the lack of necessity for the invocation of this beings attributes, simply because it’s not a blight against omni-benevolence if man fails to do his part.

As I said, I can think of no gratuitous evil that is not logically possible for man to address either now, or at some point in his future. If, however, you can provide an example that it is logically impossible for man to address, then we have a basis for PoE to be advanced.

Additionally, PoE is not so much an argument for intervention in specific cases as it is about the elimination of all such cases that might otherwise warrant intervention. As I’ve said before, if one is accessing omnipotence, one may as well go for maximum results. It just isn’t logical to negotiate evil away in increments when one has at one’s disposal the means to settle the case once and for all.

7thangel

Allow me to give some thoughts, just an anticipation of any doubts.

The "could have therefore should have" could not really be applied to the author of all things, who is God. In picturing God thus way, we are already speaking of a model that is either pre-existing of co-existing with God, contradicting the nature of God as creator of all things, visible and invisible.

IMO, the very simple answer, as I see in augmentation of your presentation, is that logic cannot exist without good and evil to both exist. Look, omnibenevolence itself cannot be defined without the presence of evil(that is how I see your argument about the flood). It is very evident that the argument itself begin with our preconception of good and evil, and then we manipulate the boundaries of omnipotence and omnibenevolence to fit our preconceptions -- the flaw about the pre-existence of a model of good and evil as I pointed out above. But if God created everything in us as good, then there is no point for God to be omnibenevolent, and omnibenevolence would certainly lose its meaning. So then, without the existence of evil, we will have no argument, yet we cannot know the difference either, hence we will have no concept of evil too. So evil is a necessity for us to know the omnibenevolence of God. And by our knowledge of God's omnibenevolence, then there is meaning of life.

Dr. Retard

No. No, we haven't. Even if murder becomes impossible for us, it's not logically impossible. It's maybe physically impossible, naturally impossible, or 'practically' impossible (which is just loose talk anyway). Hint: to be logically impossible, a proposition must entail a contradiction. That's what "logically impossible" means.

"p, therefore not-p" is logically impossible. "I can eat a building" is not logically impossible.

rainbow walking

Hi Dr. Retard,
Let's consider your claims. Your assertion is that if murder becomes physically, naturally or practically impossible for us...it still remains a logical possibility.

My question is...for who?

If logic is the practical organization of our perception of our physical and natural reality...how does murder remain a logical possibility if it becomes physically and naturally impossible?

It sounds like you have a contradiction a brewing to me.

Now consider that PoE's claim is that if being X existed with specific attributes, he would have created a different state of affairs where evil and suffering could not obtain. In other words, would not be possible.

Isn't "not possible" synonomous with impossible?

How then would they remain a logical possibility in such a state of affairs?

Wouldn't such a state of affairs have to entail a different physical and natural universe such that our perception of it would entail a different logical organization of its constituent parts?

Wouldn't this logical organization then also lack any coherent conceptualization of any part of this current state of affairs that could lead to evil and suffering?

And isn't this just another way of saying that anything evil or potentially painful would no longer be a logical possibility...thus impossible?

Sounds to me like your proposition incurs a contradiction and is therefore logically impossible.

You cannot have a state of affairs where evil is both possible and impossible simultaneously. At some point you will jettison some logical possibilities, consistent to this state of affairs, to get at this altered state of affairs. Not the least of which would be this beings omnimaxiness. And then you're faced with the uncomfortable realization that PoE, rather than arriving at a conclusion that such a being doesn't exist, arrives at the conclusion that, because of this state of affairs, has to exist. Hardly a conclusion any proponent of PoE would wish to see obtained...yes?

rainbow walking

Hi 7th angel,
Allow me to congratulate you on some very astute observations. Why do you "believe" such a being exists?