Theli

Hi Rw. This ended up being pretty long, so I'll understand if you choose to disregard some of it (the text, not the arguments that is).

Yes. If the conditions were different (god existed, evil did not), then the argument would not be valid. It would be safe then to conclude that if the argument IS valid then god does not exist.
This is a common rhetoric. "if there is no evil, there is no good". A claim that is only true in language. If there was nothing other than good, we would not call it good but it would still be equal to good in a world where the possibility of evil exist. I would say that in a world created by an omnibenevolent god, the concepts of good and evil would be useless. It would be like saying "there's no day without a night", but that doesn't mean that the sun isn't shining.
I wasn't aware that god required these concepts in order to forsee and prevent harm to his humans. Being the designer of us, and our surrounding he can not be called omnibenevolent by us if his creation does inflict intentional harm. He would also be able to forsee us suffering, and know the concept of evil.
Yes, as I said above. If the world was created with no evil by an omnimax god, PoE would be not have existed. But it does.
This sounds very binary, as if every action we take can have only two major outcomes and if one of those are eliminated all actions have an equal outcome. May I remind you that most "evil" is not perpretated by conscious choices, but the existing conditions when they are made. Ofcourse, with elimination of evil, there would still be different grades of good.
I should make it clear that I'm no big fan of PoE myself, not with the way it is formulated in any case. I would rather argue for it's conclution with an example.
What would be most desirable?
1. Cancer existing, and people knowing of the concept "cancer".
2. Cancer not existing, and people not knowing of the concept.
But that's another thread.

The difference is that PoE's proposition is hypothetical, it says that if god existed the world would have been different, while yours is not. Yours may be be consistent with the world around us, but not consistent with the omnibenevolent god.
You cannot compare the two alternatives using this world as a model, because PoE refers to the time when this world did not exist. And creating a world without at that point lacking evil would not constitute an alteration as there is no world yet to alter.
I understand what you mean by the world not being called good (in that world) if there was to evil as such a concept would not exist. But PoE is no more inconsistent than saying that there could be a world where there is no day but only night. Such a claim would have no meaning in that world, but in this one it does. As we do know these concepts.
And I still don't buy the binary logic of "no evil than nothing". If we cannot turn south then there are still an infinite degrees of north to turn.
But in this case I would say it is. There are cats that are not black, but still can be called cats. But there are no good gods that are not good. And the god PoE attacks is the good christian god.
But keep in mind that objects are dependant of attributes for identification, without them we could not apply a word to it (it would no longer be a thing). And if whatever created the universe does not fit the criteria in the christian god's attributes, then we cannot identify it as the christian god.
Attributes are just words based on observations.
Were they actually "microbes" before we discovered them? I doubt that. We did not learn their name, we invented it. Before we discovered these microbes, was there a universal law that said "this is a microbe, but this is not". No, we drew that line based on our observations. Observations we did not have until we invented the microscope. It's in a strange way similar to PoE, we can now in retrospect say that microbes existed before we did, but before we existed they weren't really "microbes".
Although this contradiction, or inconsistence (if you will) is just a technicality and cannot really disprove the claim that microbes did exist before we did.

Theli

Why is it necessary for us to know and define the omnibenevolence of god?
Why do we need to know evil?
That would be like saying, we would be better off with even more diseases, so some of us can know and appreciate not having them.
And that having starving poor people in the world is a good thing, because then the rich can appreciate their wealth even more.

rainbow walking

Theli: Hi Rw. This ended up being pretty long, so I'll understand if you choose to disregard some of it (the text, not the arguments that is).

rw: Hi Theli, no problemo.


Theli: Yes. If the conditions were different (god existed, evil did not), then the argument would not be valid. It would be safe then to conclude that if the argument IS valid then god does not exist.

rw: Determining the validity of the argument is the general purpose of this discussion…yes? To simply recite the argument and claim, therefore, it is valid does not advance us towards any conclusion in this matter. So let’s press on.


Theli: This is a common rhetoric. "if there is no evil, there is no good". A claim that is only true in language.


rw: I do not think the concept is only rhetorical sophistry. It is a concept based on actual normative assignments of specific acts. It is true, but uninteresting, that we could call it something else, but it is not true that it only exists because we call it “good”. As long as we exist in a state of affairs where our actions can bring harm or benefit to ourselves or others we are compelled to assign a normative value to those actions.

While it is true that we can imagine a state of affairs where our every action brings only benefit to ourselves and others, with no potential for harm or injury, we are only able to imagine this because we currently exist in a state of affairs that facilitates our comprehension of both HARM and benefit. Had we been created in a state such as we imagine above, where no conceptual comprehension of harm or injury, evil or suffering, had ever been introduced, we would have no reference point to facilitate the conception of our actions as beneficial. With no means of determining the normative value of our actions we’d have no motivation to act at all. We’d be nothing more than congenital dependants or simpletons. This is not a state of affairs consistent to an omni-benevolent being nor conducive to human autonomy of will
.
I think you are missing the significance of our adaptation to our current state of affairs and how this state of affairs motivates our decisions and actions. Nature itself demands we act. Our own desire to live and be happy demands we act in our own best interest. All along this path everything we think, say and do is under the influence of this state of affairs and has some normative value assigned to it, even down to choosing the type of tie we wear. We would not even be wearing clothing were it not for our desire not to suffer the embarrassment of nakedness in public. We would not be particular about the clothing we wear were it not for the perceived benefit of impression and vanity to be gained. Take away this constant pressure assigned and you take away the impetus to live. Hence, my assessment that a state of affairs sans evil and suffering would be a state of affairs where we could not exist or be recognized as anything remotely human. We wouldn’t be able to enjoy such a state because we’d have no reference for joy without a reciprocal reference for suffering. No love, no joy, no peace, no pleasure, no reproduction, nothing. There could be no “we” as we know and recognize that concept.

I mean no disrespect when I say this Theli, but I really don’t think you, and others who promote PoE, have adequately juxtaposed your thinking deep enough into what you’re proclaiming such a being should have created in lieu of this state of affairs. Had you done so you would recognize the extent of the bankruptcy of PoE as a valid argument immediately.


theli: If there was nothing other than good, we would not call it good but it would still be equal to good in a world where the possibility of evil exist.



rw: Unfortunately, PoE is not advocating a world where the possibility of evil exists, otherwise we’d be right back in this state of affairs. PoE advocates a state of affairs sans evil and suffering, meaning no possibility can arise or surface for evil to become a choice.

theli: I would say that in a world created by an omnibenevolent god, the concepts of good and evil would be useless. It would be like saying "there's no day without a night", but that doesn't mean that the sun isn't shining.

rw: And this is a distorted semantics. In a world where no sun shines “day and night” are meaningless concepts. In a world where no evil exists “right and wrong” are meaningless concepts.


theli: I wasn't aware that god required these concepts in order to forsee and prevent harm to his humans.



rw: In an alternate state of affairs sans evil and suffering this being, for all practical purposes, would cease to exist since his attributes would become meaningless to anyone but himself. Whatever these creatures are in this world without good and evil they would be incapable of recognizing benevolence or malevolence, power or weakness, knowledge or ignorance. What would motivate such a being to waste his creative energies on such a place as this? This would not be an act of benevolence under even the most liberal interpretation.

theli: Being the designer of us, and our surrounding he can not be called omnibenevolent by us if his creation does inflict intentional harm. He would also be able to forsee us suffering, and know the concept of evil.

rw: And this is why I say PoE is such a flop. It reduces otherwise intelligent people to arguing the most asinine points. By what standard of logic can you hold this being responsible for man’s premeditated acts of evil? If we take this line of reasoning I could murder my wife and plead not guilty in a court of law by reason of it all being my mothers fault for bringing me into this world. She should be the one on trial, not me.

By the same token, I knew when I was planning a family that my children would have to face their share of suffering as part of the maturing process, just as I did, so am I to be held responsible for such suffering as they endured or am I an un-loving father for bringing them into this world? If I were an omnipotent father would I be doing them justice if I prevented them from ever facing evil or suffering? How would they ever mature into normal adults?


theli: Yes, as I said above. If the world was created with no evil by an omnimax god, PoE would not have existed.

rw: And neither would god or man. You’d be left with one fat marsh mellow for a universe. The purpose of PoE is to demonstrate that such a being doesn’t exist in this state of affairs…not have him create an alternate state of affairs where he doesn’t exist.



theli: This sounds very binary, as if every action we take can have only two major outcomes and if one of those are eliminated all actions have an equal outcome. May I remind you that most "evil" is not perpetrated by conscious choices, but the existing conditions when they are made. Of course, with elimination of evil, there would still be different grades of good.


rw: Uh, no there wouldn’t. There would be no grade of good whatsoever. Good would not exist. Every action we take has some basis in good or evil, right or wrong. That is why we seek knowledge to improve our understanding of our available choices. If you eliminate good and evil you eliminate right and wrong and the very foundational basis for making any choice whatsoever.




theli: The difference is that PoE's proposition is hypothetical, it says that if god existed the world would have been different, while yours is not. Yours may be consistent with the world around us, but not consistent with the omnibenevolent god.

rw: In what way is it inconsistent?


theli: You cannot compare the two alternatives using this world as a model, because PoE refers to the time when this world did not exist. And creating a world without at that point lacking evil would not constitute an alteration as there is no world yet to alter.


rw: Then your argument here is that the proponent of PoE can use this world as a model for what shouldn’t be but, for some un-specified reason, I’m not allowed to use the world to show the ludicrousness of PoE’s hypothetical world which, by the way, PoE’s proponents seem never able to quite describe in any detail.

Since my explanation is tied to this reality and PoE’s is a multiplicity of incomprehensible mishmash of Alice in Wonderland fantasies, ever heard of Okham and his trusty razor? The only comprehensible concepts that PoE ever manages to string together into a coherent sentence in its argumentation about this alternate universe is that it is devoid of evil and suffering. When pressed for details it’s proponents always seem to get lost and hone in on something like rape or murder, as if that were the only source of evil and suffering in the universe. They never seem able to describe how this alternate state of affairs is suppose to work, only that this god is able to make their every wish come true and, if not, well he just doesn't exist.


theli: I understand what you mean by the world not being called good (in that world) if there was no evil as such a concept would not exist. But PoE is no more inconsistent than saying that there could be a world where there is no day but only night.



rw: Then you’re talking a world with no nearby star. That sounds about equivalent to what you’d get outta PoE and it leaves me flabbergasted that this can even remotely be an improvement over our current state of affairs. Hell I know there are a lot of bad things that happen to good people but at least many of us have an opportunity to experience the good things in life around here sometimes. What the hell do we have to look forward to in a world created under the auspices of PoE? Yet PoE’s proponents seem to think that such a world would better reflect omni-benevolence. Makes me wonder if they really understand the concept at all?


theli: Such a claim would have no meaning in that world, but in this one it does. As we do know these concepts.
And I still don't buy the binary logic of "no evil than nothing". If we cannot turn south then there are still an infinite degrees of north to turn.

rw: In a world sans good and evil what would motivate you to turn in any direction?



theli: But keep in mind that objects are dependant of attributes for identification, without them we could not apply a word to it (it would no longer be a thing). And if whatever created the universe does not fit the criteria in the christian god's attributes, then we cannot identify it as the christian god.

rw: How in the world did the xian god creep into this discussion? I thought we were talking a being with the basic attributes of omnipotence, omniscience and omni-benevolence? The xian god comes with an entire wardrobe of additional baggage that I have no intention of loading into the cab. Let’s just keep it simple, o’kay?

Hey! I have an idea Theli, that if you are interested in advancing PoE from the dust and rescuing it from the annals of the has been arguments, perhaps you could describe this alternate state of affairs sans evil and suffering. Tell me a little about the people who inhabit such a world; their aspirations and dreams, what they do for leisure, how they provide for their sustenance, choose a mate; tell me about their science and politics and history. Maybe then we can progress into some bonafide robust discussion. If not, I'm afraid PoE remains as it always has, just a wizards puffball that crushes when touched and vanishes into the atmosphere of unsupported invalid assertions.

rainbow walking

If I were a participant in a public debate with a theist, on the merits of an existent god, and it was my intention to advance atheistically formulated ideals, I would not wish to be hemmed up by my own arguments and damage my cause. Thus if the subject of evil and suffering were introduced, I would not be the one to introduce it, but would respond that evil and suffering are not a problem that humanity itself cannot resolve; that the resolution requires nor anticipates any divine assistance. I would further point out that if historical precedence were any indication, religion and theistic belief have not contributed to the resolution of evil and suffering but have, more often than not, been identified as a primary cause. I would never consider PoE a viable weapon in my arsenal.

Case Closed!

Wyz_sub10

What does any of this matter to the existence of good and evil?

What if *none* of the above could exist without evil? So...? How does this prove anything?

It doesn't. You are saying that hopes and dreams would not exist without evil, and therefore, evil is necessary? Why? Why are hopes and dreams necessary? Why are hopes better than wanting for naught?

Will you still have hopes and dreams in the afterlife? If not, then is heaven a lesser place? If so, then does evil exist in heaven?

rainbow walking

[b]Wyz[/b[: What does any of this matter to the existence of good and evil?

rw: Because I think it’s appropriate, if you’re going to postulate that such a being could have created such an altered state of affairs sans evil and suffering, to describe for me something about the people who inhabit such a world; their aspirations and dreams, what they do for leisure, how they provide for their sustenance, choose a mate; their science and politics and history,in order to support this assertion. Otherwise you’re only pissing in the wind. I’m not obligated by PoE to accept this blanketcould haveat face value simply because it sounds plausible. I want to know what the finished product looks like. Then, and only then, do you have a valid case for PoE.

wyz: What if *none* of the above could exist without evil? So...? How does this prove anything?

rw: It demolishes PoE’s thrust.

wyz: It doesn't. You are saying that hopes and dreams would not exist without evil, and therefore, evil is necessary? Why?

rw: The many faces of evil and suffering are what inspire men to hope, dream, work, research, mature, learn and grow. Conversely, the many more faces of good have an even greater effect. People dance around the concept of evil because they’d as soon not look it square on and admit how much of humanity’s progress has been made in response to it. Perhaps they’re afraid to follow truth where it leads. It is good that man has made it this far, but we didn’t get this far by being good. Every time we sit down to eat a meal that includes a meat we do so at the expense of the life and momentary suffering of some animal. So let’s not pretend that suffering can be waved away with the flick of the omnipotent wrist…it runs too deep. And we derive too much benefit from it.



wyz: Why are hopes and dreams necessary?


rw: To rescue us from ourselves, inspire us to struggle onward, spark our imaginations to seek and discover new vistas of knowledge and security from seemingly malevolent forces of nature. The list is extensive.

wyz:Why are hopes better than wanting for naught?

rw: I don’t recall making a value judgment on such a comparison.


wyz: Will you still have hopes and dreams in the afterlife? If not, then is heaven a lesser place? If so, then does evil exist in heaven?

rw: Since I’m not a believer you’re asking me to speculate in areas I’d prefer not to. I think the book of Revelation says something about a war in heaven so even the believer has no perfect retirement home to look forward to.

7thangel

Amen. May God give you more blessings!!!

As concerning why I believe in God, it is the way I understand the bible that gave me a firm belief that such being exist. I think, on my part, it is a matter of being given the understanding, not a matter of choice.

RW, you're sounding like Paul, an apostle to the Gentiles.

Wyz_sub10

The problem is that none of these things have anything to do with PoE.

Okay, let's say that a world without evil or suffering exists. People want for naught, so they do not need hope. Life is so pleasant as to make leisure unnecessary. Let's say that every one is intuitively matched with a mate, and no one complains.

There's your finished product - what's the problem with it? I'd be interested in hearing your complaint, but I have a feeling that you'd still evoke a "need" or "evil" to explain why this would not be a good world (like...I cannot remember who...who complained that this would be "boring" - sorry! no boredom exists either!)

No it doesn't. You have to show *why* evil exists. If the only reason is that it allows hope and, say, compassion, then that is insufficient. Why? Because without evil, hope and compassion are completely unnecessary.

None of these are necessary in a perfect world without evil and, therefore are irrelevant. You have to demonstrate that these things are somehow necessary.

All you are saying, in essence, is that evil may allow mankind to progress. Progress to what end? As opposed to what? Why not commence at the end to which we are progressing without the needless suffering along the way?

The problem here is that you assume a purpose - a goal, and that evil is part of that path.

This begs the question, pure and simple.

But this is not a necessary thing. I love a good steak. In fact I enjoy red meat several times a week. But meat is not necessary to survive. What's more, you are making another unproven assertion - that the way it is, is the way it must be. Why should we need food at all? Seeing as you probably don't think people would be eating, digesting and defecating in heavan, you might want to address why this is necessary now.

Extensive and irrelevant without evil...well, sort of.

I'm not sure why you cannot dream of learning something new without the existence of evil. You could read a new book without evil, or learn to compose a song for the piano, couldn't you?

Several times you imply that hopes are necessary, or at the very least, they are desireable.

Therefore, by extension, if hopes are desrireable, they are better than not requiring hope.

I'll leave the Book or Revelation to the scripture experts, but certainly all of what is taught in the gospel and churches points to a heaven of perfection. The bottom line with the PoE is that if a perfect place is possible, inhabited by people who live in bliss and want for naught, then why does a supposedly omnibenevolent god subject us to the evils of the world? It cannot be to experience good, because that ultimate good (heaven) supposedly exists.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by rainbow walking :

I assure you that the arguments from evil are alive and well, and that no good response exists. But I'll consider yours further...

No one's asking for that. You seem not to be familiar with the contemporary debate at all.

Imagine a world just like ours except that terminal cancers cause 10% less pain, and humans' empathic abilities are enhanced to the point at which they can still form the same amount of sympathy, courage, and compassion as they do now despite terminal cancers causing 10% less pain. This world would be better than the current world.

Assertions are not valid or invalid. Argument forms are valid or invalid. Assertions are true or false (or neither).

Dr. Retard

I have no idea what that means.

Quote:

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?

Since when is logic that? On the traditional understanding of the terms "logically (im)possible", "physically (im)possible", and "naturally (im)possible", there's lots of stuff that's logically possible, though physically impossible or naturally impossible. For example, my eating a building. Or something's disobeying the inverse square law.

Maybe you're using these words in a peculiar way?

Quote:

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.

"Could not obtain" is equivocal among the different kinds of possibility. I cannot, just by willing it, make people's heads explode. I am not a scanner. Nor can I make 2 + 2 not equal to 4. But those 'cannots' are quite different.

If God made a world where we were unable to rape, by virtue of well-timed thunderbolts or whatever, that would do nothing to assail the logical possibility of "one human rapes another". That is logically possible, come what may. Why? Because it doesn't entail a contradiction. That's all.

Quote:

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?

Logic has to do with contradiction and entailment. There's nothing logical or illogical about physical laws. Something's travelling faster than the speed of light doesn't court any contradiction.

Quote:

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?

???

Quote:

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

Nope, the traditional 'anti-evil suggestions' focus on God's changing physical possibilities. Why? For one thing, because even God can't change logical possibilities, because God can't make contradictory stuff consistent, nor consistent stuff contradictory. That's beyond anyone's power. Sure, there may be a few crazies who have said that God's omnipotence extends to logic itself (maybe Descartes and Scotus? I don't know), but the typical and orthodox theistic conception dismisses such 'power' as outright absurdity. (And if God really could change logic, then he could bring about a perfectly good world without any compromises at all. Anything follows from craziness).