rainbow walking

I find the challenge of justifying the co-existence of an omnimax god with evil and suffering in a world he allegedly created, intriguing, so I’ve decided to give it a whirl. I’m sure my atheist co-conspirators will enjoy ripping my arguments to shreds but…what the hell…nothing ventured, nothing gained.


Please note: This is not the standard Christian FWD but a variation of my own creation. I am neither a Christian nor a theist but felt that the quality and level of discussion had so deteriorated (no offense to any resident theists or lurking believers, I can assure you), it appeared no formal FWD was forthcoming so I decided to jump the fence, for the sake of the challenge, and present a FWD that I hope will stimulate some robust discussion. This is my second attempt since my first one failed miserably. I hope this one fairs better. Many thanks to all the contributions from everyone who’s helped me solidify this argument. All are welcome to participate.


My argument will reach for the conclusion that:

1.
An omnimax being could exist under the specified conditions iff his purpose can obtain on the basis of historical man’s progression towards an identity commiserate with this being, as a result of said conditions and that without said conditions said purpose would not obtain.


A. SAID PURPOSE: The progressive development of historical man until he reaches a state whereby his own moral perfection is identical, in all respects, to the moral perfection of this deity.

B. SAID CONDITIONS:The presence of good and evil, suffering and healing, conflict and change, life and death, in a world this deity created, from its inception until said purpose is attained.

C. METHODOLOGY:The instantiation of an environment where progressive development is compelled by the necessity of choice from which the above stated conditions attain until stated purpose is achieved by and for historical man.

D. DEFINING TERMS:

1. OMNIMAX BEING: A being defined by the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, in their most logical applicability.

2. HISTORICAL MAN: Man in the aggregate as opposed to individual man. Humanity in general from start to finish.

FREEWILL: The capacity/ability of humans to make choices from a perceived field of options such that diminished options consequent restricted historical progression and increased options liberate historical progression.

[I] MORAL PERFECTION: The willingness to make consistently good choices, regardless of the consequences, 99.9 percent of the time.

OMNIPOTENCE:Defined as the capacity to do anything logically conceived as possible whether consistent to man’s comprehension of “possible” or not, up to, and including, that which man may, at any given point in his history, consider to be impossible.

OMNISCIENCE: Defined as the capacity to know the consequences of every possible or potentially possible choice any man that has or shall ever make. Includes the knowledge of the function of every natural aspect of man’s universe.

OMNIBENEVOLENCE: Defined as this god’s normative value for mankind, expressively as having the highest regard and concern for man: Note: this does not mean that he is incapable of other normative values whether expressed positively or negatively, but that his actions or inactions are ever mindful of man’s well being in the fulfillment of his purpose for creating man.



PROPOSITIONS OF FIRST PREMISE

1. Man As An Historical Being

This proposition is supported philosophically by man’s progressively expanding body of knowledge in general and is most evident in the contrast between man as cave dweller and man walking on the moon.

2. From Chattel To Free Moral Agent

This proposition is supported historically by man’s cultures and societies based on increasingly sophisticated moral and ethical restraints as evidenced by the contrast between man as slave and woman casting her vote. The historicity of this proposition is reflected most notably in man’s politics and economics.


3. Good And Evil As A Body Of Knowledge:

This proposition is supported historically by man’s ever evolving moral code, said evolution being ratified by his systems of governance as a body of laws, ethics and standards along with the methodologies utilized in their establishment and modification. That the acquisition of the knowledge of what is good or evil, along with the influence of this knowledge on man’s societies and cultures, represent an increasingly more complex body of knowledge that transcends individual man at any given point in his history.

4. Morality And The Winding Staircase:

This proposition is supported philosophically by the observation that the knowledge of what is good or evil is evolved in application. That man’s free moral agency has pushed the envelope in both directions up and down the staircase. That the steps he has taken up the staircase towards the good are directly proportional to the steps he takes down the staircase away from the good, towards evil, thus demonstrating that the one follows from the other and not necessarily in any particular sequence.

5. Man’s Evolving Righteousness Demands Free Moral Agency

This proposition follows from 4 above and is supported by the observation that without the capacity to test the application of any moral code no evolution, up or down the staircase, is possible. That this capacity is evident in both the establishment and modification process and demonstrates that the morality of individual man is contingent on the freedom of his will to either comply or reject it in part or entirely at any point of application. That said testing is accommodating to both good and evil irregardless of the subsequent consequences incurred, such that knowledge is derived from both the application and the consequences of that application.


6. Man’s Evolving Predisposition Towards Righteousness:

This proposition is based on the observation that man has demonstrated an historical predisposition towards an evolving righteousness that is evidenced in his systems of governance, cultural norms and global politics. That his hard won victories, though few and far between, demonstrate a progressive march towards liberating himself from his own worst enemy…ignorance, and is reflected in an evolving morality expressed in his methods of governance, culture and politics. That this could not be accomplished without free moral agency and the recourse to all available choices, irrespective of their value assignment at the moment of inception as a choice.

7. Man Is Not God:

This proposition is based on the fact that man is not endowed with any special omnimax qualities, specifically ( for the purposes of establishing this premise), omniscience, and must therefore acquire his knowledge via trial and error. Not being omniscient means that man will make mistakes. That, in fact, it is the very process by which his evolution is engendered. Thus man must have recourse to making mistakes, bad choices, in order to progress as an historical creature. Man’s body of knowledge is increased when he learns what to do. He learns this by the tedious, and often disastrous, method of exploring every option of what he ought NOT do.


Thus we arrive at our:
I. FIRST PREMISE: A FWD is justified in claiming that evil and suffering are necessary to the continual reinforcement of man’s predisposition towards righteousness. Thus we’ve established that without recourse to all available choices and to the extension of those choices, man cannot continue as man, either historically or individually.


PROPOSITIONS OF SECOND PREMISE

1. Omnibenevolence And Omniscience Are Different Sides Of The Same Coin:

This proposition is based on the comparative observation that what and how to express value are derived from the same body of knowledge. That the two are inseparable strands of the same fabric facilitating the conclusion that expression is derived from both equanaminously. It isn’t sufficient to say that actions are guided by love or love is expressed in actions because both statements stand firmly on the bedrock of knowledge. One must FIRST know what it is they love, why and how to express it.

2. Natural Development As An Affair Of The Heart:

This proposition is based on the fact that no matter how much we value a thing, sometimes the best expression of that value is to do nothing. That anything we initiate to express our value will have a negative effect on that which we value such that our best course of action, to express our highest valuation, is no visible course of action whatsoever.

3. Divine Intervention Leads To Congenital Dependency:


This proposition is based on the fact that humans are always seeking a path of least resistance and are more than willing to allow for divine intervention if that intervention alleviates them from the responsibility of self determination. That humans, under these circumstances, would quickly self determine that it’s easier to invoke a god’s attributes to get the job done than to do it for themselves and that this is counter-intuitive to historical man’s process of development.

4. Mind Control Is Not An Option:

This proposition follows from those used to support the first premise and is inferred from them as a defense against claims that a possible method of demonstrating omnibenevolence would be to invoke a mental restraint on human will to prevent bad choices from being made. This argument fails to obtain due to the detrimental effect such controls would have on man’s ability to develop naturally and choose righteousness for himself. Take away the option to do evil and doing right ceases to be a recognizable choice.

5. Omniscience Is A Preventive Medicine:

This proposition is based on the logical possibility that a being with this quality, being able to see all possible ramifications from every circumstance, would know the best course of action available to determine his expression of omnibenevolence. That any human attempt to judge or second guess these decisions are a presumption that limited human understanding cannot sustain.

6. A New Heaven And A New Earth:

This proposition is based on textual claims that this god’s plans include intervention at some point in man’s historical development. This goes towards diffusing any claims that this god SHOULD create an entirely new set of circumstances for man where evil and suffering do not obtain. According to the text this will happen.

7. Nearing The Finish Line:

This proposition is designed to explain how to know when historical man’s predisposition to righteousness is advancing. It should be evident that historical man is making progress when he extends his field of good choices far beyond evil choices such that man no longer considers evil as a recourse under any circumstances. Not because he has restricted himself from their consideration but because his range of good choices is so much wider that even a child could tell the difference and make a good choice without effort. When all men’s probability of resorting to evil has been reduced to less than one half of one percent for the duration of his life, then you will know that historical man is nearing the finish line of moral perfection.



Thus we arrive at our:



SECOND PREMISE: A FWD is justified in claiming that an omnimax being with a specified purpose would allow historical man to run his course, enduring the evil and suffering that entails from his evolution towards moral perfection, electing to intervene only when he deems it necessary to steer man in said direction.
Based on these premises and their referent postulates I conclude that:



An omnimax being could exist under the specified conditions iff his purpose can obtain on the basis of historical man’s progression towards an identity commiserate with this being, as a result of said conditions and that without said conditions said purpose would not obtain.

Dr Rick

The FWD is meant to defend against the PoE argument by explaining the necessity of evil for FW to exist; the defense put forward in the OP appears to just assume the intended conclusion that E is necessary for FW to exist. I can find no argument made in the OP to support its necessity.

Rick

Zadok001

rainbow walking:

I've got a hell of a headache right now, but I'll get back to this later. In the meanwhile, one of your premises scares me:

5. Omniscience Is A Preventive Medicine:

This proposition is based on the logical possibility that a being with this quality, being able to see all possible ramifications from every circumstance, would know the best course of action available to determine his expression of omnibenevolence. That any human attempt to judge or second guess these decisions are a presumption that limited human understanding cannot sustain.


If we allow this premise, our deity's existance ceases to be falsifiable. This comes down to "God acts in mysterious ways," and the assumption that said ways are somehow beneficial to us. This premise prevents us from describing what an omnimax deity WOULD do, basically relieving us of the capacity to say "He wouldn't do X." As such, it becomes impossible to use standard logical methods to disprove the existance of said entity.

Looked at another way. This assumption is "God does what is best for us, and we cannot realize what is best for us." If we cannot realize what is best for us, we cannot reasonably present a model of a universe in which this deity exists; or more accurately, we could present ANY model and say this deity could have created it. This defies falsification, and creates a serious problem.

rainbow walking

Hi Rick,

The first premise covers mans predisposition towards righteousness based on an evolving moral code. Since this incurs free moral agency and since morals are the means by which we identify good and evil I thought this would suffice. Also in the fourth proposition entitled "Morals and The Winding Staircase" I cover how good and evil are related and necessary to one another in the process of evolving. But, perhaps it could use another proposition explicitly stating this.

rainbow walking

Hi Zadok, Sorry to hear you've got a headache. I hope you get to feeling better soon. Let me see if I can help us out here on this point.

Z: If we allow this premise, our deity's existance ceases to be falsifiable. This comes down to "God acts in mysterious ways," and the assumption that said ways are somehow beneficial to us. This premise prevents us from describing what an omnimax deity WOULD do, basically relieving us of the capacity to say "He wouldn't do X." As such, it becomes impossible to use standard logical methods to disprove the existance of said entity.

rw: Before I respond to this let me repost the first part of that premise and ask you if the statement is true or false, (assuming such a being existed):

Zadok001

Obviously saying "No" is a neat little trap. :-P Saying "Yes" isn't much better. I'll say this.

If this IS the case, we have a problem. We can NEVER postulate as to whether or not this being exists. Any claim that says he doesn't because of conditions we can observe is met with "Ah, but you don't see God's plan!" This is problematical, as it makes it totally impossible to falsify this God.

Now, it may be that in empirical reality, God is non-falsifiable. In which case, we all may as well just jerk off instead of having interesting discussions about the guy - We can't know.

The other major problem this brings up is the question of "Which God?" If God is non-falsifiable in this manner, then we can't know which 'God' is the case and which aren't. That's simple enough reasoning: If God's plan is beyond our knowledge, then we can't say "X is God's plan," and therefore cannot evaluate religious standards for accuracy.

Basically, this forum ceases to be.

Dr Rick

Hello, RW:

That seems to limit the argument to what god can do with man in his current state, but this is not the PoE argument for which the FWD is raised. An omnigod would have other options available to him; he wouldn't have to make man in the way we have observed him historically. Man wouldn't be as man is today, but it is possible that a different type of man could have free-will and still not need to evolve morally or need evil to reinforce a predisposition to righteousness.

In other words, your premises and propositions seem to hinge on much of what we have observed of man as he now is, but the PoE argument assumes an omnigod could have made man much differently from what he is now.

The proposition is based on what we have observed, but the PoE argument is that a very different reality with no evil and a very different man with free will could have been made by an omnigod.

Or am I missing your point?

Rick

rainbow walking

Hi Zadok,
Hope you’re feeling better.

Z: Obviously saying "No" is a neat little trap. :-P Saying "Yes" isn't much better. I'll say this.


If this IS the case, we have a problem. We can NEVER postulate as to whether or not this being exists. Any claim that says he doesn't because of conditions we can observe is met with "Ah, but you don't see God's plan!" This is problematical, as it makes it totally impossible to falsify this God.

Rw: Well, I can’t cheat and give you the answers but methinks you’re selling yourself a bit short here. However, I will say this: I can’t argue that you don’t see god’s plan because I’ve laid it out for you nice and neat in this argument. The particular postulate that seems to have you stumped does not have to, unless you let it. It does, however, force you to approach things from a different angle…and that’s all I’m saying, (I’ve said too much already).

Z: Now, it may be that in empirical reality, God is non-falsifiable. In which case, we all may as well just jerk off instead of having interesting discussions about the guy - We can't know.

Rw: In one respect this is true anyway…isn’t it? All any of us can do is base our choices on the evidence or lack thereof, and since there doesn’t seem to be any…well, you be the judge. But, when we enter a movie theatre as a critic we are compelled to…well, watch the movie. That is what PoE is all about. It assumes the conclusion for the sake of criticisms that hopefully will falsify the conclusion. In empirical reality god is, indeed, non-falsifiable. That’s why these discussions are all hypothetical and philosophical.

Z: The other major problem this brings up is the question of "Which God?" If God is non-falsifiable in this manner, then we can't know which 'God' is the case and which aren't. That's simple enough reasoning: If God's plan is beyond our knowledge, then we can't say "X is God's plan," and therefore cannot evaluate religious standards for accuracy.


Rw: That’s not a problem at all because we are focusing our discussion on a particular god with defined attributes. The answer to that problem has been provided, along with a FWD. Now if you are going to argue against that FWD using the major components of PoE, you assume the presuppositions and proceed on that basis to demonstrate any inconistencies in them. A well formulated FWD is a formidable thing to deconstruct from the inside out.

Z: Basically, this forum ceases to be.


Rw: Hey, do I get a vote on that?

rainbow walking

Hi Rick,
I don’t think you’ve missed the point but are searching for an opening, and have found one…of sorts.


Rick: That seems to limit the argument to what god can do with man in his current state, but this is not the PoE argument for which the FWD is raised.

rw: The very reason for a FWD is to limit what god can do to man in his current state. And, consequently, PoE argues that god is not limited by man’s current state, and in fact, should rectify man’s current state if he’s truly omnimax.

Rick: An omnigod would have other options available to him; he wouldn't have to make man in the way we have observed him historically.

rw: This is categorically true, Rick, and a point I’m not contesting. An omnigod can do almost anything, but that is contingent on what he wants to accomplish and how. If an historically morally perfect man is what he’s about then the qualifications inherent in moral perfection act as a restraining order on the “How” from a god’s perspective. A moral person cannot be so except by his own determined WANT TO. If a god creates any type of matrix situation that by-passes man’s WANT TO, then man’s moral perfection ceases to exist because he occupies such a condition, only because god WANTS him To so badly that god decides to do it for him. In this argument I’ve postulated a purpose that entails a changing of states that can only be accomplished by man with a god’s limited help. PoE postulates a changing of states accomplished entirely by god simply because he can and because he ought to in order to alleviate the very factors that are necessary to bringing man to such a changed state.

Rick: Man wouldn't be as man is today, but it is possible that a different type of man could have free-will and still not need to evolve morally or need evil to reinforce a predisposition to righteousness.

rw: Then it is up to you to describe such a man and the details involved in his new state.

Rick: In other words, your premises and propositions seem to hinge on much of what we have observed of man as he now is, but the PoE argument assumes an omnigod could have made man much differently from what he is now.

rw: And that is the basis of my argument. I can’t very well defend a state of human affairs that haven’t attained, can I? I am defending against claims that such a state can be obtained any other way than the way it is going.



Rick: The proposition is based on what we have observed, but the PoE argument is that a very different reality with no evil and a very different man with free will could have been made by an omnigod.

rw: My task was to present a FWD sturdy enough to withstand PoE. I concede to you that this god “COULD” do what you are claiming, if he existed. Your task, should you enter this discussion, is to demonstrate how he COULD and still obtain the purpose ascribed in this argument…and further, to demonstrate why he SHOULD.

Zadok001

Hi Zadok,
Hope you’re feeling better.


I am, and thank you. Instead of a headache, I'm snowed in.

"If this IS the case, we have a problem. We can NEVER postulate as to whether or not this being exists. Any claim that says he doesn't because of conditions we can observe is met with "Ah, but you don't see God's plan!" This is problematical, as it makes it totally impossible to falsify this God."

Rw: Well, I can’t cheat and give you the answers but methinks you’re selling yourself a bit short here. However, I will say this: I can’t argue that you don’t see god’s plan because I’ve laid it out for you nice and neat in this argument. The particular postulate that seems to have you stumped does not have to, unless you let it. It does, however, force you to approach things from a different angle…and that’s all I’m saying, (I’ve said too much already).


The problem is, I can take this premise, and lay out a whole new argument. In my revised argument, I can show that God has a plan: And that plan is the slow and painful eradication of all life in the universe. This creates a problem, as we become incapable of falsifying either God's plan for Love or God's plan for Malice. If there's a way to sneak out from under this little issue, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, I don't think we can reasonably allow this premise.

(In other words: If you know a way out, please share. )

"Z: Now, it may be that in empirical reality, God is non-falsifiable. In which case, we all may as well just jerk off instead of having interesting discussions about the guy - We can't know."

Rw: In one respect this is true anyway…isn’t it? All any of us can do is base our choices on the evidence or lack thereof, and since there doesn’t seem to be any…well, you be the judge. But, when we enter a movie theatre as a critic we are compelled to…well, watch the movie. That is what PoE is all about. It assumes the conclusion for the sake of criticisms that hopefully will falsify the conclusion. In empirical reality god is, indeed, non-falsifiable. That’s why these discussions are all hypothetical and philosophical.


The statement "A God Exists" is nonfalsifiable. But individual deities can be falsified. Climb Mt. Olympus, note the lack of Gods. That falsifies those Gods (who, by the by, were not omnipotent). The PoE attempts to falsify an omnimax deity. But this one premise sets us up such that an omnimax deity is nonfalsifiable. That means the concept is no longer 'scientific,' and can't reasonably be debated.

"Z: The other major problem this brings up is the question of "Which God?" If God is non-falsifiable in this manner, then we can't know which 'God' is the case and which aren't. That's simple enough reasoning: If God's plan is beyond our knowledge, then we can't say "X is God's plan," and therefore cannot evaluate religious standards for accuracy."

Rw: That’s not a problem at all because we are focusing our discussion on a particular god with defined attributes. The answer to that problem has been provided, along with a FWD. Now if you are going to argue against that FWD using the major components of PoE, you assume the presuppositions and proceed on that basis to demonstrate any inconistencies in them. A well formulated FWD is a formidable thing to deconstruct from the inside out.


Yes, we are. But if this premise holds for this God, it holds for ANY God with omniscience as an attribute. At which point it becomes impossible to distinguish.

(Think of it this way. This argument is built on premises. If the argument is valid, all its premises are true. That includes the contraversial one. If THAT premise is true, then I can make an equally valid argument for a omnimalicious deity.)