SRB

If God might, for all we know, have some justifying reason for allowing all the evil we see, then there is no way to derive the proposition "God would prevent the suffering we see if he existed" using the observed fact that suffering exists and truths of logic. If you think otherwise, please try.

Yes.

SRB

SRB

It is certainly true that Heaven is not supposed to be a possible world. A possible world is a maximal state of affairs: a complete description of the way things might have been at all places and all times. Heaven is clearly not that!

I don't see how the issue of Heaven has any connection to the argument we are discussing. Plantinga's claim is merely that it is epistemically possible (i.e. possible for all we know) that transworld depravity exists in every logically possible world containing significantly free beings. Plantinga could be right even if there is freedom and yet no suffering in Heaven.

More generally, the mere fact that it is logically possible that God needs to permit the suffering we see for some unknown and justifying reason is a straightforward refutation of the logical argument from evil. Again, I don't understand the relevance of whether free will and an absence of evil coexist in Heaven. So far as I can see, theists can, without contradiction, concede that freedom, complete happiness and an absence of evil all coexist in Heaven, and also reject logical arguments from evil. Heaven presents a clear evidential problem for those theists. It seems incredibly implausible and unreasonable to take their position. I see no way to derive a logical contradiction from it, though.

SRB

SRB

Presumably you are a theist. I just wish some atheists would calm down a bit. The public perception of atheists is of angry, unreasonable people. Some of us do not discourage this perception! We should stick to the arguments and avoid name-calling.

There is nothing wrong with discussing arguments concerning issues with which we are not familiar. My own approach is, however, to try to do this in a spirit of humility. There are theists out there who have worthwhile things to say who can actually teach us things! It is possible to think theists are mistaken (or even that they are irrational in some particular beliefs) without supposing they are "illogical and ignorant" generally. If one isn't careful it is very easy to make oneself look like the person who is illogical and ignorant.

SRB

Vorkosigan

I was involved in an exchange with Vorkosigan across an on-line Plantinga paper in a thread in the Evolution/Creation forum (I think). The Plantinga paper is entitled "When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible". I cannot say that the exchange was worthwhile philosophically, but it will give you some insight into Vorkosigan's ability to 'understand' Plantinga.

LOL. I am surprised you even raised that paper, considering how bad it was, and how completely unable to defend it you were.

Here is one Plantinga thread on that ridiculous man-tiger-kitten analogy, which showed that Plantinga has no idea about evolution or cognitive science.

Here's another thread on Plantinga's hopeless understanding of Beliefs and evolution

Then there was your thread in E/C that posited on space aliens inserting fossils into the geological record in order to clarify your position on evolution. As Clutch replied eloquently:

• That's it? Your challenge to evolutionary theory is Descartes' Evil Demon Hypothesis?
  
  Great flaming dogdish! JG, Jr, the Evolution forum sees a lot of strange a prioristic arguments, but I think yours takes the mottled oyster, hands down.

In that same thread you first raised Plantinga's awful paper on Evolution, which I ripped to pieces. Anyone can read your remarks and mine and judge for themselves; I invite interested readers to peruse page 3 where I cut that paper into little quivering chunks, pointing out that in the end brilliant analytical philosopher Plantinga opts for Last Thursdayism in order to explain away the problems with his ideas.

But that's all by the by. As I said in that thread, I'd be happy to debate the particular claims of Plantinga's paper, or the more general claims of evolution, with you formally in any venue you care to name. That paper is downright idiotic -- there is no other word for it. So when would you like to set up a debate on it?

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Plantinga could be right even if there is freedom and yet no suffering in Heaven.

Details, please.

John Galt, Jr.

SRB,

Actually I am not a theist. Nor am I an atheist or an agnostic. I am one who has learned one of the lessons that Wittgenstein's work teaches-- the step(s) that makes one an 'ist', a subscriber to some philosophy 'ism', is(are) invariably mistaken.

I quite agree that there is a good deal to learn from theists, and one can certainly learn an enormous amount from Plantinga (I have). I had the good fortune to learn epistemology of religion, among other things, in interactions with Elizabeth Anscombe, whom you may know was a devout Roman Catholic. These discussions changed my views to the point of changing my life, though, once again, I am not a theist-- I do not pray, for example.

Beyond that, I was taught in grad school that one should always give the argument that one seeks to refute the strongest possible interpretation, even to the point of helping/strenthening the argument in ways that the author perhaps does not see. With the exception of a few here who seem to have had similar training, neither this approach nor even a modicum of simple fairness is much to be found here. However, occasional sparring here helps sharpen ones ability to present material to undergraduates.

John Galt, Jr.

Vorkosigan

I quite agree that there is a good deal to learn from theists, and one can certainly learn an enormous amount from Plantinga (I have).

What exactly did you take home from that awful paper of Plantinga's you have now raised twice in two forums?

Beyond that, I was taught in grad school that one should always give the argument that one seeks to refute the strongest possible interpretation, even to the point of helping/strenthening the argument in ways that the author perhaps does not see.

Me too. But when a "major" philosophical figure opts for Last Thursdayism in a paper on evolution....

Vorkosigan

SRB

Quite simply, nothing Plantinga has written in his refutation of the logical argument from evil presupposes or entails that it is impossible for freedom and a lack of all evil to coexist in Heaven. If anyone thinks otherwise, it is down to them to demonstrate they are right.

SRB

SRB

What I said above is definitely right. Two propositions p and q are logically consistent if and only if their conjunction does not entail a contradiction. If their conjunction does not entail a contradiction in one possible world, then it doesn't entail a contradiction in any possible world. For example, "the moon is made of cheese and ravens are white" does not entail a contradiction in any possible world. It is indeed logically possible that the the moon is made of cheese and ravens are white (even in the actual world!). A proposition may be logically possibly true even if it is known to be false (and is hence epistemically impossible). The example I mention is like that.

SRB

rainbow walking

This may be a bit off topic but:

Revelation 12:7 _And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

That hardly sounds like a place where freewill exists without the negative consequences that often accompany it's utilization.

And this:

Revelation 12:1 _¶And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
2 _And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Hardly depicts heaven as a place devoid of suffering.

So if there happen to be any christians thinking of changing your destination, now would be a good time while tickets are still available.