Nic Hautamaki

Actually I don't really think that the unknown purposes defense is such a big failure anymore. The Christian only needs to do 2 things to get around it.

a) define omnipotence as being able to do anything which is logically possible (and therefore not being able to do anything logically impossible)

b) show how evil's existance is logically necessary (or even just possible) with their definition of good.


With those 2 steps you can still have an omnipotent God under their definition because he doesn't have the power to override a logical necessity.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Nic Hautamaki :

This only sidesteps the logical problem of evil. It provides absolutely no relief against the evidential argument from evil, as I describe in the original post.

Theli

I'm all ears, and nose and...

Logic is not a set of rules and conditions wich reality has to abide, it's a system for describing reality. If there are no set rules or conditions in reality logic would not work. If god's actions or choices are limited by external conditions, like our ability to jump is limited by gravity, god is not allpowerful. For if any conditions that require evil to exist for this greater good to be reached exist, it must either have been created by god or be overpowering him.
Bare in mind once again the prefix "omni", we are refering to all-good, not just good.
And keep in mind that PoE also can be argued with more flexibility, like saying: "there could be less evil and pain in the world, and an omnibenevolent god would desire this".
Simple example: Current state of affairs minus cancer.

Does god desire evil in the world?

id.s

gOD, like christians, needs evil in the world to exist. Without it we're back to being good or bad again; which translates into rich or poor, master or slave, noble or commoner, elite or upper middle lower class. Hey sounds like the present day world. See, there is a purpose for gOD and evil as the ultimate deceiver. Remember-no gOD, no evil. One thing atheists and believers have in common is a basic need to wake up.

Nic Hautamaki

you can't tell a christian what his definition of God is. It works only the other way around, he tells you what his defintion is. Otherwise you're just burning straw men. What if the christian concedes that theres no such being that can 'create a mountain so big even he can't lift it' or any of hundreds of other little logic traps? What then? You've disproven God? No, because any christian you talk to is going to be perfectly happy with a god who has the ability to bring about any logically possible state of affairs. If you disagree that that's what omnipotent means, it's your problem, not the christian's.

The same goes for the problem of Good. The problem with any attack on God through definitions is that the christian can easily just change his definition to get around the attack.

I personally find that it's much more productive to attack God from an unnecessary postulation/occam's razor standpoint.

I have several christian friends, and I've gotten all of them to concede that the argument from evil defeats the omnimax god. Does that mean they think he doesn't exist? No, they are perfectly happy believing in a non-completely-omnimax god. They are perfectly happy with the idea that God also has to obey laws of morality. They are perfectly happy that the best plan God had to redeem man was to sacrifice his own son. It may not make sense, but it's good enough for them. So even though the argument from evil is technically unassailable, it really hasn't accomplished too much.

Theli

I have not told any christian how to define god. The definition is that of the bible, the omnimax god. If a christian wishes to abandon this definition then they must also deny the veracity of the bible's description of god. This includes using both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, the xian would have to name a different source for definition.
Apperantly you did not read my whole reply as you deny a claim made by me without challenging it, that of logic not existing without set rules and conditions. If god did create this universe and all the living creatures in it (including man) then he also created this condition argued by oponents of PoE that makes evil a neccesity for a greater good.
That depends. If the xian regards god as a fictional character spawned from his mind, then yes he can alter god's definition as he pleases. But if this god is to be argued for as a real being that actually exists, it gets trickier. He would have to provide evidence to support any definition or word he uses to describe this god. Traditionally, the xian will fall back on the bible, using it as a reference, but as the description of god in the bible fails it's the xians job to seek new evidence.
There are, I must add limits to the changes he can make in his definition. As the word "god" he defends already has a certain meaning in our language, he cannot use a definition too different (for instance: defining god as a blue coffemug) from the traditional one, or a definition that contradicts the meaning put in the word "god". His conclution would in that case be subject of missinterpretation.
I must agree with you here, Ockham's Razor attacks are more straight forward.
It's my experience that most gods or beliefs of gods are much more fictional (based on imagination) than factual (based on evidence). Mostly because, as you mentioned the god is "good enough" for them. It sounds as if they chosed to believe the next best possible thing after the best thing was deemed impossible.