Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Philip Osborne:

"Although I don't want this to turn into another argument from evil thread, I think this passage begs the question by assuming that the argument from evil disproves an omnipotent, omniscient God. For instance, I might start a thread called 'To prove God is easy,' which would say, among other things, 'Atheists can't deny a supreme being, since the cosmological and ontological arguments work....' It seems to be that there is something wrong with this method. In other words, if you want to establish a given conclusion, it seems best to do so without assuming highly controversial ideas to be true."

I admit that I glossed over some things rather glossily. My point in this thread was really to survey possible definitions of "omnipotent," and to provide a preliminary outline of how I object to the popular ones.

I agree that the deductive argument from evil is generally taken to be unsound. But I think it is sound when applied to a God Who can perform any syntactically describable action -- a strongly omnipotent God -- for suffering can no longer be of any instrumental value. UPD requires that God might have a justifying reason to permit suffering. This greater good has among its properties, "requires suffering s." But if God can peform the logically impossible, He can bring about any greater good that requires suffering while simultaneously preventing all suffering.

I hope this clears up the confusion.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Yeah, Infinity, I disagree.

There is no 'God', so no thing can be 'created in 'God's' image and likeness'.

Keith.

Amos

Hi Thomas, are you sure that the universe exists? Please show me where and give me some of its attributes because maybe you are looking for God in the wrong places.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Amos:

"Hi Thomas, are you sure that the universe exists? Please show me where and give me some of its attributes because maybe you are looking for God in the wrong places."

This has nothing to do with my post. I am claiming that all heretofore-posited definitions of GA's omnipotence are incoherent. This is true whether or not the universe exists. We also know that if GA exists, then the universe exists, because GA created the universe.

But as for the universe, consider this argument:
(A) If my you exist, then the universe exists.
(B) You exist.
(C) Therefore, the universe exists (from (A) and (B) by modus ponens).

I think the first premise is pretty easy to defend; I, if I exist, am a material being and therefore must be part of the universe. The second premise might be harder, but to deny it entails rather unacceptable skepticism. We can also formulate an a priori argument thus:

(D) To deny that the universe exists is false, because the universe is defined as "all that exists."
(E) Therefore, the universe exists.

I do not see how the existence of the universe can be denied, but more importantly, whether or not it exists is irrelevant to the argument in this thread.

Primal

I do not see what is unsound about the argument from evil at all.

To be sound an argument must 1) Be valid. 2) Have true premises.

The argument goes like this:

1) God is defined as having the traits of omnipotence and omnibenevolence,

2) Since God is omnibenevolent he would want only good in the universe, he would likewise want there to be no evil.

3) If God was omnipotent, God would have the power to eliminate evil under any circumstances.

4) Thus if God exists there would be no evil. Evil in this sense applying to suffering,pain,death,etc.

5) There is evil.

Conclusion: Hence there is no God.

Or if A then not B
B
Therefore not A.

The only way out of this is to say 1) God does not have one of the above traits. In which case I will mention that I am speaking of the widely believed Omnipotent God of monotheism. 2) Redefine Omnipotence and/or omnibenevolence, which would be spurious.
3) Deny the existence of evil, which to me seems like an obvious fact.

Appeals to free will,testing,choosing to love etc. are irrelevant as God could have all those things without resorting to allowing evil to be present via God's omnipotence.

Since the premises are true, then the argument is sound. Note I am speaking of Gods defined in that in the wayof premise 1 only, I know there are other definitions of God and the argument from evil only becomes one of probability applied to them and is not sound. But for most believers in the US, God is said to be omnipotent and omnibenevolent in the traditional senses of the words.

Questions or comments?

tronvillain

Yes, the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God appears to be disproved given the state of world. It is a simple matter of "If p then q, not q; therefore, not p." Of course, I do not see any of those attricutes as strictly necessary for something called "God" so the proof is somewhat limited.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Primal:

"I do not see what is unsound about the argument from evil at all."

The evidential argument from evil, I believe, is a strong argument, but the deductive argument from evil has largely been abandoned.

"To be sound an argument must 1) Be valid. 2) Have true premises."

I agree...

"The argument goes like this:

"1) God is defined as having the traits of omnipotence and omnibenevolence,

"2) Since God is omnibenevolent he would want only good in the universe, he would likewise want there to be no evil."

It is here where most professional apologists would disagree with you. I will explain below.

"3) If God was omnipotent, God would have the power to eliminate evil under any circumstances."

"4) Thus if God exists there would be no evil. Evil in this sense applying to suffering,pain,death,etc.

"5) There is evil.

"Conclusion: Hence there is no God.

"Or if A then not B
"B
"Therefore not A.

"The only way out of this is to say 1) God does not have one of the above traits. In which case I will mention that I am speaking of the widely believed Omnipotent God of monotheism. 2) Redefine Omnipotence and/or omnibenevolence, which would be spurious.
3) Deny the existence of evil, which to me seems like an obvious fact."

The apologist will take the route of 1 and deny that God has the trait "Wants to prevent all evil." According to the Unknown Purpose Defense or UPD, it may be the case that some evil is logically required for some greater goods. In other words, the state of affairs "There is evil e1 and good g1" might in fact be better, for God's purposes, than the state of affairs "There is no evil e1 and no good g1."

As long as it's possible that God values some things over humans' lack of suffering, the apologist can plausibly deny the deductive form of this argument. For all we know, to the proponent of UPD, my suffering a paper cut today will allow one hundred people to be happier by x amount tomorrow. The proponent of UPD has discovered a way by which God could allow evil while remaining morally perfect.

The evidential argument from evil, however, is far harder to answer, because it depends not on a deductive form but on a perception of probability.

Amos

But you and I exist in the universe and therefore we are not the universe or no even part of it. This same is true with time and to say that God created the universe is equal to saying that God created time. The Universe is space and neither space nor time exists.

But if indeed the Universe-as-such does not exist you are correct and God did not create the universe.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Amos:
"The Universe is space and neither space nor time exists."

Are you claiming this from the standpoint of transcendental idealism, or have you your own reasons?

Alaytheia

I'm intrigued by this discussion and would like to offer a few thoughts (by no means comprehensive).

Re: definition of "omniipotent"

It seems to me that the most prevalent understanding of theistic omnipotence is left over from childhood--when at 5 we first learn that "God can do anything," the common response is often humourous. I'm reminded of a popular children's cartoon in which a young one, upon finding out that God is the most powerful, says, "but the Slime Monster can squirt slime out of his ears. Can *God* squirt slime out of his ears?!?!" Or another, who says, "I've always wanted to be a chicken. Do you think God could turn me into a chicken??"

No, God cannot squirt slime out of his ears, because God does not have any ears. And that is the beginning of a better understanding of omnipotence--it doesn't mean that God is able to perform every possible or impossible act. Rather, it means that he has absolute power within the definition of his nature. God is not omnipotent in the strictest sense because he cannot sin; it would be against his nature. He also cannot create a being greater than himself. Etc.

With that said, he does have absolute control over his creation. And it is that control over creation which is described in the Bible. Keep in mind that the Bible never uses the world "omnipotent": that came in later theological discussion (and has since been frequently misunderstood). Instead, the Bible speaks continuously of God's authority over the physical universe, over the lives of humans and other living beings, over spiritual realms, and even over evil. He is omnipotent because there is none more powerful, and because everything that exists is dependent on him.

To further illustrate, respected evangelical theologian Stanley Grenz describes all creation as being a *necessary* outcome of God's own nature--not in the sense that God is forced to create, but in the sense that due to the nature of God creation is inevitable, a natural overflow of Trinitarian life.

With these things in mind, I think the idea of an "omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being Who created the universe" is quite coherent.

Re: suffering, omnipotence and moral perfection.

Of course this is a huge topic that I wouldn't dream of casing in one post. But I would like to offer one significant possibility:

Suffering is a symptom, not the actual problem. Pain is also a symptom, and serves a good and excellent purpose (ask anyone with leprosy, who is denied the benefits of physical pain). Both are (in)direct results of evil. So the real question is whether evil is necessary for the greater good. To that I would answer yes, for this reason: Redemption, grace, salvation, justification, and forgiveness are far more wonderful and powerful--even in our day-to-day lives--than perfection.

The person who is forgiven much, loves much. The offer of grace and mercy undeserved can break even the hardest heart, and finding something that you have lost only causes you to appreciate the original far more than you ever could have before. Restoration is heartbreakingly beautiful, in spite of any pain required in the process. And without pain, there can be no healing.

I'd like to give an example that is very close to my heart right now. Earlier this year I thought I had permanently lost a wonderful friend, and it was incredibly painful and difficult to deal with. But we recently made amends and our relationship is blossoming in wonderful ways. Did I enjoy the process? No. Would I have chosen that route, had I known what would happen? Definitely not. But we both learned and grew through the experience, and are better people because of it; not only that, but our friendship is deeper and stronger now than ever before. So has the greater good been served in this one small instance? Yes! We were the ones who caused the rift in the first place, but we are not the only ones benefitting from the continuing results. Restoration is far more beautiful than perfection, and is also further reaching in its scope.

just my two cents.