NonContradiction

Why must some evil exist in order to have free will?

Philosoft

Okay, what is the point of all this? We're dealing with the AfE, not the logical basis for necessity. Logical necessity, i.e. existence in all possible worlds, would be a discussion better suited for Philosophy. In the context of the AfE, necessity is related to God's omni- attributes and the means he uses to accomplish his goals.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by NonContradiction :

I said that for "evil humans' free will wishes come about," some evil must exist. Because evil humans wish for evil, and if their wishes come about, then, by definition, some evil exists.

NonContradiction

Here is the big problem: God doesn't have goals and objectives in the same way that we do as human beings. Perhaps an anthropomorphic god would have similar goals and objectives, but we are not talking about an anthropomorphic god.

I may have good reasons for establishing the goals I have and I may have good reasons behind the means I choose to achieve those goals. However, a nonanthropomorphic God doesn't have to have a compelling reason to do something. For example, if I were to go outside naked in the middle of a cold winter's night, you would question why I did that. If I were to wear a winter jacket and sweater on a hot summer's day, you would question why I did that. A nonanthropomorphic God doesn't have cold winter nights and hot summer days compelling Him to behave a certain way. There was no pre-existent, compelling reason that forced God to create this universe, including the evil in it, in the manner that He did.

What I have tried to do in this discussion is to point out absurdities which hinder people from reaching an unbiased conclusion, such as the following:

1) Amoral evil.

2) God's inability to do what is logically impossible implies impotence.

3) God's benevolence precludes Him from being malevolent towards some malevolent beings.

In closing, I don't think that anybody could convince you that God is beyond reproach. People like to play the "blame game" because there is a payoff. The reason why we have such negative political campaigns in America is because statistics show that most people vote against somebody rather than for somebody. If one can successfully assassinate the character of his opponent, then he can guarantee his own election. I see the AfE as nothing more than the character assassination of God in order to influence people to put their votes elsewhere. If God isn't benevolent, then who is? The secular humanists?

Also, many people have portrayed God as an angry being, full of venegence and wrath against any and all who may oppose Him. Nothing could be further from the truth. The God I believe in is a very calm, peaceful, loving, benevolent, and patient God. Does that mean that God never becomes angry or malevolent? Of course, not. To take the exception and make it the rule is nothing more than distortion, but people do it anyway because there is a payoff. Yes, the "blame game" is very profitable.

Wiploc

I thought you were talking about the god of the bible. That god created us in his image. If we are like him, then he must be like us.


Perhaps you misunderstood my position. I certainly don't think lack of omnipotence is the same as impotence.


Someone could be benevolent towards some people and malevolent towards others; there's no logical contradiction in that. But you couldn't fairly say that someone with malevolence is all-benevolent.


At this moment, you seem willing to admit that god can't do absolutely anything he wants, and also that he isn't entirely benevolent. That's all the AfE says too, so the AfE isn't assassinating god's character unless you are too.


This raises a whole new point of biblical self-contradiction. A god who is like us, an anthropomorphic god, could have moods, but an unchanging god could not.


Exceptions and rules, that's a good way to put it. The AfE doesn't dispute the rules, but it does establish that the exceptions must exist.
crc

Philosoft

NonCon, I'll let wiploc's comments stand in lieu of my own, as they cover roughly the same ground. You can reply to his post, if you don't mind, and we can all go from there.

NonContradiction

Why not? If there is no contradiction in being benevolent to some beings and malevolent towards others, then why can't God be omnibenevolent towards some and omnimalevolent towards others?

If you take "omni" to be synonymous with perfection, then I don't see a problem. For example, it's quite possible that someone could be malevolent towards some people, but then, after seeing them in pain and suffering, he feels sympathy and regret for having been malevolent towards them. Similarly, it's quite possible that someone could be benevolent towards some people, but later on regret that he was ever benevolent towards them. I am giving you examples of what I would consider to be deficiencies in malevolence or benevolence.

If you take the Abrahamic God to be omnibenevolent and omnimalevolent, which I do, then the AfE doesn't prove anything. The whole purpose of applying the AfE to the Abrahamic God is to prove that He doesn't exist, but it turns out to be just an exercise in futility.

If God has mutally exclusive desires, then, logically speaking, He can't have everything He wants. I don't see logical impossibilities as being a deficiency in His power, whereas you seem to think so.

As far as the character assassination is concerned, allow me to post a quote from you:



Calling my God the archetype, the essence of evil, qualifies as character assassination of my God.

Dr Rick

For the same reason a man can be married to some people but not to others, but cannot be a bachelor to some people and a married man to others

It's not.

Such a person would be neither omni-benevolent nor omni-malevolent, bu rather sometimes benevolent and sometimes malevolent.

You may have some powers and some weaknesses, but it would be inaccurate to describe such you as "sometimes omnipotent, sometime omni-impotent."

Is that anything like an all-circular square?

If god has desires that are not mutually exclusive and still can't have everything he wants, that is a deficiency. There is nothing about evil that tyou have presented that makes it logically incompatible with everything that he might want.

NonContradiction

Okay, let's say that the Abrahamic God is a perfect God. All of His attributes are perfect. He is a perfect being whose knowledge, power, benevolence, and malevolence is perfect. Where is the contradiction here? It's not a logical contradiction for Him to be benevolent towards some beings and malevolent towards others.

We say that God is all-knowing and all-powerful because it's implied if He is a perfect being. However, it's not implied that God must be all-benevolent if He is perfect. In fact, I think that it could be argued that it would be an imperfection to be all-benevolent.

Dr Rick

There isn't, but if you call such a being omnibenevolent, then there's a contradiction.

That has nothing to do with the PoE, which argues against an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful god