Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tommyc · 07-08-2002, 01:47 AM

Quote:

[You said:]
"They may also have knowledge that overall, that child would have a likelihood of experiencing much good during their lifetime."

What is "much good"?

[You said:]
"The atheist does not set the amount of 'evil' in the world"

What "amount of 'evil'" is too much evil.

Van,

I think that there are different levels of responsibility for beings who are omnipotent and those who are not. A human parent need only feel that a child was more likely to have more happiness in life than sadness (which I personally feel is a correct assumption, at least from my point of view). However, a being that is "all good" or "perfectly good", which is pretty dubious anyway, should create a world with absolutely no evil in whatsoever. Now, if he is omnipotent, he naturally could create eveil if he wanted to, but because he is omnibenevolent, it is illogical for him to do so.

If the definition is that God is merely "good" or "mostly good", then it is perfectly acceptable for there to be a degree of evil in the world.

cheers

Tom

HRG · 07-08-2002, 01:50 AM

Standard atheist disclaimer: the word "God" in my response does not refer to an actual entity, but to a concept in the mind of theist (which may or may not be instantiated in reality).

Quote:

Originally posted by Van Agon:
Hi SanDiegoAtheist,

In response to your post dated July 03, 2002 03:53 PM in this thread, thank you for your response. I am enjoying our discussion, and appreciate your posts.

[You said:]
"They may also have knowledge that overall, that child would have a likelihood of experiencing much good during their lifetime."

What is "much good"?

[You said:]
"The atheist does not set the amount of 'evil' in the world"

What "amount of 'evil'" is too much evil.

[You said:]
"if the Christian God was NOT omnipotent, nor omniscient"

This depends on an understanding of these terms. Some things are intrinsically impossible. For example, it is a contradiction in terms to give an individual the ability to choose between good and evil, and yet disallow the possibility of choosing evil.

True. However, there is not a contradiction between giving the ability of choosing evil and providing at the same time that a negative choice has no harmful consequences (making the gun misfire etc.). "It's the thought which counts".

Quote:

It may be that the possibility to love another person is only feasible when the possibility to deprive love from another person is also possible.

But shouldn't an apologist carry the burden of arguing that these requirements actually exist - and not just refer to a vague possibility that they might ?

Quote:

[You said:]
"That, after all, is the crux of the Argument from Evil - not that your God is EVIL...but that he does not EXIST because natural evil exists."

Perhaps, but I've heard the argument also end with, "if there is a God, He must be evil."

I'll close with this. The argument is, indeed, absurd. However, where we part ways is that I believe that the argument is just as absurd as the argument from evil against God. (Surprise, surprise.)

Allow me to explain. I believe that the absurdity of the argument against evil, either for atheist parents or for God, lays in the fact that utility doesn't define what is good. Rather good is so intrinsically.

Since "good" is a word of human language, its meaning is defined by its use in ordinary language.

Quote:

So, people are good. And although an atheist parent may bear children in the hopes that the very best for them will transpire, I believe that having that child is intrinsically good, even if they had foreknowledge of horrific tragedies (such as Auschwitz, or HIV).

The goodness is the child, not the utility of the child or the utility for the child. Therefore, IMHO, foreknowledge does not necessarily constitute culpability. Rather, deliberate participation constitutes culpability.

But God participates directly in any evil - by having created the mechanisms of the universe which make it possible. How do you judge the chemist who concocts a poison, knowing with certainty that it will be used ?

Quote:

The second reason I believe the argument is absurd is because it does analogize humans with God, and these are two different categories. So, where we may hold a human accountable for the prevention of a tragedy (such as involuntary manslaughter), we cannot apply the same litmus test to God.

On the contrary. An omnipotent and omniscient being should be held to a much stricter standard than humans.

Quote:

Finally, I trust God's economy, and therefore deduce that the only feasible solution for acheiving the greatest utility

Who defined the utility function ?
[quote]
is the creation of free beings with the capacity to choose to love, or to choose to deprive love. This of course cannot be proven, but only becomes the logical conclusion since I trust God is a loving God.
[quote]
Of course, by making the right assumptions, you can prove almost anything.
<snip>

Regards,
HRG.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.