Soma

Soma's Refutation of the Problem of Evil Argument:

Obj. 1. Evil would not exist in the presence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. If evil is manifest, then either God is not omnibenevolent, or God lacks the power to remove evil, in which case He is not omnipotent.
Obj. 2. It cannot be argued that God permits evil to allow for greater goods, for God's omnipotence would ensure man attains any level of goods against the necessity of evil.
Obj. 3. If it be argued that God's omnipotence does not permit Him to do that which is logically impossible, -- that is, remove the necessity of evil and ensure goodness remains knowable and attainable -- thereby refuting Obj. 2, then the case can be made that God permits a magnitude of evil that is unnecessary in the world, thus negating God's presupposed omnibenevolence.

Reply 1. The first objection presupposes that God is bound to morality as a lower being, which is absurd. God is sovereign from the morality He ordains for all lower beings. Consequently, God's benevolent nature is not within man's ability to grasp, for while most men would agree that certain acts are abhorrent and inherently evil, no act is necessarily abhorrent and evil for God to execute.
Reply 2. Reply 1 renders the second objection erroneous, but, for the sake of argument, let us suppose God is bound to morality as He has ordained it to lower beings. God's omnipotence does not allow for powers which are logically impossible, thus we move on to the third objection.
Reply 3. It would seem the level of evil manifest in the world is unnecessarily great; however, it can also be argued that God has reduced the level of evil in the world such that only the amount that is absolutely necessary is present. Therefore, God's omnibenevolent and omnipotent nature remains intact, for He has exercised the maximum of His powers to permit as little evil as possible while ensuring the possibility for the attainment of greater goods.

What do you guys think? Initially I was convinced that the problem of evil argument proved without doubt the Christian God was an implausible God concept, but upon further examination, I've come to realize the Christian God is not as implausible as many atheists like to think it is.

I contend that God cannot create a world without evil, but He nonetheless reduces evil because of His omnibenevolent nature so that only the amount that is absolutely necessary is present. Furthermore, I contend that God can carry out acts which we find to be evil without negating His omnibenevolence.

Discuss.

Beetle

It seems that you've redefined benevolence to mean "whatever God choses to do." I'm not sure how an act can be evil if I do it, but good if God does it. If God is the source of morality, should he be making loopholes for himself? Doesn't sound like that makes him a higher order of being.

Also, early in your post you describe God as omnipotent but later say that he cannot create a world without evil. That seems contradictory

beastmaster

I agree that the PoE is not the "smoking gun" argument against Xnty, but it's still pretty good.

But Soma, you've just conceded the gist of the PoE, which is that God is not necessarily good! How can we worship a being if we cannot trust God to be good?

What about Heaven? Did God create Heaven free of evil?

Surely there is less evil in Heaven than here -- which suggests that there is unnecessary evil in this world.

IOW, God can do evil yet be good. Congrats on your "convincing" apologetic!

Arguments about the PoE end up as so much weaseling about what the word "good" means. I think we can all agree, at the end of the day, that God is not "good" in any comprehensible sense of the word.

Soma

As I said in reply 1, what it means to be benevolent with regards to God is not within man's grasp. What we expect of a benevolent man cannot be expected of God.

Quote:

Also, early in your post you describe God as omnipotent but later say that he cannot create a world without evil. That seems contradictory

There are two definitions of omnipotence, one expounded by atheists, and one by theists. I am using the theist's version of what omnipotence means -- that God has limitations --, which is correct definition because the Bible demonstrates that God indeed has limitations.

Ganymede

God has already demonstrated his ability to bring about a situation in which there is no evil:

a) before the fall
b) heaven

If it is possible for God to do this in the past and in the future, it is possible from him to do it in the present. If God could do something to prevent evil but does not then he is not benevolent and the PoE remains.

Soma

I believe it was Aquinas who argued that when we say "God is good," we do not mean goodness is a quality of God, but rather that goodness has its source in God. Consequently, God is also the source of evil (which some Christians I've debated with before also concede).

Secondly, Heaven is devoid of evil because once a man enters Heaven, He attains and understands all goodness, thus he has no need to do evil. On Earth, men are still ignorant and in a state of perpetual sin. Evil persists only because man has yet to cleanse himself of it.

Finally, what I am trying to convey here is that God is not bound to morality. The atheists who claim otherwise are attempting to place morality above God, which is impossible. God is always the greatest thing that can be. Just as God cannot create another like Himself, so God cannot create morality to which He is subordinate.

Soma

Objections 2 and 3 and replies 2 and 3 are erroneous. Reply 1 destroys the PoE argument. The PoE was constructed on the fallacious notion that God is subordinate to morality and right and wrong, which is false.

beastmaster

Yes! That's what the PoE says! God is not omnibenevolent! Thank you! Soma, you aren't refuting the PoE, you're conceding it!

Edit: To be more specific, you are conceding the PoE and then indicating that it doesn't affect your faith in God. Which is A-OK. The PoE is not a "smoking gun" as I said before. But many people find the PoE to be a Very Disturbing Fact nonetheless.

Soma

Being benevolent does not mean being moral.

benevolent: Having a disposition to do good; possessing or manifesting love to mankind, and a desire to promote their prosperity and happiness; disposed to give to good objects; kind; charitable.

In the case of God, benevolence means to do what is best for mankind to promote the attainment of greater goods. If that means to smite someone as in OT days, then so be it. God's actions are always just and, as far as we are concerned, inherently good for mankind.

beastmaster

Funny, God "understands all goodness," but has an ungovernable compulsion to kill children . . .