NonContradiction

Remember when I claimed that the AfE is a moral argument rather than an empirical or purely rational argument?

NonContradiction

I don't think that we can do that. As you know, the AfE can be traced back to the Greeks and they were not monotheists. Since then, the AfE has been applied to the Abrahamic God. The problem here is that the Christians are not the final word regarding the Abrahamic God, and so people wind up proving that Christian concepts are incoherent and nothing more. The Abrahamic God cannot be defined with just three attributes, nor is the Abrahamic God "all-loving" and "all-benevolent" in the Christian sense.

In short, the AfE must be applied to a particular god or it's completely useless. If it's applied to the Abrahamic God, then it's meaningless because God isn't limited to only three attributes.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by NonContradiction :

Yes. All it requires, however, is an undeniable ethical principle:

It is morally better to prevent gratuitous intense suffering than to allow it, all else equal.

When you accept that, the rest of the argument does indeed follow.

NonContradiction

Why is any suffering necessary? Certainly, there is no compelling reason that forces God to behave a certain way, otherwise He wouldn't be omnipotent, would He? Therefore, there is no such thing as "necessary suffering" which God is compelled to allow.

Philosoft

Where are you going with this? In any case, you're equivocating meanings of "love." To say God loves bin Laden's plan is to say he approves of it. However to say God loves bin Laden is to say (among other things) God cares deeply about bin Laden's well-being. Two different things here.
Well, it doesn't really matter what other attributes a tri-omni God possesses, as long as he possesses the three in question, without contradiction. If God possesses the attribute "likes to randomly torture Jerry Falwell," then God could not also be omni-benevolent.

Philosoft

"Necessary suffering" is the cornerstone of your refutation of the deductive AfE. If you don't have "necessary suffering," you can't defeat the deductive AfE, and this whole thread has been for naught.

NonContradiction

Is anything necessary to exist? It's absurd to suggest that human beings are necessary to exist. It's absurd to suggest that the universe is necessary to exist. It's absurd to suggest that some evil is necessary to exist. Nothing is necessary to exist, period.

I argued before that some pain and suffering is necessary to exist if God wants human beings to learn to have patience. However, was there a compelling reason that forced Him to create human beings? Was there a compelling reason that forced Him to want us to learn to have patience in life? He may want us to learn to have patience, but there is no compelling reason that is forcing Him to have that desire. Nothing is necessary.

Necessary suffering isn't the cornerstone of my refutation of the deductive AfE. If I stub my toe and suffer UNNECESSARY pain and suffering, does that mean that God isn't omnibenevolent? If I get a scratch, does that mean that God isn't omnibenevolent? I think that it would be ridiculous to suggest such a thing, but people are welcome to do so.

Philosoft

NonCon, your post is far beyond the scope of this discussion. The context is logical possibility given a certain set of conditions. Namely, if "omnibenevolent" entails "always does the morally best thing" (or vice-versa) and "unnecessary suffering" is always morally wrong, how can an omnibenevolent being allow unnecessary suffering when it is in his power to prevent it? Obviously, he can't; thus, necessary suffering.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by NonContradiction :

It must be, if God exists. Otherwise, it's gratuitous, and gratuitous suffering is inconsistent with God's existence. A morally perfect being would prevent all intense gratuitous suffering.

Some suffering is logically necessary for some non-suffering. Suppose "Evil humans get their free will wishes" is a very good good. The only way for it to exist is if some evil exists.

Let me heartily recommend to you that you not take that position. If you do, even the Unknown Purpose Defense will fail, because God could have prevented all the suffering in the world.

NonContradiction

Is there such a thing as necessary and unnecessary pleasure? Is all pleasure necessary or is it all unnecessary? Or is some of it necessary and some of it is unnecessary? Does it really matter? Pain, as far as I can tell, isn't anymore necessary or unnecessary than pleasure is.