Philosoft

Your single objection erroneously conflates the two AfEs. The deductive AfE can be countered by the "greater good" defense, as you indicate. But the evidential AfE, briefly, that a benevolent God would allow less apparently gratuitous suffering than exists now, doesn't fall to the same objections.

This solves the deductive PoE, not the evidential PoE.

Well, the assertion, "There is more gratuitous suffering than a benevolent God would allow" has evidential and intuitive support. The E-PoE denier would have to include as a premise that we are wrong to judge any instance of suffering as gratuitous, which seems a daunting task.

Philosoft

I don't follow. It seems that a PoG would only obtain in a world with a malevolent creator.

rainbow walking

Hi Diana,
Thank you for that warm welcome. It is good to be back and I hope to be around long enough to garner more nuggets of knowledge from these discussions before I have to leave again. Rather than burden you further with more line by line replies, I want to respond by sharing some thoughts with you on the subject of defining these omni attributes. Our discussion to this point seems to keep turning up this one mutual problem shared by all; that being the problem of nailing down a consistent definition of this being from which to build further meaningful discussions. I’m pasting your initial remarks, touching on this subject more expressively than I could, and will then proceed from there.


rw: The problem of reaching an adequate definition of this being’s attributes is a problem that has taken a wide majority of these discussions south before any real progress can be made. We’ve all seen it happen time and again and likely most of us have been involved in more than one discussion where this very problem becomes the Achilles Heel that often turns a perfectly good debate into a slug fest.

Now I’m not saying I have the solution, by any means, but I do wish to share some thoughts on the matter that may benefit any future attempts at resolving this difficult problem.Warning: Before I am finished this will turn into a schizoid discussion. Here’s how I see it…

Virtually all of this beings alleged attributes begin with the designation “omni” which translated basically means “all”. All powerful/omnipotent, all knowing/omniscient, all good/omni-benevolent, etc. and so forth.

I am of the opinion that the first stumbling block resides in this very simple term “omni/all”.

The concept of “all” is a mathematical concept. In mathematics we generally deal with finite values. But, on occasion, we also deal with infinity, but not very accurately. The thing about the concept of “all” is that it can be used either way to convey both finite values and infinite values, depending on how it’s incorporated into any equation whether formally or linguistically.

For example, take the simple statement, “Johnny has all the money.”

From this simple statement it’s impossible to determine exactly how much money Johnny has. More input is needed. But there are only two ways we can interpret this statement on its own merits.

1. Either Johnny has all the money ever created from the inception of money until money ceases to be a viable commodity,

2. Or Johnny has a specific amount of money that this statement only leaves us to guess at. It could be one dollar or a trillion. It could be more or less.

Now consider if number 1 above is true that means all of humanity from its inception until, and or if, we cease to exist, are exceedingly poverty stricken. It isn’t likely that number 1 is a true statement if interpreted in this fashion. It’s an absurd interpretation.

Let’s call this the rule of the Absurd Interpretation. It’s falsification is contained in example 2 above. Example 2 doesn’t give us a specific amount but it definitely leaves us a reason to keep working in anticipation of a paycheck.

What happens when we apply this rule to the concept of power, knowledge and benevolent expression?

Is it meaningful or absurd to say that a being exists that has “all” the power according to example 1 above?

I can easily falsify example one in relation to Johnny’s wealth because I do have some money in my wallet. He can’t possibly have it ALL.

Can I not then, as easily falsify example 1, in relation to a being and power with the observation that I have some power in my self as well?

Can I not then reasonably and logically conclude that this being cannot possibly have ALL power? And if we apply this to knowledge and benevolent expression, do we not also arrive at the identical same conclusion?

Now this brings us to another, perhaps more difficult question. Does power, knowledge and benevolent expression have a finite or infinite quality? Is there some infinite supply of these things somewhere that this being can draw from at will, or is he limited in some, as yet, un-specified way to a finite amount of these things?

When we say a being knows all things do we mean to imply that knowledge has an end or is infinite? If it is infinite how is it possible to know since knowing presupposes an acquisition of a finite supply and if there is an infinite supply of knowledge how can it ever be acquired? Knowledge is definitely in demand and it does seem that we have an insatiable appetite for it and it also seems that the more we learn the more we discover how little we really know…so is there a limit to what can be known? Or is that a question that applies only to finite beings?

As I’ve demonstrated above, he can’t possibly have ALL of these things if any of us have any degree or amount of them within ourselves.

“But wait a minute, “you’re likely to interject, “ This being doesn’t HAVE these things, he IS these things”. In other words, he doesn’t HAVE “all” power, he IS “all-powerful”. It’s not a quantitative designation but a qualitative one.

O’kay, let’s run with this. I’m going to set before you a nice, big RED, juicy, ripe apple, fresh off the tree, and make two comments about it.

Comment 1: This apple has an ALL red attribute.

Comment 2: This apple IS all red.

What’s the difference? I see absolutely no syntactical difference in either statement, do you? Are you likely to interpret either of these statements to mean that this particular apple is the sole source of the color red in the entire universe?

So by what standard of logic do we interpret the statement, “this being is all powerful”, to mean he is the sole source of all power in the universe? I can take you to any number of nuclear, coal, gas and hydroelectric power generating plants within a hundred miles of my location and demonstrably prove that this statement is false.

“Oh”, you’re likely to object, “saying he is all powerful doesn’t mean he is the sole source of all power in the universe, it means he is capable of DOING anything he desires.”

Alrighty then, we’re hemming this hog up rather quickly. He doesn’t have all power, he isn’t the source of all power, power isn’t what he has but what he is…did I leave anything out?



“Yes”, you say, “He’s capable of doing anything he desires.”

That’s a positive and I’ll get to that in a minute, but first I wanted to cover all the negatives, which I believe I have. So we’re left with this one positive:

He’s capable of doing anything he desires.

O’tay…and where exactly does this capability originate? Power is required to do anything but he doesn’t have ALL power so there must be some things he simply can’t do, for lack of power.

If he isn’t the source of all power, what is?

How, exactly, does he manage to be all powerful in light of so many detractions from his power?

“That’s easy”, you say, “he is the source of his own power.”

I see, but not the source of mine or the sun’s or any of the other stars?

“Well”, with some hesitation you continue, “he is and he isn’t.”

Go on.

“Since he created you and all these other things you named, he endowed you with the power to be and to do, from himself. You’re all free to be and do until you exhaust your supply of power”

Yabut earlier you said he wasn’t the source of all power, so why are you contradicting yourself?

“ I’m not contradicting myself, I was responding to the way you stated it using the apple as an example. He isn’t the sole source of all power such that no power resides with anything but himself, but he is the sole source of all power that resides within everything that exists independently of him and has endowed all existent things with a degree of his power permitting all existent things to be and to do. I guess you could say he has shared himself with all existent things.”

Somehow I’m feeling a bit bowlegged and this hog has gotten slippery. If this power isn’t something that he has but something he is, then you are telling me that he gave some part of himself away in this endowment, is this correct or am I missing something here?

“This is true, but he has retained enough of himself to remain autonomous and omnimax in all respects towards all things he has created and endowed with power.”

Well, that’s a lot of power and a mighty big assertion, care to enlighten me as to what exactly the nature of this power is? Is it electrical, nuclear, magnetic, biological, chemical…how do you define it?

“It’s all of the above and more. What it is depends on the medium through which it has been endowed and the interaction between other mediums will determine its rate of exchange and how it manifests. It’s both random and determined. The interactions are random but the rate of exchange and manifestations are determined, if that makes any sense. It can be inflated and dissipated but there are rules that govern the rate of these things. Its manifestations can be combined into complex forms like electro-magnetic and bio-chemical manifestations or broken down into simple wave and particle functions which are not so simple. It is sensitive to temperature and pressure and subservient to time and space. I don’t know what IT is exactly, do you?”

No, not exactly, but if I’m reading you correctly here, you’re telling me this being has a lot of room and ways to make things happen?

“Well, it’s much more complex than that, but it’s just easier to say he is omnipotent and make the most of what you think this means.”

That’s the kicker, isn’t it? It’s left up to me to do these things. If such a being really exists why doesn’t he make an effort to provide me with some direction?

“Hey, you started out like you had a specific direction and had me convinced momentarily that we were going to see some progress…what happened?”

You, that’s what happened. I thought I knew where this was going until you chimed in. Now I’m just as confused as ever. Why are you so convinced that such a being exists?

“Who said I was convinced? I’m just as confused as you are. Why in hell do you think I was paying attention when you started down this path? I thought I was helping when I chimed in but I can see I’ve only complicated things for the both of us…sorry.”

Who the hell are you anyway?

“God”

NonContradiction

ME: I don't think that the AfE proves anything, anymore than I believe that other empirical arguments prove the existence of God. In brief, I don't believe that empirical arguments can be made to prove the existence or nonexistence of a diety. You are welcome to try if you think otherwise.

Stated simply, it appears as though the argument is as follows:

1) A benevolent God should prevent excessive gratuitous suffering.

2) Excessive gratuitous suffering exists.

3) Ergo, a benevolent God doesn't exist.

First of all, I don't believe that this is an empirical argument because (1) appears to be a moral proposition rather than empirical.

Secondly, excessive gratuitous evil is relative. As a thought experiment, imagine if a worldwide nuclear war broke out. Imagine if most of the cities in the world were destroyed. Imagine if billions of people were starving or freezing to death because of the nuclear fallout. Anyway, you get the picture.

Thirdly, it may be obvious to many people that a benevolent God should prevent what THEY perceive as excessive gratuitous evil, but that proposition isn't as obvious to me.

Wiploc

[QUOTE]Originally posted by NonContradiction

Quote:

Originally posted by wiploc The AfE doesn't prove that no gods exist. It does conclusively prove that one particular god doesn't exist: I don't agree. The AfE is a reductio ad absurdum, which means that it seeks to demonstrate a logical contradiction in order to prove that it's intial assumption of God being Omnibenevolent was false. As I have indicated, the evidential problem of evil doesn't prove that a 'necessary' logical contradiction exists between the goodness of God and the existence of evil in the world. Therefore, the AfE doesn't prove what it sets out to prove initially.

I'm not talking about the evidential version. The regular version proves there is no god that knows of our suffering, wants to prevent our suffering, and can prevent our suffering. That's what it sets out to prove to prove; that's what it does prove; therefore it does prove what it sets out to prove.



Suppose I said there is a god of drought. He wants to prevent all rain. He can prevent all rain. Therefore this is the driest of all possible worlds.

Suppose you object that sometimes it does rain.

My argument would be exactly as silly as yours if I responded, "The fact that it didn't rain last Thursday solves the PoR."

The fact that that sometimes there is not rain is insufficient to allow for a god who can and wants to prevent all rain, just as the fact that sometimes people don't suffer is insufficient to allow for a god who can and wants to prevent all suffering.



You capitalize the god you believe in, and don't capitalize the rest. I don't believe in any, so I don't capitalize any.

The one I can prove doesn't exit, capitalized or not, is the one who knows about our suffering, can prevent it, wants to prevent it, and yet doesn't prevent it.

crc

"For a complete list of the ways in which technology has failed to improve the quality of life, press three."

NonContradiction

You are not proving anything other than you can make repeated assertions that you are. First of all, how do you know that a Perfect God would want to prevent ALL pain and suffering (since you are going with the deductive version) in the world? It's a non-sequitur.

You are attacking a strawman here because you are not characterizing my position correctly.

You said that the AfE doesn't prove that all gods don't exist and I replied by saying that I know. For that reason, I capitalized the word God so that you would know which one I was talking about.

You keep saying that you can prove that He doesn't exist, but I am waiting for you to demonstrate for me how you know that. How do you know that a benevolent God would want to prevent all pain and suffering in the world?

NonContradiction

Since you are taking the position that the deductive AfE is a sound argument, I take it that you don't agree with Philosoft's quote above.

diana

Hi, rainbow walking.

I see you were very thorough in your response. To keep things trimmed down, I've skipped pursuing the "possible objections" I wouldn't have made, as my response to those matches yours quite closely.

I wouldn't equate "having all the money" with "all-powerful." I think it's comparing apples to giant plums. They look more or less the same on the surface, but the resemblence ends there.

Money ownership is mutually exclusive. If I have $10, then you don't have that $10, and you can't. You can have a different $10. Abilities, on the other hand, can be had be many parties. If I can type 80 words per minute, this doesn't make it impossible for you to be able to. Maybe you can't, but it won't be because I can.

So "having all the money" and "having all power" can't be paralleled so easiliy.

Side note: it just occurred to me that I've always thought of "all-powerful" to refer to limitless abilities. I see you interpret it literally: power means power, as in "source of energy."

In your interpretation, I can understand why you'd equate money and power. If I have any power (energy), then clearly God doesn't have all of it.

The apologetic response, I think, would be that we are merely expressions of God's power. We only think we have power, when in reality, we are merely renters of it.

If God knows everything in the past and the future, then knowledge must be finite. I think that's inherent in the definition. How can you know "all" of something if there is no "all" to be had?

Which makes me wonder: does God, being omniscient, know all possible numbers? How?

Well...yes. We always come back to some version of this, don't we?

Hehehehehe. Nice twist.

d

Wiploc

Right. I mean, I'd be happy to see it done. A lot of people assume it can be done. But I don't see any tiniest crack in the PoE's logic.

It is possible to imagine a god who wants something else (a greater good) more than he wants human happiness. What's not possible is to call such a god "perfectly benevolent." This is where the Christians have to two-step, dancing back and forth between incompatible positions. One moment they are telling us god is perfectly loving and good and benevolent; the next moment they are saying he has something more important going on. That's a contradiction.

The PoE: If
1. God knew everything, including that humans suffer, and
2. God were absolutely able to do anything he wanted, and
3. What he wanted more than anything else (or at least as much as anything else) was to prevent human suffering, then
4. There would be no suffering.
5. Since there is suffering, such a god does not exist.

This is all the PoE undertakes to prove, but it proves this absolutely.

If the PoE makes Christians back away from their initial claims about the nature of god, if it makes them say god isn't truly omniscient (doesn't know the future, say) or isn't truly omnipotent (can't violate logic and can't grant freedom without granting suffering, perhaps) or isn't omnibenevolent (thinks there is some "greater good" that should be put ahead of human welfare) then perhaps we are in an area where the evidential PoE has to take over. But unless the Christian admits that he's defending a relatively punk, bad, or ignorant god, there is no reason to abandon the absolutely solid ground of the PoE.
crc

Wiploc

That's by definition. Historically speaking, when people refer to a perfect god, they are meaning omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. You can mean something else if you want to. For instance, you can believe that the meanest god is the most perfect. In that case, the PoE does not disprove your god. But neither have you contradicted the PoE. The PoE only comes into play if you believe in a god who would prevent all human suffering if he could.

Which raises a question: Do you believe in such a god?


No I didn't. You said the PoE was refuted by future happiness. I pointed out that that's like saying a drought is refuted by future rain.


You can capitalize it or not. If it is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent, it doesn't exist. If it isn't omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent, then the PoE doesn't come into play.

Why are you trying to put me to the guess as to whether you believe god is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent? You can take an unambiguous position if you want to.

But you don't want to, do you? If you took an unabiguous position, you would either be obviously wrong or obviously outside the realm of the PoE, and we wouldn't have anything to talk about.

crc