Wyz_sub10

Hi RW. For the sake of time and sanity I will try to “whittle” things down a bit. (As a mod, I need to read everything on this forum and S&S, which takes a fair bit of time). It is not my intention to avoid any question you feel has not been answered, just to avoid repetition. If I have neglected to address a salient point, please let me know.

Into the breach…

Why does the “kind” of creature matter? If I said the creatures were living, though unintelligent stones, I’m guessing that you would find this problematic because they are not “rich” like humanity is now.

It really does not matter because all that is required is that they live their lives without suffering. For the sake of argument, let’s take the moon (no weather or seismic activity) and populate it with single-cell beings that are incapable of perceiving evil or good. After a period of 1 year they die unknowingly and painlessly.

This might sound preposterous, but it is certainly is not logically impossible. Now, if you are going to ask me to place a *personal* value judgement on the appeal of this, it would be hard to do. I have known things in life that make this scenario unappealing. But if I were god and wanted to flex my creative muscle, and was omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then I could make such a world were beings pop-in and pop-out.

Forgive me if I do not do so now. I’ve been meaning to create the next “Esperanto” but I really haven’t had the time.

Hopefully I’ve addressed a possibility above (of course there are limitless possibilities). But why are you trying to determine the “humanity” of my creatures? Evil is part of that humanity, and we both agree that this is what we’re trying to eliminate. How can I make changes in humanity if you are going to hold me to preserving what humanity is, at present?

I never said there’s anything with the environment we live in now. (Although we could probably agree on some changes we’d like to see. I could do without rape and child abuse, for starters). My point is that the world we live in now is not consistent with the creator of limitless power with love for each of his creations.

The choices you offer imply picking up this society, as it exists, and moving it. I don’t think anyone advocating the PoE would see that as dealing with anything relevant to the idea.
For the record, if I could live on Jupiter, that might be cool for a long weekend.

Okay. Remember, I’m an atheist – I believe that “evil” is quite recognizably human. If I simply wanted to make humanity better, I could propose some solutions, but not necessarily eliminate evil all together. (Recall that I am “bound” by the J/C description of god)

Why is that a negative? Why the requirement to give life a “meaning”? You see this as a negative, looking on “my world” from your current vantage point. But if you lived with no perception of good or evil, no matter how directionless, you would not ponder meaning if I did not enable you to do so. In other words, it matters to you now, but it wouldn’t matter to you in my world.

How about it?

A combination of the two would work.

Okay, RW, here’s the problem – you are waiting for me to describe these creatures in detail. I am insisting that there is no reason to do so. Why? Because the details are only necessary if there is a goal to this existence. They could be motionless, inanimate, thoughtless, but living, lumps of coal. They do nothing but “exist” until they die.

You may think this is a worse world than the current one. And I’m willing to bet it is…for you (and me, admittedly). But I have known people who have killed themselves because they could not stand the pain of their lives. Maybe being an insensitive lump of coal is far more palatable.

What I am trying to show is that a life free of suffering is possible. Would it result in “an unexamined life” not worth living? Depends. (I’m not sure flies worry about examining their lives)

This discussion could be far more specific if we dealt with degrees of suffering or specific types of evil. (i.e. why does torture exist? or slowly metastasizing cancers?) I believe you are having this conversation elsewhere, and I respect that this is not what *we* are talking about. But I think it’s easy to demonstrate that a world without evil could exist. What appeal that world would have, knowing what you know now, is a different issue.

But, as another posted once said with regards to suffering, it is easy for those in positions of relative comfort to proclaim the benefits of suffering. Some people enter this world, live their lives in abject pain and horror, and die alone, never having experienced the simplest of joys. Now, seeing as you do not believe in heaven (nor do I) how arrogant are we to proclaim that this person’s so-called-life was justified through some ancillary benefit that we may derive from it? Would you be a “rockman on the moon” (with no discernable difference to you) if it meant that no person would live such a horrid life?

Then I think you’ve instituted a rule requiring evil, haven’t you? This basically prohibits any solution, regardless of the validity. You are saying “create something that can be evil without evil.” That is logically impossible, and not due to a flaw in PoE, but due to the rigidity of your challenge.

Again, we can talk degrees of suffering (or tighten our definitions of evil - heck, how about giving one?) and that changes the discussion.

Hmmm…you seem to shift back and forth at your convenience. If we are truly in Oz, why are we speaking of “resembling humanity” or moving society to Mercury?

I don’t know. But if expression is the only problem, then language will take care of it. It doesn’t change the feeling, only the expression thereof (if expression is necessary, which it is not).

Yes…because your brain creates a pleasurable sensation. I could have an orgasm right now (although they’d probably cancel my contract here), and I currently feel no sexual frustration. In fact, I don’t even have the desire at this moment. But I know that when I “get there”, my brain will reward me nonetheless.

An “evil” reference? Or an “absent” reference? Or is “absence” = “evil”?

You know what else is peculiar to humans? Car-jacking. You cannot ask me to preserve human peculiarities at the same time you are asking me to get rid of evil.

Why would they want anything? I have stated this above, but I want to reiterate it here – if you conclude that human qualities must exist, then you have already established parameters that cannot be argued against. If you challenge me to include “hot” without including “cold”, I cannot. If you challenge me to include “scalding-skin hot” without including “freezing-skin cold”, then that can, indeed, be done.

I am proposing equilibrium, without discernable “hot” or “cold, yet you don’t seem to think that’s sufficient. If I were proposing “liberty” without “oppression”, you could take exception. But the fact that I am not proposing “wants” is not a flaw in the reasoning. If a living creature did not “want”, how does this affect the evil? It doesn’t – it affects humanity as you know it, but you have clearly stated above that you do not know the natives – that we are in Oz now. So why can you not accept that the creatures in Oz don’t want or desire, any more than they don’t seek to kill each other?

You think I am keeping something from you by being so sparse in my description. I'm not - simple organisms, no percpetion of good or bad, they don't communicate, they die unaware.

You may find this unappealing, but it is by no means illogical.

I’m not trying to convince you that this world is better than the one we live in – and this is where I think you’re missing the point of PoE – I’m trying to demonstrate that evil is not a logical necessity, and that the introduction of evil by an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being indicates that either they are not omnipotent or omnibenevolent.

The point was to demonstrate that every action does not have to be referenced by evil. Your insistence that I add unnecessary attributes to the creatures of the world seems to be driven by the need to find a quality you can prop up against this supposed necessary reference.

Here’s a repeated basic description of the world – in an unchanging environment dwell motionless, isolated living creatures who, from the time they are created by me. After a year, they die unaware and without fear or anticipation.

I could introduce a pleasurable stimulus . To anticipate your question – by what frame of reference do they know it’s pleasurable? That’s like asking “why” something tastes good – even providing a frame of reference you have not answered the question. You can say “ice cream tastes better than broccoli” but that does absolutely nothing to answer why this is so.

Your "reference" is somewhat of a red herring because even if I granted the “necessity of evil” and said that they knew it was pleasurable because it “felt better” than pain, you still would not have an answer as to what this is.

I have read the OP (the one where you are the first reply, congratulating yourself ). The problem is that you are taking the product and working backwards. You are saying, it seems, that this is the only possible creation for an all-loving, all-powerful god.
Or you might be saying that this world was chosen, and to implement this world, evil was a necessary companion.
None of these address the expectations of omni-benevolence, or the decisions associated therewith.

As an example, if I want to clean your wound (good) I may have to cause you pain or discomfort (bad). Fair enough. But, metaphorically speaking, is you wound a logical necessity in the first place? If I caused the wound, would I still be omni-benevolent because I cleaned it afterward? If god sets up a world that must contain evil, when it is possible that he sets up a world that does not, is he still all-loving?

You seem to take the position that this is an irrelevant question to the PoE, because we need deal with this world. Well, I can concede that evil must exist *here*, but I cannot concede that *here* must exist for an all-loving, all-powerful being.

But the biggest problem, RW, and the one that makes any answer you receive unsatisfactory to you, is that you fail to define ‘evil’.

I infer form your comments (perhaps mistakenly) that you think wants are evil, boredom is evil, not working is evil, desiring something is evil (or maybe not desiring something is evil).
The problem with this logic – reciprocal sensations, gradient scales, points of reference – is that anything less than the maximum can be considered evil in your books.

That is why I refer to this “maximum” in this discussion, not because I want to change definitions, but because “evil” is meaningless if it applies to everything and anything that is less that the maximum possible.

If you do not define evil, then you have carte blanche to spot evil wherever good does not exist. Another poster mentioned that you do not appear to believe in neutrality. Perhaps you do. It is for this reason that my “creatures” are so banal and ambitionless – to demonstrate that evil is not necessary to existence as an absolute.

Sexual frustration is what makes an orgasm pleasurable? I don’t think so. I’d be interested in where you’ve read this. By your definition, the more sexually frustrated one is, the more pleasurable their orgasm. It might make for interesting research, but that’s just an assertion on your part.

Tickling, which is what I mentioned specifically, has nothing to do with any of these. What is the referenced evil? "Not tickling"? If so, we are all evil 99% of the time.

Sure. Can we anticipate that you will assume something is necessary because you cannot fathom otherwise?

Whoa, there tiger! Didn’t you say we were in my world, that you didn’t know the natives, yada yada yada…? As I said, you seem to switch from this world to Oz whenever it suits you. If I’m god, I think I’ll make my own definitions, thanks. Besides, as I said, if you imply humanity, you include evil by definition.

Let’s see here…well, “hopeless” is true in the most literal sense – lacking hope. But not in the colloquial sense of “despairing” or “giving up”. Also, I’m not sure where you get “neurotic” – that’s completely false. And I’m also not sure what you think a “meaningful” life is, or why that is something that warrants inclusion in the description (you could also describe them as “not blue”, for all it matters). I would also not used “trapped”. That word implies a desire to be elsewhere, and as you’ve stated, they are “desireless”.

They’re also incapable of love, hearing the laughter of the children, or playing with puppies, if you want to keep adding unnecessary attributes in an attempt to evoke pathos for these “poor fellas”.

Not true at all. The problem is that you’ve already decided what should exist, and anything less than that is faulty, IYO. You are correct in that I did not build these creatures from the ground up in my previous post. Although you still seemed to get a basic idea of them, you just don’t seem to like it. Hopefully, I’ve given a brief and basic description above of these creatures.

This doesn’t address my concern, though. If you pre-define humans and humanity, you beg the question.

Are you an Intelligent Design advocate? Because you could just as well take the same approach as you have with PoE. You could challenge someone to create the better human, but they cannot change anything about the human body (or else they would not be human). You decide, perhaps, that they could change some things. But where do you draw the line before the “human” becomes something else?

This is the very same problem you are imposing with your “sliding scale” humanity. Do you not see the problem with this?


This isn’t the exchange desk at Macey’s. I can take away everything until I’m left with a single-cell “human” with life and no more. This is perfectly consistent with a world with no suffering. The fact that this is not appealing to you is irrelevant.

And for the record, you couldn’t handle me swinging around a brass poll.

Quite frankly, I haven’t a clue what you consider evil. (Apparently boredom is evil, so…)

While I do not think storms and earthquakes are evil, I do think they cause suffering. In light of no evidence to the contrary, I must conclude that the suffering they cause is needless in the presence of an all-powerful god.

Perhaps next we can argue about the “logical necessity” of plate tectonics.

LOL! I like that one…inaccurate, but funny. Again, I’ve given a brief description above. Perhaps you “need” more, but that doesn’t mean the scenario “needs” more to be valid.

No, not back-peddling. Just saying that this is not part of the problem. After all, you feel evil does not exist on Mars, but exists here. I’m tasked with creating “Mars with creatures” (so to speak).

??? What makes this a smokescreen? We are talking about the PoE, right?

Sure you have. For starters, you have implied that my world should contain meaning. You have stated that I should have something to sustain these creatures.

Sorry, that was supposed to be “good”, not “god”.

Well, let’s “pretend” that I don’t really have these at my advantage (which would make it easier to create an appropriate language in two days). But I don’t see where I’ve conceded anything. My world is perfectly consistent with no suffering.

The “subtraction” problem arises because you are asking me to account for specifics. When I say these specifics do not exist, you count this as a problem. That is what I have been criticizing you for. Re-read your posts to see all the things you have implied and referenced – you state “what do these creatures desire for,” assuming they desire. When I say they do not, you treat this as a “subtraction.” Not surprisingly, I treat your question as an unnecessary addition – why do they *need* desire?

Who are you to imply what is meaningful in my world? My world is populated by thoughtless creatures with limited lifespans. It seems that you equate simplicity with “bad”. You want to inject meaning, hopes, wants, purpose. Fine, do it on your old world. But do not imply that my world has evil and suffering in it. That is, after all, the point, isn’t it.

1 – No
2 – No
3 – No
4 – No
5 – They don’t

Why do you repeatedly feel you have to make more of this than it is? There’s no moral value, because it is not necessary. There is no valuation by the creatures, because it is not necessary. There is no need to communicate, because it is not necessary.

But guess what? Still no suffering. Do you disagree?


I didn’t say I never had. I just said it was not necessary. Speculation on my infancy aside, do you have justification for the assertion that one needs to have cried before they can laugh? Or must they laugh before they can cry?? Quite a dilemma!

Kinda “chicken and egg”, huh? Clearly if I can do one before the other, and ceraintly one can do one without the other, then it follows that one is not necessary for the other. Ergo, crying is not a prerequisite or necessity for laughter.

No answer?

Hold on…I’m saying that this “utter inseparability” you refer to is not required. How am I sinking fast? You haven’t even demonstrated an inseparability. That’s why you keep insisting I need to have hope and meaning in my world, so you can introduce evil. Sorry, I’m not biting and I don’t need to. Again, say what you will about this appeal of this world – it is logically possible and it includes no suffering.

I’ve described all that needs to be described to satisfy the conditions. What the hell having air or not having air has to do with anything is beyond me. Do you want me to describe the colour of the ground? Should I talk about the shape of these creatures?

RW, you are at an advantage in that you can ask 100 questions in the time it takes me to answer 2. You could always have more questions, you could always ask for further clarification. This isn’t the “Problem of Wyz”. This isn’t me, with all the knowledge in the universe, able to create life from dust. NO ONE could answer a question from an omnipotent perspective.

To provide some validation for the PoE I need to demonstrate that a state of affairs, without evil and consistent with 3 omins, is logically possible. It is not necessary that I give the state colour, meaning, texture, or purpose.

- simple creatures can exist without wants or needs being necessary, if I am omnipotent to create them as such
- the simplicity of this world requires no moral valuation – no good or evil
- the simplicity of these creature is that they are unable to perceive evil or suffering

While your glib responses are endearing…and really, I think they’re just super…you fail to address my comment once more.

You introduce appreciation. I reply that, for these simple creatures, appreciation is not possible and not necessary. This is a failing in your eyes? Hey, why don’t you just tell me what my world should be, then you can critique it into the wee hours.

Remind me not to set you up with any of my female friends – that’s quite a limited nature you have. Sounds like a false dichotomy to me – you are either cumming or whishing you were?? Quick – which one are you right now?! On second thought…

Well, here’s hoping it works when required.

No, I don’t “see” this simply because you’ve asserted it’s an either/or situation. I don’t think experiencing sexual frustration is a requirement of experiencing an orgasm.

Does benevolence require that all good things be obtained or attainable? Be careful if you want to go down this road, RW. If that’s your position, then demonstrating that god is not benevolent (much less omni-benevolent) would be a cake-walk.

I don’t know, do you want to ask another dozen irrelevant questions that demonstrate you cannot imagine a state of affairs other than the current one? Maybe you can ask me if these creatures have different styles of pants, and when I respond that they don’t have pants you can fly off the handle at another thing they don’t have.

BTW...having no goals is evil? Well, we're getting closer to defining evil - evil, according to you, consists of boredom, no goals, sexual frustration, and not tickling people.

n this world. That’s where your speaking of progress, isn’t it?

Well, I’m assuming your reference to evolution was this world, wasn’t it?

Please define “social evolution”. Good luck, considering the disparities of societies.

In any case, whatever social evolution is, it hasn’t a thing to do with biological evolution in the sense of progress.

As Wyz in this world. Sorry….are we supporting blanket assertions now? I had just assumed from your repeated assertions that this wasn’t necessary.

But okay, as for the bacteria example, they have been around far longer than we have, and are far more adaptable to a variety of conditions. They evolve faster, and are more resistant to the various extinction events that threaten us. None of this is controversial, or a product of my opinion.

…that neither complexity nor “progress” are necessary to life.

Wait…I thought you were talking about “social evolution”? Didn’t you just clarify that above? You decide which one you’re talking about, then we can address it.

Yes, competition and fitness are necessary to adapt to an environment. The implication that there is a conscious competition between species is not valid, nor is the application of this in broad strokes to society. We do, after all, seek cures for cancers.

Hey look – we’re back into social evolution land! You flip between biological and social evolution as effortlessly as you do between earth and “Oz” (now there’s a movie title for you!).

My example with ants, which you failed to find relevant, was intended to demonstrate that complex social progress is not necessary. Of course, ants *do* have a society, so that’s not an ideal example. But there is no need for social progress.

I am Occham, the one true god, All will remain stagnate before me and my Razor of Simplicity. I do not add any unnecessary conditions!

Wyz: Because the position is not sustainable otherwise. From the beginning of the thread, you are asking someone to prove a negative – that this world is *not* the best. Rather, you should prove that this world *is* the best.

You assert that it is not logically possible for a world to exist due to the supposed inseparability of good and evil. Then you challenge others to prove you wrong. Shouldn’t you, at least, demonstrate this inseparability first? If you are only go to do so by faulting examples provided, you are only showing what is wrong with those examples, not the premise in general.

As such I am trying to keep my description as simple as possible. I’ll concede that I did not provide enough information at the onset, but I think the existing description is sufficient.

As for sustainability of the position – all one needs to do is cite an example of individual suffering. If you cannot propose a need for that, then the PoE is still viable. Do you reckon that there has existed a living creature that has been born, suffered and died in complete isolation? What purpose would you ascribe this to?

??? So where does that leave us? Are you the only one that truly understands the “omni” position?

You sound like another poster here who claims that most Christians are not qualified to comment on such things because they are not educated bible scholars.

If RC definitions cannot be trusted, and all religious groups can’t be trusted, who is left to define god and his characteristics for the purposes of this exercise?


Consistent to a state without evil being necessarily present. You’re right – it’s occurrence would render it imperfect. But if an “eviless” state followed, it would still demonstrate that an “eviless” state was possible.

You could argue that this proves evil is necessary, if only to get the ball rolling. But if we go that route, we can very well begin with Genesis and discuss the need for sin in the first place. In any case, I can concede this point. I maintain that the RC interpretation does not imply imperfections in heaven at all, but as you say, other denominations will say differently.

Maybe there’s an interesting thread there for broad theist input.

Why, you looking for a new place?

I’ve described an alternate world, but it does not appear to be “human” enough for you. My description in this post is simple, but at no time does it reference evil or suffering – not through a lack of description, but because the “creatures” and their relationships are so simple.

If you want to claim that simplicity, or lack of the kind of complexity you are used to, constitutes ‘evil’, then good luck.

It’s not an ironclad argument because 1) you cannot or will not define ‘evil’ (so it’s pretty much impossible to address what we really have a problem with); 2) you challenge people to prove a negative, rather than you proving a positive; 3) you progress backwards – assuming that the current state is the necessary one.

A one-celled organism is created by god, floating in space. It is incapable of perceiving good or evil. After a nanosecond, it is gone by god’s hand.

There you go. Show me where the evil and suffering exist.

rainbow walking

Hi Wyz, allow me to congratulate you on having devised the best example of a world sans evil and suffering I've ever heard. Obviously some thought and imagination went into it and I appreciate the effort you've made. Now let's consider your accomplishment, shall we?

wyz: if you conclude that human qualities must exist, then you have already established parameters that cannot be argued against.

I appreciate this concession Wyz as it contains the essence of why your “microbes on the moon” scenario logically fails.

You see, it’s not I who am concluding human qualities to be necessary to any such contrived world, but the parameters of PoE. It is PoE that incorporates the attribute of omni-benevolence in its strategy. Thus it is PoE that has placed the noose around the neck of your new world and renders it illogical.

Your world negates the concept of benevolence and, by association, any reference to its highest form in omni-benevolence, and thus negates itself out of existence.

Why? Because your world came into existence as a result of an omni-benevolent expression contained in PoE. If your world negates the very reason for its existence, well…it ceases to exist even as a logical possibility, because its existence is tied to the logic of PoE.

I would be interested in hearing your version of an alternate world that contains benevolent creatures or the concept of benevolence, but not evil and suffering.

Benevolence is a value assigned expression. A world that contains no possibility for value assignment negates benevolence. Negate benevolence in a PoE inspired world and you negate that PoE inspired world in the process. Thus it doesn’t obtain, nor does PoE.

In fact I almost hesitate to point out the obvious. That in that negation it proves just the opposite. That my world necessitates just such a being. That is not the conclusion PoE was designed to arrive at.

Sure, you can postulate such a world as yours, ad hoc, for any reason other than as a proof for PoE. Your postulated world remains logical as long as you don’t refer to it as a proof of PoE.

The moment you refer to PoE you’ve incorporated omni-benevolence as the reason your world exists. Along with the unwanted baggage of value assignment.

Your next recourse would be to minimize the value assignments to “limit” the references to evil and suffering to their least value. This is fine but it fails to prove what you initially set out to prove. That a world sans evil and suffering can be logically obtained as a proof of PoE.

Edited to include:
In order to argue your next recourse you must, therefore, modify PoE.

So I ask you...if PoE is such an ironclad argument, why does it require modification?

Wyz_sub10

Let's hold off of the new world for a second to deal with the first statement.

You are saying that the PoE states that this world, as it is, must function this way. Therefore, evil is not a problem, but a logical necessity.

This is problematic for a few reasons. Again, to acknowledge the PoE, we must agree on the 'E'. I think one could devise a world (similar to this one - real people, no rockmen/cellmen) where 'E' was eliminated from a number of equation (or suffering minimized) if 'E' could be defined in a way that drew a clear line between evil and not-quite-evil-but-less-than-great. Have you ever seen this line? Seriously, do you know where this line even exist?

The second problem relates to my "wound cleaning" example. Even if you concede the necessity of evil to this world, you have overlooked the creation of an evil-filled world in the first place. It's like saying "let's assume I have to start beating you. Aren't I benevolent because I stop?"

Why give away the fact that the beating was inevitable?

We may agree that, in reality, I am beating you (or you, me - whichever). But does it follow that this is necessary? Would I have not been truly benevolent to never have started beating you in the first place?

I don't think so, RW. It's simply your argument in reverse, and if it fails, so does your "logical necessity".

For example:

YOU: Evil is not a problem because it is necessary to allow good. Therefore, god can be omnibenevolent and allow evil.

ME: 'No Benevolence' is not a problem because it is necessary to ensure no evil. Therefore, god can be omnibenevolent without allowing good.

How is my argument different than yours? Mine simply states - as does yours - that the resulting world is a product of logical necessity. Pick your poison - evil or no good.

This goes back to the definition of 'E'. "Suffering" as in "freezing to death" or "suffering" as in "feeling a bit chilly?"

Is the latter really the focus of the PoE, or is it the former? Or does it matter? Do you conclude that, because they are all varying degrees, a god that allows a chill to occur is no different than a god who creates a storm that freezes 1,000,000 to death?

What I find happening often in the PoE debates is this escalation of rationale - if we agree that hunger is necessary to appreciate food, then we must agree that masses of people starving to death must also serve some fine purpose.

Not if the lack of value assignment is a logical necessity. Isn't that the very thing you are arguing - that the presence of evil does not negate omnibenevolence?

My world should only demonstrate that - from a blank starting point - evil does not have to exist in the lives of creations. I remain firm that this is adequately demonstrated.

The problem with this, again, is that these "limits" become a little meaningless. What is the "limit" of jealousy before it ceases to become "evil"? What is the limit of suffering before it becomes useful as opposed to superfluous?

I don't think it requires modification as much as clarification on a number of fronts:

- a claim is being made that god is omnibenevolent
- there is a current reality
- the claim must compare to the reality

This, of course, is where all the problems arise. If you do not define 'E', you do not have an objective reality for comparison.

If you cannot agree on omnibenevolence, once again you have no basis for comparion.

The PoE, remains, IMO, due to the fact that many theists are willing to offer a definition of omnibenevolence that cannot be reconciled to the definition they offer for 'E' (or for reality, for that matter).

Ergo, as an absolute, the PoE might not be the best argument. But in conversations with someone willing to provide definitions for all of the above, you would find holes for the PoE to be effective.

rainbow walking

Now that we’ve heard from Thomas and have some clarification of how he intends to use some of the terms in his CP we can continue on the basis of those clarifications.

Thomas has established, for us, that some causes of suffering can be described as sufficient to the cause but not necessary to the greater good. Thus such cases are unnecessary. For instance in point 7, I used childbirth as an example of necessary suffering, to which Thomas took exception, declaring it to be sufficient to childbirth but not necessary to the greater good of man.

But is this logical? Clearly childbirth is necessary to the greater good of man. Unless I have misunderstood what Thomas means by “sufficient” I fail to see the distinction. If the suffering incurred during childbirth is sufficient to the bringing of a child into this world, and childbirth is necessary to the greater good of man, then how is it that this suffering does not qualify as necessary?

Thomas’s defense is that God could have reduced its sufficiency such that a lesser degree of suffering would have been just as sufficient.

Thus, in response to Thomas’s condition for determining sufficiency I shall introduce, for the purposes of my deconstruction, an additional, equally valid, test for the determination of sufficiency.

21. Stage two of deconstruction: An omniscient God would probably know that the greater good of man would best be served by the current levels of suffering and would do nothing to impede man’s responsibility to address those causes.

Now to the application of this test in relation to childbirth: Thomas’s claim, that the pain incurred during childbirth could probably have been decreased somewhat by God, is correct. It probably could have, but would this serve man’s greater good? According to 21 above, to do so, would have impeded man’s responsibilities and God would know this. He would also know that man has done much to lessen the pain of childbirth, without God’s help, and has indeed shouldered his responsibilities in this case. One need only compare a current census of the world’s population to one 10 years older to factually realize that the pain of childbirth has NOT hindered man’s procreation, thus the pain is not prohibitive. It is also a factual claim that modern medicine has facilitated a decrease in the pain incurred to a large degree. Thus it is not within the scope of a God to do for man what man can do for himself. The pain of childbirth is sufficient as is, and also serves a greater good, thus it is necessary. Omni-benevolence is off the hook. Which brings me to point 22.

22. Thus necessity should not be argued from a position of what was, or now is, but by what can be, if man is to have any role in the acquisition of his own greater good and an omniscient God would know this. So the determination of any cause of suffering can be tested by this rule of necessity for its sufficiency or insufficiency as it applies to man’s greater good.

Now let’s examine Thomas’s standards of determining “unnecessary” and see how they apply.

Thomas: It's pretty easy to decide something is probably unnecessary. If there's no apparent necessity, no plausibly imaginable necessity, and no apparent reason for God to hide the necessity from us, then we can say it's probably unnecessary.

Thomas’s first test is “apparent necessity”. One wonders immediately how this is to be determined. There is now no apparent necessity to wisdom teeth but there probably once was. There once would have been no apparent necessity to the extinction of dinosaurs and other animals but there is now, as we draw upon this “natural resource” or fossil fuel to power our world. I do not think apparent necessity would serve us here at all.

Thomas’s next test is equally as spurious: plausibly imaginable necessity. It is plausibly imaginable to proclaim bigotry and genocide necessary. It is certainly imaginable and just as easy to concoct a plausibility under the right circumstances. This test is nothing more than an appeal to subjective opinion and imagination. I wouldn’t wish to leave the determination of a truth value in the hands of such test as this.

Thomas’s final test is almost incomprehensible: No apparent reason for God to hide the necessity from us. My response to this is, “how would we know if he had?” This is not a test but a biased call for speculation. I certainly have no intention of arguing an unknown necessity on these grounds. Perhaps Thomas has another reason for inserting this as a test.

23. Since the CP is an evidentiary PoE there is no good reason why facts, statistics and historical precedence cannot be our test in determining the necessity or un-necessity of any given cause of suffering. That, coupled with number 22, can provide us a platform from which we can launch our suppositions and arguments for the analysis of this particular brand of PoE to see just how ironclad it really is.

Thomas’s claim “that I am suggesting that maybe a God exists and has good reasons for suffering”, is correct, although I would word it differently. That is precisely where I am going, at this time. Thomas’s further claim that this can be defeated by a reciprocal claim that a deceiver exists…is also correct. Iff I do not identify those reasons that such a being probably has for allowing suffering. Once those reasons are identified, then we can determine if his defeater applies.

Thomas also challenges me to name one cause of suffering that is necessary, and not just sufficient, for a greater good. I already have: childbirth. Thomas’s arguments against it have not obtained.

Finally, in response to Thomas's claim, to another poster, that I am employing the tactics of "sceptical theism" remains to be seen. Certainly, to the casual reader, because I am taking a position against PoE, it may appear that I am a theist...but I am not. That I intend to bring a certain degree of scepticism to bear on Thomas's arguments is necessary to my position. Scepticism is not a bad thing. Just ask any atheist.

rainbow walking

Hi wyz,


wyz: Let's hold off of the new world for a second to deal with the first statement.

You are saying that the PoE states that this world, as it is, must function this way. Therefore, evil is not a problem, but a logical necessity.

rw: I am saying that omni-benevolence is equated with being a symbol of the highest good; that the concept of good absolutely requires the concept of evil to obtain meaning; and that this is the trap for the proponent of PoE when trying to argue an alternate state of affairs sans evil and suffering. Cancel out evil and you cancel out benevolence. So the proponents of PoE, realizing this, went back to the drawing boards and modified their argument to leave value assignment intact but to attack the degree of value assigned…see what I mean? I’m currently in a discussion with Thomas who’s arguing this very watered down version. What Thomas will come to realize, as you have come to realize with arguing the traditional version, is that this is no better an argument either as it carries it own set of traps.

Now consider the paradox: If a greater good comes of evil and suffering, a truly omni-benevolent being should have instantiated a state of affairs where the greatest amount of evil and suffering would obtain in order to arrive at the greatest good.

Then, of course, I would say…how do we know he hasn’t?

All I'm saying wyz, is that PoE is a cute parlor trick to pull on a mindless believer, but if you ever find yourself in a serious discussion with a theist who has a few functioning brain cells left, you might find yourself backed against the wall with your genitals in a crack, and I can assure you...orgasm is not the term you'd apply to the end result.

Wyz_sub10

We don't. But if one claims he has (which opponents of PoE are apt to do), then should not the burden of proof fall on them? (I can demonstrate that evil is a problem with ease. Can you demonstrate it is a necessity with ease?)

You could convince someone that fear needs to exist to validate bravery, but could you argue the utility of, say, someone burried alive, unbeknownst to anyone but the person?

That "functional theist" (I like that term) will have to set out two conditions to refute the PoE argument - 1) definition of all-loving, 2) definition of evil.

Why them and not me? Well, for "all loving" we probably share that responsibility.

But defining evil is a greater responsibility for him/her. Why? Because I can acknowledge "evil" exists (as can he), but I don't need to demonstrate its necessity. They do.

If you want a good example of why defining evil is at the heart of this issue, ask a fundamentalist whether homosexuality is evil or good.

Imagine being challenged to create a world where evil does not exist *or* where evil is necessary?

1) Can there be homosexuals in this world?
2) Must there be homosexuals in this world?

You can see the problem here - depending on your definition, you can flip around who's right and who's wrong.

IMO, this doesn't mean the PoE is invalid, it means that it is not a conclusive argument in the absence of definitions.

When one applies definitions, however, the PoE can be a valid counter. I believe J/C does, indeed, provide those definitions.

rainbow walking

wyz: We don't. But if one claims he has (which opponents of PoE are apt to do), then should not the burden of proof fall on them? (I can demonstrate that evil is a problem with ease. Can you demonstrate it is a necessity with ease?)

rw: Certainly, that's the easy part. It falls back to a world with limited resources, from which comes competition, from which comes normative values such as pain and pleasure, suffering and satisfaction etc. etc.

The only way this can be avoided is to create a world of unlimited resources available upon demand in any quantity to whomsoever will.

Now if you want to tie this into the J/C version of PoE, it follows from Genesis where the first "punishment" inflicted upon Adam is, (and this is why I love the Hebrew's take on it), that Adam's world would necessitate he compete with briars and brambles to earn his sustenance, thus affirming that even nature is competing for the limited resources in Adam's world. Then we see why this god respected Abel's labors because Abel chose not to contend with the briars and brambles but to take up animal husbandry, which choice led to further competition between himself and his brother and ultimately to his murder. Thus god's warning to Cain prior to the murder that competition was leading sin to his door.

It's competition for limited resources all the way through.


wyz: But defining evil is a greater responsibility for him/her. Why? Because I can acknowledge "evil" exists (as can he), but I don't need to demonstrate its necessity. They do.

rw: And this is a valid question and falls back upon the same problem of limited resources. In the broadest sense evil is generally understood as any instance or act that prohibits man's pursuit of life and happiness. From this it can be further refined such that it's generally interpreted that premeditated acts like genocide are considered the greatest evil, lesser instances like office politics leading to a person loosing their job as being wrong, (hence the concept of right and wrong), and most others, like natural catastrophes being bad, (hence the good and bad descriptors).

And, of course, all of this can be seen to be flowing from that competition for limited resources. So one of the more obvious ways to circumvent evil is through cooperation, hence we have domesticated man and his social order...which then creates a different form of internal competition.

Wyz_sub10

Re: competition, there are "divine" ways to address this without totally removing wants or subjecting people to the misguided competitive drivings of others.

But really, not everything is due to the above, or can be settled as you propose. A small child horribly burned in a fire is not suffering due to limited resources or competition.

Fair enough. But it's Genesis, itself, that gets the PoE ball rolling in the first place. (But that's for another thread).

Nature can compete with Adam, but it would be more difficult to justify fire competing with mankind. (i.e. fire consumes a person as a "resource").

Okay. But I'm not sure that solves any PoE issues. It might be a message of warning, but is god thus saying competition is a necessary evil? Despite Adam having to compete with nature, and Abel competing with his brother, it's hard to see any of this as "necessary" (especially considering the population was supposedly 4).

You may reason that this competition was a result of Adam's sin. But that is quite different than saying it was necessary (or an act of benevolence, for that matter).

Hmmm...I don't think I can agree there. Some atrocious acts can occur in the pursuit of life and happiness. We would neither call these acts 'good', nor the prohibition of such acts 'evil'.

To be honest, I'd define 'evil' (in the broadest sense) as an act that hinders the maintenance (or development) of a sustainable society. 'Suffering', IMO, is something not necessary connected to evil.

I'm okay with all of this, except to note the marked difference between "evil acts" and "bad things happening".

Is a random murder caused by dimentia an act that flows from competition? Certainly the suffering caused by a tornado does not fit this description.

I agree with this, too. But I think it only addresses "willful evil", and the suffering caused thereby. It doesn't address other suffering.

I want to make this last point (which digresses from this particular discussion a bit).

For me the PoE highlights the following:

- evil and suffering do exist
- we (as a society) recognize there are problems with evil
- if this evil is to be discounted as *not* problematic (in the presence of an omni+ creator) then it would be embraced or, at least, recognized as necessary

Then:

- why is evil recognized as a problem?
- why do we take measures to prevent or eliminate suffering?
- why, for most religions, is this (measures to reject evil/eliminate suffering) part of human expectations?

It creates a circle - in the simplest sense, if evil was truly a facilitating device, part of god's necessary world, then we would embrace it (at least on some level) and recognize this.

I have never heard (although it may exist) a J/C position that recognizes or embraces the starving of the multitudes. It seems that most J/C positions do, indeed, reciognize this as a problem.

If it's not a problem with god, why is it a problem with us?

[edited for typos]

Jamie_L

Gosh I've been busy. But I've got a minute or two, so let me try to respond to rw's comments on my earlier post.

I don't know that we have made equally valid statements. Omnibenevolent+Omnipotent seems to obviously tilt the scale towards no casualties. To me, this seems to make may statement more valid than yours.

Suppose an abusive parent beats one child to death, but another survives the same violent episode with a mild concussion. If I say "if that parent was a good person, both children would still be alive," and someone else says "yes, but if he wasn't a good person, both children would be dead", are both statements equally valid?

In the flood example, you essentially have to argue that it was logically impossible for God to prevent even one of those casualties without causing more suffering elsewhere. Not one. In other words, it was logically necessary for all those people to die. That's rather a big can of worms to open up to say that every evil that comes to pass is logically necessary.

Not necessarily. If all flooding were eliminated, but there were still other evils, we're not necessarily back to the purely logical argument. The strength of the evidential arguement is taking specific evils and showing that they are logically possible to eliminate.

I don't see how this is a defeater for PoE at all. If a parent tells his child not to play with guns, does that alleviate the parent's responsibility to keep loaded guns away from the child? If the parent leaves a loaded gun lying around the house, and the child kills himself accidently, is the parent completely in the clear because the child didn't "do his part"? Having the power to stop an evil brings with it a moral responsibility. If one is benevolent, one will seek to fulfill that responsibility. If one is omnipotent, one will be able to fulfill that responsibility. It is a blight against God if he sits back and says "I'm not going to help you, even though I can." This is especially the case if we consider the individual victims are not necessarily the humans with the responsibility or ability to deal with these things. In the case of the flooding example, if some of the dead are infants, is it okay that they did not survive because they didn't "do their part"?

So, in essence, you are admitting that it is logically possible to eliminate evil. Thus, an omnipotent god could eliminate it. You seem to have now shifted to a different arguement: it is benevolent for God not to eliminate evil if man can do it for himself. Again, I disagree that this is benevolent.

But the PoE can be about specific cases of intervention. One does not have to go to the extremes to show that the current state of reality conflicts with the existence of an omnimax diety. If God is able to intervene to stop even one specific evil, and God is omnibenevolent, God would intervene to stop that one specific evil. It appears that there are many specific evils in which God does not intervene. Therefore, God either cannot intervene (not omnipotent, or does not exist) or God chooses not to intervene (not omnibenevolent).

Jamie

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by rainbow walking :

I think you have. If X is necessary for Y then Y could not exist without X. If X is sufficient for Y then X could not exist without Y. They look like conditionals.

X is sufficient for Y: if X then Y
X is necessary for Y: if Y then X

I claim childbirth is sufficient for a greater good but not necessary. That means I deny the conditional "If greater good then childbirth." And for a conditional to be false, I just have to tell a story in which the antecedent obtains but the consequent does not. Now, suppose God neutralized some of the pain of childbearing mothers. Even if this were so, the babies would still be born, especially if God gave them a little help. So I've disconfirmed the conditional "If greater good then childbirth," and shown that childbirth is not an example of necessary suffering.

Huh? What responsibilities? How are we to discover that it's our responsibility to feel pain? And why is this a greater good than reducing women's suffering?

Then God is morally imperfect. It is possible to imagine a morally better being, one who reduces the pain of childbirth more. (It's morally better to prevent useless suffering than to allow it. If you deny that, you're not working within the bounds of what most humans take to be ethically sound.)

There has never been a necessity for wisdom teeth, because God could have provided us with more efficient digestive systems.

I hope you don't really think that. I don't find it plausible at all.

Because he would tell us, the same way a parent would tell her child why she has to go through the pain of a vaccination. Unless you want to deny that we can know whether God would tell us about our misconceptions, in which case you have to accept global skepticism.

Glad to see you're not going to take the skeptical response. I'll hold you to this.