rainbow walking

Further Reflections On PoE.

IMO PoE, (the problem of evil and suffering argument against the existence of an omni-max being), contains flaws that need to be addressed. In as much as PoE is based on the assumption “could have therefore should have”, and this assumption is itself founded on three basic attributes of an omni-max being; omnipotence, omniscience, and omni-benevolence; the success of the argument hinges on specific definitions applied to these concepts. If these definitions are erroneous then the argument is flawed and fails to obtain.

PoE can be formally stated thus: If X then Y, not Y therefore not X

With X being representative of an omni-max godlike being and Y being a state of affairs sans evil and suffering, the argument follows that if an omni-max godlike being existed, a world of humans that entails a certain degree of evil and suffering should not. Since such a world does exist, therefore, an omni-max godlike being does not exist.

The soundness of the argument is contingent on the truth of its premises.

The truth of its premises are contingent on the accuracy of its postulates.

The accuracy of its postulates are contingent on the definition of its terms.

The terms crucial to the argument are omnipotence, omniscience and omni-benevolence.

The crux of the argument turns on the assumption ”could have therefore should have”

First let’s examine the terms to see if they are consistent with the assumptions:

Omnipotence: There are two basic definitions to choose from…

Definition A: The ability to do anything conceivable or inconceivable or basically, the ability to do anything.

Definition B: The ability to do anything logically possible.

Definition A carries its own set of problems for the proponent of PoE because the ability to do anything would include the ability to over-ride the other attributes without incurring any inconsistency or absurdness in their definition or application. Under definition A, PoE fails to obtain simply because the “could have” is turned against the “should have” without any violation of logic and the assumption inherent in PoE loses its appeal. Under definition A omnipotence becomes a magic voodoo formula that can be used by anyone to do anything and does not advance the argument for either side. Thus the more astute philosopher is compelled to condition definition A to such a degree as to arrive at definition B: The ability to do anything logically possible.

However, definition B carries with it its own set of burdens. For instance, is it logically possible to alter or negate logic so as to render the impossible logically possible? Since the under current of assumption in PoE is that X “could have” created a different state of affairs, which would necessarily have entailed a different set of logical possibilities, then the obvious answer is that “yes, the logically possible must include the possibility of altering and or negating current logic”.

But, upon closer scrutiny, it can be observed that this is just another way of stating definition A, such that definition B does not provide the proponent of PoE with any substantial support for his underlying assumptions. The rebuttal of PoE, inherent in definition A, obtains.

If the proponent of PoE argues that logically possible does not include the alteration or negation of logic then he has no basis to claim that X “could have” done otherwise, since to do otherwise would necessarily entail an altered state of affairs with a subsequent altered logic. Again, PoE fails to obtain.

rainbow walking

This argument represents an ironclad rebuttal of PoE that absolutely defeats it before it gets off the ground. PoE depends on a logical connection between the attributes of omnipotence and omnibenevolence to sustain its allegation of "could have therefore should have". The "could have" is derived from omnipotence and the "should have" from omnibenevolence. But no matter how you define omnipotence it ultimately comes back to the ability to negate logic such that the logical connection between the could have and should have can be broken and PoE fails to obtain.

Theli

You lost me here...
How would the system of logic be altered if god created the world even slightly different? I don't think I'll have to remind you that logic/language is a human invention, and any claim based on it require consistency on the part of the person who uses it. Thus, the person who called god omnimax to begin with takes the fall is the omnimax definitions are faulty.
And, I don't see how omnipotence A is impossible by any means. An omnipotent god could create any state of affairs without logic, it would just be rendered incomprehensible for anyone who attempts to describe it through logic. Isn't that the fault of your counterargument? It assumes logic to be the buildingblocks of reality, not merely the way we describe it.

I don't know, I could be wrong...

Dr. Retard

Creating a different state of affairs doesn't usher in a new set of logical possibilities. Logical possibilities are fixed. No matter what happens, logical possibilities stay the same.

So when God is deciding whether to part this or that sea, the law of excluded middle isn't anxiously waiting with bated breath. The law can relax; it's untouchable.

beastmaster

rw, The PoE functions even under Definition B, because it is logically possible for the Xn god to create a world with less amoral evil. For example, Eden and Heaven are supposed examples that the Xns offer of logically possible worlds with less amoral evil than this world.

Defiant Heretic

This is where your argument fails. You make the assumption that everything that has not been done is logically impossible, which can be clearly shown not to be the case. All one has to do is find one example of something that can be done to make the world better, and your argument has been invalidated.

rainbow walking

Hi Theli,

Theli: How would the system of logic be altered if god created the world even slightly different? I don't think I'll have to remind you that logic/language is a human invention, and any claim based on it require consistency on the part of the person who uses it.

rw: While it is true that language is a human construct it is also true that the concepts conveyed by language are directly tied to perceptual and or theoretical nature, thus if nature is altered to accomodate say, the eradication of evil and suffering, naturally logic will also change to compensate for the alteration. For instance, if the universe were reconstructed to eliminate the need for tectonic plates to nullify the threat of earthquakes, nature, (and the logical connections that facilitate human language), would necessarily be altered to correspond to the changes. To whit, the concept of earthquake would have never been concieved along with all the science that went into determining what it is and its causes. And, of course, since this can be traced back to gravitational forces we begin to get an idea of just how drastic a change we're talking about just to eliminate this one phenomenon. To think this could be accomplished without any effect on logic and language is just plain silly.

Theli: Thus, the person who called god omnimax to begin with takes the fall if the omnimax definitions are faulty.


rw: The person arguing PoE is the one using these concepts to describe attributes they claim, in their argument, are inconsistent with man's present state of affairs. In this particular rebuttal I have focused only on the attribute of omnipotence and shown how both definitions lead to the same conclusion; that attempting to minimize the magic by incorporating logic doesn't work. From this I demonstrate that neither definition accomodates the assumption in PoE and it fails to obtain.

The assumption in PoE that corresponds to omnipotence is the "could have". The proponent of PoE argues that because this being is omnipotent he "could have" created a different state of affairs where evil and suffering do not obtain. The reason I label this an assumption is because it is taken entirely from a definition of omnipotence. There is no basis by which it can be grounded in reality. The reason I say it does not support the assumption is because I can use the same definition and postulate that this being "could have" created the current state of affairs and, using his omnipotence, render all evil and suffering to have a final outcome that is as proportionally good as it was evil. And, since my postulate appears to be closer to the reality that is, because we've all seen some good come out of evil and suffering, it carries more weight than the altered un-specified reality that PoE proposes, which no one has ever seen, thus it is logically superior. It doesn't require any alteration to logic or reality. It carries more explanatory value, does not rely entirely on assumption, and negates PoE's claim that such a being could not exist.

If the proponent of PoE tries to limit my use of omnipotence by introducing an omnipotence subservient to logic, I have also shown how such a limitation fails.



Theli: And, I don't see how omnipotence A is impossible by any means.


rw: I'm not sure why you say this? I don't recall saying anything about A being an impossibility.

Theli: An omnipotent god could create any state of affairs without logic, it would just be rendered incomprehensible for anyone who attempts to describe it through logic.

rw: And thus fruitless in advancing an argument one way or the other. The point is not whether definition A is impossible but that it affords us a blank check to invoke any type of magic we can imagine to have this being performing all sorts of feats that make it appear we have a valid and or sound argument when, in fact, our opponent has the same access to this blank check and can just as easily out-imagine us to defeat our conclusion.


Theli: Isn't that the fault of your counterargument? It assumes logic to be the buildingblocks of reality, not merely the way we describe it.

rw: Isn't it a fact that logic is the building block of how we organize our perception of reality? So if we change our reality wouldn't this necessarily alter the reality we percieve and hence our organization of it?


Dr. Retard: Creating a different state of affairs doesn't usher in a new set of logical possibilities. Logical possibilities are fixed. No matter what happens, logical possibilities stay the same.

rw: So if it is logically possible to commit murder in this state of affairs and suddenly we find ourselves in a state of affairs where murder is an impossibility, haven't we just eliminated a logical possibility?

Dr. Retard: So when God is deciding whether to part this or that sea, the law of excluded middle isn't anxiously waiting with bated breath. The law can relax; it's untouchable.

rw: In an altered state of affairs where evil and suffering are an impossibility you've just excluded a great deal of middle to get there. Seems touchable to me.


beastmaster: rw, The PoE functions even under Definition B, because it is logically possible for the Xn god to create a world with less amoral evil. For example, Eden and Heaven are supposed examples that the Xns offer of logically possible worlds with less amoral evil than this world.

rw: Yabut PoE isn't arguing for less amoral evil but for a state of affairs sans all evil and suffering. Big difference. There was sin in the garden and a war in heaven. PoE does not obtain under definition B because definition B is just a fancy way of reciting definition A.

rainbow walking

Hi Defiant Heretic,



DH: This is where your argument fails. You make the assumption that everything that has not been done is logically impossible, which can be clearly shown not to be the case. All one has to do is find one example of something that can be done to make the world better, and your argument has been invalidated.

rw: If all PoE were arguing for was "one thing to make the world better" you'd be totally correct. But PoE is weilding omnipotence to alter a state of affairs in such a way as to eliminate all evil and suffering. Since there are a great deal of things that potentially cause suffering and a tremendous number of opportunities to do evil, we're talking a drastic change in man's current state of affairs. The argument is consistent with the challenge of PoE.

beastmaster

Uh-oh. You are arguing against a strawman. All the PoE needs (and purports) to show is that there is some unnecessary amoral evil in this world. The PoE most definitely does not claim that *all* evil and suffering is unnecessary.

rainbow walking

beastmaster: Uh-oh. You are arguing against a strawman. All the PoE needs (and purports) to show is that there is some unnecessary amoral evil in this world. The PoE most definitely does not claim that *all* evil and suffering is unnecessary.

rw: The "all evil and suffering" is implied in the argument. If a state of affairs were created where only "some" unnecessary evil had not obtained then the justification for arguing PoE would remain because as long as any evil or suffering were present PoE could still be argued until all evil and suffering was eliminated.

If you're going to invoke omnipotence you may as well go for the maximum effect. I realize that many proponents of PoE, when arguing their points, pick out some example or another of evil or suffering to justify or clarify their position, but the argument itself implies all evil and suffering.