rainbow walking

Hi Thomas,



Thomas: I assure you that the arguments from evil are alive and well, and that no good response exists. But I'll consider yours further...

rw: Let us, then, see if your arguments support your assurances.



Thomas: No one's asking for that. You seem not to be familiar with the contemporary debate at all.

rw: Did you read the OP?

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,

Of course, the Y can be modified to represent any degree of evil or suffering, but all or most of my arguments have been directed towards the conventional PoE. But, that is not to say they don’t apply across the board…as we shall see.



Thomas: Imagine a world just like ours except that terminal cancers cause 10% less pain, and humans' empathic abilities are enhanced to the point at which they can still form the same amount of sympathy, courage, and compassion as they do now despite terminal cancers causing 10% less pain. This world would be better than the current world.


rw: Then I must ask you if you have any medical support for your underlying assumption that the pain the terminally ill currently experience is the maximum amount of pain that terminal cancer could induce?


Thus your argument that an omni-benevolent being should have made this simple reduction assumes that he didn’t, that the current level of pain is the maximum level, rather than considering the possibility that, had this being not intervened at the outset, the terminally ill could very well be experiencing 50% more pain than they currently do.

Since the empathetic factor remains the same, all other things being equal you might say, you really have little basis for PoE on this front.




Thomas: Assertions are not valid or invalid. Argument forms are valid or invalid. Assertions are true or false (or neither).

rw: I didn’t know that. Thank you Thomas for that leg up. It’s appreciated.

rainbow walking

doc: I have no idea what that means.

rw: Really? For whom would murder remain a logically possible act?

If murder were physically impossible, then none of man’s motor skills could be used to facilitate an act of murder. (This would require a modification to man’s physical reality)

If it were naturally impossible then it would be an act foreign to man’s nature, including his imagination, since that is an integral aspect of his nature. (This would require a modification to man’s nature)

Thus it would be practically impossible to commit murder.
Yet you claim murder, in spite of all this, is still logically possible.
To commit murder under these circumstances would require a contradiction of man’s physical reality and his nature as man, thus it cannot remain a logical possibility.




doc: Since when is logic that? On the traditional understanding of the terms "logically (im)possible", "physically (im)possible", and "naturally (im)possible", there's lots of stuff that's logically possible, though physically impossible or naturally impossible. For example, my eating a building. Or something's disobeying the inverse square law.

Maybe you're using these words in a peculiar way?


rw: Obviously one of us is. The only logical place you could eat say, the physical structure known as the Empire State Building, is in your imagination. But you’ve also included the naturally impossible thus invoking man’s nature, and since part of man’s nature is to use his imagination, you’ve cut yourself off from the abstract thus I see no logical possibility of you eating a physical structure known as the Empire State Building.
Now I could construct a small structure out of ice or snow that you could eat, but then this would entail a physical possibility and your initial claim fails to obtain.

Perhaps you could enlighten me?



doc: "Could not obtain" is equivocal among the different kinds of possibility. I cannot, just by willing it, make people's heads explode.

rw: Why not? It does seem physically and naturally impossible but, according to your brand of logic, still a logical possibility.

doc: I am not a scanner. Nor can I make 2 + 2 not equal to 4. But those 'cannots' are quite different.

rw: Different from eating a building?

doc: If God made a world where we were unable to rape, by virtue of well-timed thunderbolts or whatever, that would do nothing to assail the logical possibility of "one human rapes another". That is logically possible, come what may. Why? Because it doesn't entail a contradiction. That's all.


rw: This is true because you’re only advocating a physical limitation. These well-timed thunderbolts would entail an alteration to man’s physical reality, such that rape would become a physical impossibility, but would remain as a conceptual possibility and thus remain a logical possibility, but only in thought and thus, in an un-interesting way. (except maybe to facilitate bizarre fantasies). Now remove the thought of the act of rape from man’s perceptual and conceptual capabilities and demonstrate how it remains a logical possibility for man, without referencing the concept from your current position in this world. It is precisely because you exist in this state of affairs that you are familiar with the concept of rape. If you existed in an alternate state where rape had never obtained in any form, thought or action, the concept would be a non-concept to you and thus, a logical impossibility.



doc: Logic has to do with contradiction and entailment.

rw: As it pertains to our organization of our perception of reality into coherent concepts.


doc: There's nothing logical or illogical about physical laws. Something's travelling faster than the speed of light doesn't court any contradiction.


rw: Depends on what that “something” is. We have organized our perception of this reality into concepts consistent to the observed inter-action of theoretical descriptives in this state of affairs. If you alter this state of affairs you alter the logical organization of our concepts in direct proportion to our perception of this altered state of affairs. If you end up with a state of affairs where there exists no consistency conducive to conceptual descriptives that benefit man, you’ve failed to demonstrate such a being “should have” made such an alteration and PoE fails to obtain.



doc: ???


rw: In other words, if you postulate a state of affairs sans evil and suffering, this postulated state of affairs would necessarily entail a different/altered logical organization of concepts that would preclude any concept of anything associated with evil and suffering. Anything associated with evil and suffering would become a logical impossibility in this altered state of affairs because there’d be no concepts to organize, logically or otherwise, in relation to evil and suffering.



doc: Nope, the traditional 'anti-evil suggestions' focus on God's changing physical possibilities.


rw: And, as I described above, changing physical possibilities necessarily changes logical possibilities. Perhaps you could give me some examples of these tradition anti-evil suggestions? If they are physical restraints added to this state of affairs, you’ve got one set of problems. If they’re natural restraints, you’ve got another set of problems.

doc: Why? For one thing, because even God can't change logical possibilities, because God can't make contradictory stuff consistent, nor consistent stuff contradictory. That's beyond anyone's power.


rw: Then he isn’t omnipotent. If you change states of affairs you necessarily change logical possibilities. But the change itself, as distinct from the end result, doesn’t necessarily incur a contradiction, unless the end result contradicts the attributes of the changer or the nature of the changee, (that would be us). Contradict the attributes of the changer and he ceases to be a changer. Contradict the nature of man and he ceases to be man.

doc: Sure, there may be a few crazies who have said that God's omnipotence extends to logic itself (maybe Descartes and Scotus? I don't know), but the typical and orthodox theistic conception dismisses such 'power' as outright absurdity. (And if God really could change logic, then he could bring about a perfectly good world without any compromises at all. Anything follows from craziness).

rw: Or he could bring about a perfectly natural world similar to our own in all respects without any compromise to his attributes.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by rainbow walking :

It's far more rhetorically useful to let Y be a state of affairs with less evil and suffering. That's the problem of evil that's more popular and more compelling today, and it's immune to your objection, as far as I can tell.

Why am I committed to that assertion? All I have to accept is that it's logically possible for humans to experience less pain from terminal cancer. Sure, it might not be the maximum, but if God exists, it is the minimum. And it doesn't seem to be the minimum to me.

rainbow walking

wyz: The problem is that none of these things have anything to do with PoE.

rw: Why do you say this? The proponent of PoE declares that a better state of affairs can be obtained by a benevolent god. I want to test this claim by having him/you describe this world and show me how it works sans evil and suffering. It isn’t enough to just say “god should have” without supporting this claim. Just pointing to this world of evil and suffering and assuming something better should have obtained, as justification for the claim, isn’t sufficient reason for me to allow the claim. If this alternate world sans evil and suffering has its own, perhaps bigger, set of problems I cannot see how a benevolent being should have been motivated by his benevolence to instantiate it. That’s why I ask for these descriptions and continue to deconstruct them for flaws in your reasoning.

Case in point…


wyz: Okay, let's say that a world without evil or suffering exists.

rw: Well, many such worlds as this already exist in this universe. Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury…just to name of few. In fact, I’d say many more such worlds like this exist in this universe, than worlds like ours. The only difference being, on these worlds people do not exist. I couldn’t see benevolence motivating such a being into turning our world into a world such as these…could you?

wyz: People want for naught, so they do not need hope.

rw: Whether these hypothetical people need hope or not depends on what you mean by “want for naught”.

If what you mean is that they simply don’t want anything, as in no desire for anything, then I would have to wonder if this “naught” includes basic things like life, liberty, joy, peace, love, sense of belonging, good health, friends, family, purpose for existing. Well…you see the problem with this definition.

If what you mean is that their every desire is automatically supplied from a bottomless well that never runs dry, I would again have to ask you if this well also includes the things I’ve listed above? Again…a whole nuther set of inconsistencies to address.

I would say this statement alone requires a great deal of clarification before it can even be tenable as a description of such a world.

wyz: Life is so pleasant as to make leisure unnecessary.

rw: How do these folks know that their lives are pleasant? In such a world where evil and suffering have never obtained, obviously this blissful population has never encountered such concepts as wrong, hurt, pain, anger, jealousy, fear, embarrassment, pride, hatred, competition and a host of other like passions, so I’m wondering, without these things as a reference for pleasure, how do they know life is pleasant? If they’ve never wanted for anything, (whatever you intend that to mean), how do they know the difference between leisure and duty, since they’ve obviously never worked a day in their lives…unless, of course, for some bizarre reason they wanted to, which in a land where you want for nothing I can fathom no reason for wanting to work…can you? This too leaves us scratching our heads in bewilderment.

wyz: Let's say that every one is intuitively matched with a mate, and no one complains.

rw: Now that sounds very sweet wyz, but I just have one question. Why would they need matching or mates? If by “want for naught” you mean their every desire is granted, why not desire a different mate every fifteen minutes? And surely they would desire to live for eternity so procreation wouldn’t be necessary and thus, neither would mating…right?

On the other hand, if “want for naught” means they have no wants, then obviously how could they possibly want to mate, or procreate, or be matched, or any of the usual romantic fantasies that generally accompany these types of relationships.
So far, all I can see from this hodgepodge of contradictions is a world full of congenital dependants or zombies. Is this your idea of benevolent expression?

wyz: There's your finished product - what's the problem with it?

rw: Oh my…where do I begin? The problems began at the precise moment you invoked such a world as being without evil and suffering. With no frame of reference for establishing the value in the rest of your description, these people would have no way of knowing pleasure, wanting for anything, the value of finding the “right” mate, and you mentioned leisure as unnecessary, they’d have no way of knowing this either…seeing how their every want is automatically fulfilled without effort on their part, they’d have no frame of reference for rest, vacation and leisure, so these too would be incomprehensible concepts to them. Whatever, or whoever these creatures are on this world, they’re definitely not human. As I said, many worlds sans evil and suffering exist, but they’re all uninhabitable. If this is your idea of what an omni-benevolent being “should have” created, then you just eliminated man and god in your PoE inspired world. No evil, no basis for benevolence, omni or otherwise. I think this is contrary to what PoE purports to accomplish. If my memory serves me PoE is supposed to conclude no god in this (our current state of affairs), not create an alternate state of affairs where no god…or human beings could exist.

wyz: I'd be interested in hearing your complaint, but I have a feeling that you'd still evoke a "need" or "evil" to explain why this would not be a good world (like...I cannot remember who...who complained that this would be "boring" - sorry! no boredom exists either!)


rw: Nah…boredom would be another foreign concept to a person in a world without evil and suffering. The problem with trying to define such a world is that you are forced to use terms and concepts from this world which have all been developed on the basis of a pluralistic view of life. You’re trying to describe something that you have no frame of reference for describing. You think that incorporating all the good values you can imagine into this new world will automatically make it tenable and proof of PoE’s validity, when all it does is demonstrate how evil/suffering dependent you are even for the concepts you use to describe the good. Good, and all the associative value assignments derived from it, (and there are many), is meaningless without something other than itself or it’s associates to compare to. And that, my friend, is only one of the nails in PoE’s coffin.



wyz: No it doesn't. You have to show *why* evil exists.

rw: Uh…o’kay…just as soon as you show why good exists. You’re the one arguing PoE. Inherent in your argument is the assumption that a world of greater good/lesser evil “should have” been created but wasn’t, thus an omnibenevolent being doesn’t exist…so why does good exist?

wyz: If the only reason is that it allows hope and, say, compassion, then that is insufficient. Why? Because without evil, hope and compassion are completely unnecessary.

rw: I only argue this to show the intricate relationship and utter inseparability of good and evil. Not to promote evil as though it were a value. It’s only value is as a canvas for good to paint its portrait, airwaves for righteousness to play its song.



wyz: None of these are necessary in a perfect world without evil and, therefore are irrelevant. You have to demonstrate that these things are somehow necessary.

rw: No my friend, PoE is your argument and your responsibility to support your assertion that such a perfect world could obtain without them.



wyz: All you are saying, in essence, is that evil may allow mankind to progress. Progress to what end? As opposed to what? Why not commence at the end to which we are progressing without the needless suffering along the way?

rw: To the same end your PoE is assuming a god should have taken us to as a free ride, with one big difference. When we get there by our own efforts we’ll have all the concepts intact to appreciate both the journey and the destination. PoE’s assumptive short-cut would leave us deaf, dumb and blind, and even if we were surrounded by the greatest splendor imaginable, unable to know and appreciate it.

wyz: The problem here is that you assume a purpose - a goal, and that evil is part of that path.

This begs the question, pure and simple.

rw: What question am I begging? Do you deny that man has made progress? Do you deny evolution? Does evolution not rest upon these very premises, that competition and struggle for survival and the fittest win? Or would you prefer to jettison this for the creationist’s explanation?



wyz: But this is not a necessary thing. I love a good steak. In fact I enjoy red meat several times a week. But meat is not necessary to survive. What's more, you are making another unproven assertion - that the way it is, is the way it must be. Why should we need food at all? Seeing as you probably don't think people would be eating, digesting and defecating in heavan, you might want to address why this is necessary now.

rw: My assertion is not that it is the way it must be but that it is the way it is until we make it better. Why I keep getting these irrelevant references to heaven is beyond me. I see no argument there. I’m not a theist and could care less about this pipe dream. It proves nothing.



wyz: Extensive and irrelevant without evil...well, sort of.

rw: And good…yes?

wyz: I'm not sure why you cannot dream of learning something new without the existence of evil. You could read a new book without evil, or learn to compose a song for the piano, couldn't you?

rw: And this book would probably have a plot based on drama which is based on the struggle between…
And my inspiration for composing would come as a result of…



wyz:
I'll leave the Book or Revelation to the scripture experts, but certainly all of what is taught in the gospel and churches points to a heaven of perfection. The bottom line with the PoE is that if a perfect place is possible, inhabited by people who live in bliss and want for naught, then why does a supposedly omnibenevolent god subject us to the evils of the world? It cannot be to experience good, because that ultimate good (heaven) supposedly exists.

rw: You may want to consider cracking the book open as a reference if you plan to incorporate it in your arguments. Since war exists in heaven it cannot be such a perfect place…and the proponents of PoE do not like their heaven spotted with these impurities. They tend to guard their version more jealously than a fundy. :^D So maybe this perfect place does not exist…you think?

rainbow walking

Hello Thomas,

thomas: It's far more rhetorically useful to let Y be a state of affairs with less evil and suffering. That's the problem of evil that's more popular and more compelling today, and it's immune to your objection, as far as I can tell.

rw: Perhaps...perhaps not. I am willing to entertain the evisceration of your favorite version of PoE if you'd like.




thomas: Why am I committed to that assertion? All I have to accept is that it's logically possible for humans to experience less pain from terminal cancer.


rw: Well, this is true Thomas, you have every right, and good reason, to ignore my objections.

thomas: Sure, it might not be the maximum, but if God exists, it is the minimum. And it doesn't seem to be the minimum to me.

rw: But do you have any medical basis for making this assumption? We cannot always make logical connections based solely on our intuitions. The truth is you don't know so it is also logically possible that I am right and you may have to accept this also...yes?

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by rainbow walking :

If God existed, then probably, there would be less suffering than there is now. (Because some suffering seems to be unnecessary for a greater good.) But there isn't less suffering than there is now. Therefore, probably, God doesn't exist.

I think the best reason is that your objection is indefensible. It's logically possible for humans to experience less pain from terminal cancer. Either that, or you have to assert general modal skepticism, which only Peter van Inwagen will accept, I think.

We reduce the amount of pain people suffer all the time. So it's obviously logically possible for God to do the same more often than he does now. Merely asserting a logical possibility that suffering cannot be reduced does not make for a response to a probabilistic argument from evil.

rainbow walking

thomas: If God existed, then probably, there would be less suffering than there is now. (Because some suffering seems to be unnecessary for a greater good.) But there isn't less suffering than there is now. Therefore, probably, God doesn't exist.

rw: It isn't clear from this wording if the intent of this version is that god should have reduced suffering "at the outset" or if he should have "intervened" at some point previous to now? In other words, if a different state of affairs should have obtained with reduced suffering or if he should intervene at every such occasion to reduce suffering now.

Clearly it would be more economical to have created a state of affairs where suffering would be reduced to some degree. But, then again, it might be advantageous to retain some control over the degree of suffering reduced on a case by case basis such that an interventionist methodology would be preferable.

I shall have to refrain from any further comment until we get this clarified. I want to be sure I have the correct parameters of your version of PoE before I begin deconstruction.




thomas: I think the best reason is that your objection is indefensible. It's logically possible for humans to experience less pain from terminal cancer.


rw: It is true that experiencing less pain from cancer is logically possible, but since we're on the subject of logical possibility, it's also true that it's logically possible that a cure for most or all forms of cancer may be just around the bend. Thus it is also defensibly possible that the current levels of pain serve as just the motivation to effect a cure such that a great many people will be spared all pain from this disease in the future. An elimination of the cause would be preferable to a reduction in the pain. Whereas a premature reduction in the pain could lead to a reduction in the interest and dedication to its cure.




thomas: We reduce the amount of pain people suffer all the time.


rw: Yes, we do, and are likely to discover ways to reduce it further in the future, if not cure it altogether. So why do you feel we need to invoke the assistance of such a being when it's within our means to accomplish this? The research that goes into this very problem employs a great many people and inspires many minds dedicated to resolving the cause. Thus we see a reciprocal benefit in allowing things to progress as they are and have.


thomas: So it's obviously logically possible for God to do the same more often than he does now.

rw: Of course, but it's not immediately evident why he should, seeing how it also inspires men like doctors, geneticists, biologists, and chemists to a higher level of dedication and employs their intellect to its fullest...and has produced some notable results.

thomas: Merely asserting a logical possibility that suffering cannot be reduced does not make for a response to a probabilistic argument from evil.

rw: Unless I'm mis-interpreting your comments here I don't recall making such a claim. I said it's logically possible that such a being might very well have reduced the pain well below the levels that such pain could have reached uninhibited by his intervention.

Theli

There's that binary thinking again, do we really need an extreme evil to see the different shades of good? It would seem that in a world without suffering, actions would still be either more or less beneficial. And most suffering is forced upon the individual regardless of his own actions, so how could that suffering guide his own actions toward personal benefit? Your argument (although true) only refers to a limited number of situations. I would agree with you, if all suffering was avoidable by will alone.
Obviously people don't act on pain-motivation alone, the motive of personal benefit can still exist with the exclusion of suffering. It depends ofcourse on where you draw the line between evil and neutral.
But we are formed from nature, and according to christianity nature is formed from god's design. A world without suffering would have a different design -> nature -> humanrace. You don't just change humans and then base your argument on the conclution that he wouldn't fit in. We are not talking about an adaption to current state off affairs, we are talking about a completely different state of affairs, what we see now would never have existed.
I don't understand why benefit of impression would not exist in a world without suffering.
I don't really see that as a problem, if we do not feel embarrassment then what is the problem with not wearing clothes? It's not as if the current behaviour of mankind is the peak of perfection. And I must remind you again that the majority of suffering is not self-inflicted and cannot improve our behaviour. Poverty turns people into thieves, war turns people into killers and deseases turn people into corpses. If there's something good coming out of all of this, it's greatly overshadowed by the suffering it cost us.
When I say "doesn't mean that the sun isn't shining" I mean that the sun is shining. It would still shine even though it never was a night, and the concept of day was meaningless.
Just because we stop calling it "day" doesn't change it.
Binary thinking again, nuances and differencies would still exist if they were desired by god. Elimination of evil does not necessarilly mean "current state of affairs minus evil", if god found a world lacking evil dull and boring, he could very well spice it up, but if he in doing so does not match our definition of omnibenevolence then we shouldn't call him that.
If god would not be omnibenevolent with the elimination of evil, then perhaps it is impossible for him to be so. But that is not PoE's problem as PoE doesn't argue for the existence of such a being.
If you are the direct cause of their future suffering, yes. But noone argues that you designed and created their entire world. I don't see the point in this analogy. I mean, did god only create us humans?
Being a "normal adult" may be desired or glorified in this world, as our society demands maturity of us. But why would you have to create a world for them with those particular demands? Aren't you just taking your own ideals and treating them as axioms?
No it doesn't.
Take this example...
In the morning while puting on my socks I was faced with a normal everyday choice. Should I put on the right sock first, or the left sock. Now, my question for you (as all actions are either good or evil) wich choice was the evil one? And would I (in a world with no evil) chose the same sock every time?
Simple question: Is it evil to put on the right sock first, or is it evil to put on the left sock first?
In my experience we very seldom make choices based on evil and good. I can't remember ever doing such a choice.
AIDS
PoE never suggests an alternative world, nor a way for god to actually be omnibenevolent. If omnibenevolence is impossible, that supports PoE. There is no omni-benevolent/potent god.
You're mixing icecream with mustard here, what is PoE's explaination for current state of affairs, and what is yours? For the razor to apply, both theories must attempt to answer the same question, so what is the question? PoE does not have an alternative world.
Truly the work of an omnibenevolent god, millions and millions of people live (and die) in poverty and disease, and but I just won the lottery, so I guess their suffering doesn't matter anymore.
Take Malaria for instance, for if an omnibenevolent god to exist, there must be something good that disease brings to make it worth the suffering and death it brings. What is it? It must be something quite spectacular if creating it and setting it loose on people is to be considered an act of kindness.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by rainbow walking :

Either one would be fine. I don't care.

This doesn't militate against my argument. Many people have suffered from terminal cancer in the past, and some of that suffering was needless.

Here's a tip. Any time you attempt to offer a theodicy, such as that one, ask yourself: Is this suffering necessary for a greater good, or only sufficient? Painful cancer is sufficient to motivate people to discover a cure, but it's not necessary; God could motivate them directly, and could even cause them to find a cure so the motivation wouldn't be necessary. And finding a cure wouldn't be necessary in the first place if cancer didn't exist.

But again, this doesn't justify suffering in the past. No one found a cure for cancer back then, and people suffered needlessly. And furthermore, it's still morally better to prevent useless suffering than to allow it in the future as well; God is standing by letting people suffering while he waits for us to find a cure. Those aren't the actions of a morally perfect being, and we know this because it's possible to imagine a morally better being, one who prevents more of this suffering now.

Again, cancer isn't necessary for these goods. God can employ people himself and let people dedicate their minds to other noble pursuits.

But that's not enough. Suffering must be at a minimum now, not just a non-maximum, for God to exist.

Wyz_sub10

I think I did address this, but what I am saying is that you are not merely asking this question – you are asking for specifics that are not necessarily relevant to the question.

Instead of asking “what would this world look like?” you are asking me to describe this world with hope, etc. In other words, you are implying that these things should remain (although it is unnecessary that they do), and that should I be unable to account for them, you would assume the scenario fails.

Why assume it has a bigger set of problems? If there is no evil, there is certainly no suffering. Perhaps it depends on how far you extend the definition of “evil” (is boredom evil? Is sloth evil?) But if it’s my world, well, I could just eliminate those as well (just to be on the safe side). Simply put, I could eliminate all problems – death, even.

You seem to start with the idea that hope, charity, forgiveness must exist, and then use evil to emphasize their necessity. I’m starting tabula rasa.

Speaking of poor reasoning…

No, turning our world into a world such as these would not be a good thing, because it would mean making changes that we are not well suited for. Of course, god could do as he pleases, make us perfectly content to live in a Jovian atmosphere (somehow), and then sure, that would be quite fine.

Unless you reason that you could not be happy despite being perfectly suited for, created for, and adapted to the environment? (In which case you would have some explaining to do).

No, whether these hypothetical people need hope or not depends on whether god gives them the capacity to have said hope, or whether he can sufficiently anticipate their needs to eliminate the need for hope.

No, I don’t see the problem. What’s the problem? If there is no death (this is optional, but let’s say there isn’t), then the concept of “life” is not meaningful (as something to cling to or preserve). What need is there for liberty or peace of there is no captivity/oppression or strife?

Again, you are assuming that certain things must exist. You seem to imply that having no liberty is a bad thing. If it is not a necessary or useful concept, then what would we miss from not having it?

RW, it appears that you are making these statements based on the fact that you believe evil exists in “my” world. It doesn’t. You cannot challenge me to create a world with no evil, and when I do, continue to reason based on the assumption that there is evil there anyway.

No, there is nothing inconsistent here. There are no problems. There are no gaps in reasoning. You make a load of assumptions, but that is not my doing.

There is no need to supply these desires with an endless well of anything, because these desires do not exist. The next time you are sitting in 30 degree (Celsius) weather, sweating under a hot sun, dry and parched, tell me how desirous you are for a powerful space heater. Tell me how much you need a wool toque and mittens.

Simpler yet, how desirous are you for a pair of pants with four legs? What about a pair of quadrafocal glasses??

Whereas I think you need to stop introducing things that would have no bearing in a world without evil.

How do you know when you’re feeling pleasant? When you awaken, do you feel neutral until you can call friends, watch the news, take a poll to see how other people are feeling? If you lived on an island by yourself, would you not still know how you feel?

Correct.

See above. Why do you need a reference? Let me ask you this (seriously) – what’s the opposite of orgasm? Love references hate, joy references pain (I’m guessing that’s what you mean by the above). So what does orgasm reference? (And we probably can agree that it feels quite good)

This leaves you scratching your head, but I’m not sure why. Maybe people work because they see reason to. Maybe they just feel compelled to. Maybe they want to learn new things. Maybe it gives them orgasms. (unlike my job) Maybe they don’t work at all. Or maybe they do simple work like foraging and construction, as necessary.

What..? Now work is something that is necessary, even though it’s not necessary? If you, yourself, say that it is not necessary, what possible reason do you have for wanting to create a need for it?

Why assume they have these desires? You are focusing on “want for naught”, but that does not automatically imply “want everything, all the time”. I don’t “want for pizza” right now. But I might later. I have never “wanted for murder”.

You are infusing your ideas into “my” world (get your own damn world ). Would having desires constitute the presence of evil? Perhaps. Of course, as I can control desires, this is not an issue. They can have what they want, but they do not want everything.

Why assume they would desire to live for eternity? Even in “the real world” many people do not desire that. (I don’t) But if I choose to give eternal life, then sure, no procreating necessary. Either way it doesn’t change anything. Procreate and be satisfied with dying, or live eternally and no need for procreation. There is no problem logically with either of these.

Okay. What’s the problem?

Nice hand-waving, but there is nothing contradictory. The contradiction is created by you and projected on a world that contains none of those things. You are saying “but where’s the liberty?” when I have clearly stated that it is not needed, desired, or useful.

You say “but if people lived for ever, then why procreate?” This doesn’t matter either way. You can ask an unlimited amount of questions that will require an answer. I cannot anticipate every scenario in a ten-paragraph post. But you haven’t asked anything that cannot be addressed.

Let me explain again – from the top. A world can exist without suffering or malice, dependent upon your definition. I go home in the evening. I do paperwork for an hour and then watch a movie with my wife. Have I had pleasure? Yes. Have I had varying degrees of pleasure? Yes. I have still had wants? Yes. Does anything in that scenario constitute “evil”?

Well, here’s the rub – if you tell me, yes, varying degrees of pleasure imply evil, or having desires demonstrate evil, then you have plenty of explaining to do explain a J/C god who wants things for his followers, desires behaviours of them, and can exhibit varying degrees of pleasure.

That, after all, is what the PoE addresses. The PoE does not address simply the concept of “a perfect world”, but rather it addresses the concept of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent J/C god-created world where there is suffering, good things, bad things, expectations for salvation, etc. If you were to ask me whether evil is a problem, period – I would say ‘no’.

But that is not what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about is the concept of a benevolent creator, from whom the laws derive, fabricating a world in which 10-year old girls are abducted, sexually assaulted and dismembered, and trying to somehow insist that this is a “logical necessity”. We haven’t even touched on the concepts that such “necessities” should make heroes out of evil-doers, and ensure them a place in heaven due to all the “referential good” they do. We are not going there because that is not the focus of our discussion.

The focus is – can a world exist that does not contain these sufferings and evils. Yes – there is NO logical reason it cannot. No liberty? Fine. No hope? Fine. No courage? Fine. None of these are necessary. None of these exist. And it poses no logical problem whatsoever. For every question you ask – “what about ‘virtue x’” you can answer it yourself with “not necessary”. For every question you ask – “what if people want/need ‘x’” you can answer it yourself with “they do not want/need, by my creation.”

Remember – this is a omnibenevolent/omnipotent J/C world. We are not talking about the best world that you and I, with our human nature and human desires, could create.

Again, give me an evil reference for ‘orgasm’. Explain to me how evil plays a part in laughing when you are tickled? The frame of reference argument is weak because 1) it assumes that it is necessary (you haven’t demonstrated this at all), 2) it implies that the “inverse” feelings of evil are necessary – they are not.

So? Here’s an incomprehensible concept to you – “Froopies on the mizzam can shleckle more than a tardingdon.”

Have you ever wanted to understand that concept? Have you ever felt that “evil” was prohibiting your understanding of this? Do you feel your life have lacked from understanding this incomprehensible concept? No?

If you can answer why, they you can understand how meaningless your statement is re: vacation and rest.
Ummm….it’s my world. I’m god, remember. Yes, they are human. I should know, I invented them.

This is a perfect example of what you’ve been doing all along – you ask me to create a world and then you keep introducing concepts to it. Not fair. You can question my concepts, but you can’t assume things exist, then criticize that they do. I never said liberty existed (in fact, I said it did not). Yet you assume it does, then argue that the concept is toothless, stating this as a “flaw” in my design.

No, RW, they are definitely human by my design. Otherwise you are simply begging the question – humans are evil by nature, therefore evil must exist, therefore because it “must” it is not a problem, therefore….what’s the point of the conversation?
If I can strip humans of evil tendencies, then I can strip them of wants and desires too.

There is only no evil there because there are no people there. Storms and earthquakes still exist on foreign worlds.

No, I think you did that. In my world without suffering, people abound.

I didn’t say, necessarily, that the concept or potential for evil didn’t exist *at all*. I just argued that it need not be a part of this world or our existence. Still, this does ot matter – ‘benevolence’ is a word we created. God could keep all of his flock from harm, all the time. We would not describe this as ‘omnibenevolence’ because we would not need to. That would simply be ‘god’.

The problem comes in that many Christians do describe god as omnibenevolent. That’s what gives rise to the PoE in the first place. No omnibenevolence, no PoE.

And I am not proposing that. You keep introducing other planets as “evil-less” worlds. That is not a position I have forwarded at any time. (Again, you keep introducing ideas and then attributing them to me. Please stop doing that.)

I am saying no god in this state of affairs because it is obviously contradictory to reality. When someone, such as yourself, says “it’s the only possible way”, then we get into hypothesizing merely to demonstrate that it is not the only possible way, logically speaking.

Terminology is a problem, but that does not invalidate any of the concepts. I think I’ve acknowledged part of the problem is defining “evil” and what it entails. No matter, whatever is “added” to evil can be “subtracted” from my reality.

We need to return to the issue of PoE – the J/C god’s creation of the world and his expectation for his creations. If the J/C is omnibenevolent and/or omnipotent, you need to account for the years of suffering of young children, who die without ever knowing happiness.

Of course, you can concede either omnibenevolence or omnipotence, and this entire problem simply vanishes.

This is where I keep getting a bit frustrated – no, I am absolutely not, now, or at any time, trying to incorporate “all good values” into this new world – that is your doing, not mine.

I haven’t described “good” – I have assigned no moral value to it at all.

I suppose if you ask a question, ignore the answer, give one of your own that is illogical, and then criticize it as if someone else gave it, you can hammer all the nails you like.

But the “nails” you speak of do not exist in my world – I never introduced them, referenced them, and they are not logically necessary. (But if you’ve finished with the hammer, I’m quite ready to start beating my head with it)

To begin with, I never said “good” exists (I may have covered this already). But again – as I said above – one can experience a pleasurable sensation without experiencing some kind of reciprocal equivalent. I can enjoy laughter without ever having cried.

Your only leg to stand on with this reasoning is to claim that anything less than the maximum pleasure possible is “evil”. Is that what you are claiming?

No canvas necessary…as above, etc.

No. I did not introduce liberty and hope, etc. You did. I could create a world without them – as I have stated many times. If you think that this is a flawed world because these things do not exist, the burden is on you to prove it. I’m only stating that evil does not need to exist and, by extension, neither do those other things. There is never an obligation to prove why something isn’t necessary. You could spend your entire life trying to explain why a banana isn’t necessary for your car, or a chocolate-covered pencil isn’t necessary for dancing the Charleston. But if you want to argue that these things are required, that’s your job.

Why is this necessary? If you never need to gain this appreciation, then you’ll never miss it. You keep introducing things as if they were requirements of humankind. They’re not. It’s my species and I say that they can enjoy the ride, and that they’ll never miss whatever noble suffering you want to inflict upon them.

1. Not necessarily. (see my orgasm reference – there is no reason to believe we cannot appreciate something new, even if it’s not “better”)
2. So?

By assuming a goal or purpose, you have already assumed the need for betterment, contrast, overcoming adversity – “getting there from here”. By doing this, you have made evil necessary.

But if you did not assume a goal or purpose, none of what follows would be required.

Of course not. I don’t deny evil exists, either.

Of course not.

No. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with progress of any kind – period. Please do not confuse complexity that may arise with ‘progress’. Bacteria will exist a damn long time after we do. Ants live life just fine, thank you.

And “struggle for survival” is a misunderstood concept that leads to disclaimers in the state of Kansas. A species that is better adapted than another species to an environment will better survive that environment. Species don’t square off in a ring, and there are many environments to accommodate many species (such as our social environment). What does this have to do with my world “sans evil”?

If I’m god making the world, then “my” creationists’ explanations would be correct, wouldn’t they?

But I am glad you brought up evolution. The reason I know that love feels nice, or that orgasms are good, or that pizza is enjoyable, is that my brain tells my so. No frame of reference required. I asked you earlier, when you wake up do you need to check the news to see how you feel? (multiple lotteries winners = bad, mass bombings = good) Of course not.

Your brain tells you. I do not appreciate my wife’s love because I ponder hate every time we kiss. I do not consciously think about hunger whenever I am enjoying a meal. My brain lets me know these things are good. Granted, references are valid for many things (recall that I do not deny the existence of evil and its impact on humans), but references for all things pleasurable are not necessary.

But that’s not what this discussion is about. No one said that god had to make something, then make it better. The question is what should have been done in the first place.

The PoE refers specifically to the J/C concept of god, his creations, expectations on humanity, etc.

If you want to engage in a discussion of “a” problem of evil, irrespective of J/C beliefs, then you’ll find no opponent here. The PoE arises from the fact that reality contradicts J/C teachings. If you do not want to reference J/C teachings, then I’m not sure what we’re talking about.

Like I said, abandon omnipotence or omnibenevolence for the J/C god and the PoE goes away completely.

Yes.

I never said it had to be based on struggle or anything else. It could be a cookbook, for all I care.

Of course, as noted above, the concept or potential for evil could exist. (my flock could simply be forever shielded from them) Although this would make things messy for my world, so you should stick to cookbooks.

Me in the form of god, perhaps? “I shall sprinkle musings upon my flock like raindrops from the heavens, so sayeth Me.”

I’ve read it, thanks. I abstained from getting into the details of it for a few reasons – firstly, even in my Christian days I (and most of the RC church) re: the book as metaphorical for events happening in the past. So describing a war in heaven would not actually be referring to a war in heaven, but to an event that happened on earth. The concept of RC heaven is absolutely consistent with perfection, regardless of Revelation.

Secondly, the war referred to in Heaven is a final battle. Afterwards comes the eternal perfection, after the final defeat of “the dragon” (or some such nonsense). So this remains consistent as well.

I avoided these points because I do not want to derail the thread with a discussion on what Revelation is and is not, or what it does or does not mean. It’s irrelevant. As a former practicing Christian for 25 years, who went to the schools, the retreats, the sermons, I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the supposed perfection of heaven and the afterlife is very much a part of the belief system.

I feel quite certain that it does not.

As an endnote, I find your position odd for a non-theist. Not that I expect a non-theist to simply trumpet the PoE issue, but because I wonder if you understand the PoE. I’m not saying that to be insulting, I’m just saying that you seem to be approaching this by trying to challenge me to build a better mousetrap irrespective of J/C god’s attributes. You are puzzled when I bring up concepts like heaven and eternal life, but these concepts are quite important to the PoE.

If I do not need to be omnibenevolent, then let evil fly. If I do not have to be omnipotent, then I could just admit that not all things were under my control. Both of these would be logically acceptable.

But when a Christian states that 1) all things comes from god, 2) evil things exist, 3) god does not create evil, then you encounter a logical problem in a hurry.

You could, instead say 1) god has power over all, 2) evil things happen, 3) god cannot eliminate evil things, but you still have a problem.

Or 1) god is perfect and good, 2) evil things happen, 3) god will not protect the innocent from evil, then you have a problem.


We are simply wasting time if we are only trying to determine if any good can come of bad.