Suaup

Hello guys,

After struggling for a couple days to write a logical criticism of the best of all worlds attack on the problem of evil, it was suggested by some posters on Kuro5hin that I ask for some advice here. Though I turned in the paper several days ago, it seems that it's going to get a C (which is lower than my normal quality of writing.) The problem was I had to defend George H Smith's argument which states:

The counter argument was based on the reasoning that Smith is wrong because God created the best of all worlds - any amoral evil in the universe is created by God. No matter how extreme or absurd, it's God's intended and benevolent plan. I struggled with possible arguments and came to the conclussion I could not logically criticize the argument, so I resorted to dismissing the argument by the standards of Anthony Flew's "some religous arguments are non-sense." The problem I had was the paper was supposed to be under 2 pages, and directly defend Smith's position with logic against the critic's position. Any criticism I put up based on earthly examples of amoral evil, believers stated it was part of God's plan. Anyway, here's my paper, I'd love advice for how I could have done better, because getting a C makes me feel bitter. Any suggestions on improper use of grammar, language, reasoning, or logic would be very helpful for me to learn how to handle this better next time.

Thank you very, very much....

--The argument--

George H. Smith argues there are non-resolvable problems regarding the existence of natural evil, and the existence of an all powerful, all knowing, and all loving God. Phenomena such earthquakes or disease are evil because they are harmful to man’s life, but must be classified as an amoral evil since they are free from the conscious intent of their actions. God, as the creator of all, must be the creator of these amoral evils. God, being omniscient, must also know of the results of these amoral evils. God, being the sum of good, must desire to stop both moral and amoral evil unless, such events are part of a greater plan. Amoral evil continues to exist on earth in the forms of natural disasters, disease, and dangerous animals. Therefore, God chooses to allow amoral evil to exist. Smith closes his argument by deeming God responsible for amoral evil by stating:

“But from a Christian perspective, God – the omnipotent creator of the natural universe – must bear ultimate responsibility for these occurrences, and God’s deliberate choice of these evil phenomena qualifies him as immoral.”

By qualifying God as immoral, one must either re-evaluate the Christian understanding of God, or contemplate the possibility that the problem of evil negates the traditional Christian view of God’s existence.

Critics respond by arguing that the universe is the best of all possible worlds created by God. The universe is governed by rules of logic that allow for the consistent implementation of God’s greater plan. While it may be possible for one to imagine a better world, it is unknown whether that world could logically exist. For example, while one may argue a world without earthquakes is a better world – one cannot know the effects of artificially removing them. If earthquakes were not necessary for planetary functions, God would have excluded them from creation. Thus, natural evils are the necessary results of an overall logically consistent system that allows for the continual existence of the universe. Amoral evils exist because God intended for them to exist.

While the criticism provides justification for the existence of natural phenomena based on their necessity, it does not defend the assertion with evidence. The premises of the assertion are not verifiable, therefore, the argument cannot be proven correct or incorrect. As Anthony Flew stated, “some religious utterances are nonsense,” this criticism could qualify as nonsense because there is no evidence to verify or deny it. As a result of the unverifiable premises, the argument can be used to justify every amoral event in the universe. According to the criticism, amoral evils are the intended results of God’s plan. As an all powerful, all knowing, and all loving being, it is fair to assume that God would not unnecessarily introduce amoral evil into the universe unless justified to do so by benevolence. If one discovered amoral evil not created by God, it would falsify God’s existence as the creator of all. If one discovered amoral evil that didn’t serve a benevolent plan, it would falsify God’s existence as an all-loving God. If one discovered amoral evil that God did not perceive, it would falsify God’s existence as an omniscient God. Therefore, according to the criticism, God knowingly created amoral evil such as genetic defects in humans before they were born. One cannot argue ignorant parents are morally responsible for the genetic disorder. Millions of children have suffered genetic defects for unknown reasons. Even to this day, humans are born with terrible genetic defects that cause suffering and premature death. However, according to the criticism, the existence of genetic defects in humans are part of God’s unknown benevolent plan. What benevolent purpose do genetic defects serve by coming into existence, causing suffering and death, then fading from the human gene pool?

The absurdity of the criticism of Smith’s argument is that it justifies the seemingly unnecessary amoral events such as genetic defects as part of God’s benevolent plan. Every incident of amoral evil, regardless of how extreme, can be justified by saying it is part of God’s plan. One must consider the sentiments of Anthony Flew’s statement that “Some religious utterances are nonsense.” According to Flew, when an argument is beyond the judgement of proof and disproof, and nothing can challenge the argument, it becomes nonsense. While Smith’s argument may not dispute the existence of God, it does require the re-evaluation of the Christian’s understanding and perception of God as an all powerful, all knowing, and all loving God.

diana

Hi Suaup.

Lemme get this straight. You were asked to defend Smith's argument against critics who claim amoral evil is part of God's plan, so you wrote two pages in order to just say, "That's just stupid"?

Wow. I agree with you that it's just stupid, but that does little to communicate what's wrong with the argument. It's stupid for a reason. Or in this case, several.

Ok. Let's see what we have to work with here:

Smith said, "But from a Christian perspective, God – the omnipotent creator of the natural universe – must bear ultimate responsibility for these occurrences, and God’s deliberate choice of these evil phenomena qualifies him as immoral."

The rebuttal you're dealing with is:Hm. Lots of assertions there.

For the sake of this discussion, we have assumed that IF God exists THEN he is defined as all-powerful and all-good. Right? Ok.

Right away, I see a couple of problems:

1. They conveniently forget that "all powerful" bit when it suits them. Thus their argument suffers from inconsistency.

Either God is all-powerful or he isn't. An all-powerful God could make any logically possible thing, including a world without earthquakes. (Where is their faith, anyway? A man's faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains, yes? But God, for some reason, is at the mercy of the natural processes he created to make things work right? Not to mention at the mercy, apparently, of logic, which he also presumably created.)

2. God's presumed "intent that earthquakes would exist" does not negate his defining characteristic of "all-good." At the end of the day, after your detractors are blue in the face, all-good is still inconsistent with "God created evil," regardless of the evil involved or the supposed "reasons" for it.

But more specifically, I want to look at this line of reasoning:It would be more helpful if I had direct quotes from your opponents, as this helps avoid misrepresentation of their position. But for now, I'll have to assume your summation is accurate.

The universe is governed by rules of logic, is it? These rules allow for the "consistent implementation of God's plan." Either God created, along with everything else, said "rules of logic," or they exist external to him. Which?

If the former, then God could easily have created those "rules of logic" so as to allow for the "consistent implementation of his plan" without including amoral evil because he is omnipotent. If the latter, well...to assume the latter is to admit God didn't create everything, which is an internal consistency, as well.

To argue that "it is unknown whether [a better world] could logically exist [therefore, this is the best possible world]" is to Argue from Ignorance.

This one suffers from omnipotence. I mean assertion, of course. But they presume to know what God would or would not have done if...? Please.

Their argument includes the hidden premise that God's hands are tied when it comes to creating a logically functioning world that is better than this one, which would make him not so much omnipotent as impotent.

And what's the "necessary" business? Necessary for God? This argument implies that God is powerless to change physical laws. This must mean (1) physical laws exist external to him and (2) he isn't omnipotent.

Plus, this whole argument assumes design and as such, reeks of post hoc ergo propter hoc: The forces of nature are delightfully symbiotic, therefore God must have created it that way. Nevermind that life that cannot adapt to a changed environment dies and life that can adapt thrives.

The opportunities to attack such a silly argument are legion. I do, however, see why you'd be so tempted to just say, "That's stupid!" Unfortunately, philosophers don't hand out A's for your contempt for other people's inability to reason their way out of a paper bag. Nor does this help your opponent understand why his argument is stupid.

d

diana

Hi, Suaup.

I noticed you were online for a while last night after I posted a rather in-depth rebuttal of an argument for a paper you supposedly have already written.

No comments on my helpful feedback? Not even a thank you?

Good luck on my paper. Please tell me if I get an A.

d

beastmaster

Isn't heaven the best of all possible worlds (i.e., the world with the least possible amount of amoral evil), according to traditional Xnty?

If so, then traditional Xnty accepts that there is at least one possible world that is better (i.e., has less amoral evil) than earth.

Thus, at least some of the amoral evil on earth is unnecessary.

God must be unwilling or unable to eliminate this unnecessary evil, or must not know about it.

God is responsible for the unnecesary evil unless he has a "good reason" for his unwillingness or inability to minimize the amount of amoral evil, or his ignorance thereof.

Atheists argue that god should be considered provisionally immoral (or non-omnipotent/non-omniscient) unless a good reason can be given (and none can).

Theists counter that they have faith that god has a good reason, even though they don't know what it is, and that it is up to the atheist to prove that god lacks a good reason.

Then the debate moves on to the adequacy/inadequacy of faith and the circle keeps on spinning...

sodium

Here's a few problems with best of all possible world defense. By the way, if you get a chance, you might want to read Candide.
http://www.literature.org/authors/voltaire/candide/

1) The world appears indifferent. As best as we can tell, the world behaves according to natural laws that are indifferent to our welfare. There's nothing in Newton's laws (for example) that shows our benefit in mind. The best you can say is that the universe makes our existence possible. It's rather surprising that the best God can do looks like indifference.

2) Specific explanations for the kind of conflicts God faces are not convincing. This goes further astray than I want to go, but defenses such as free will, or God's desire to perfect us through suffering have their own problems.

3) It's easy to find examples which are particularly hard to justify. For example, a child is abused by his father, and partly as a result, goes on to do evil himself (and we know statistically that this happens). If we use our everyday reasoning powers it would appear that no good has come, and that God could have done a lot if he had only the power of a social worker.

4) If we believe that we can affect change for the good, then this runs up against the idea that this is and always will be the best of all possible worlds. If the world so often is the best possible, when our judgment says otherwise, then how can we hope to improve it? For example, if we jail a serial killer, perhaps we are somehow violating his free will (which is presumably why God didn't do anything about him). Or if we vaccinate a child, perhaps we prevent that child or her parents from getting some benefit through suffering, which is presumably why God created the disease in the first place. We have to reject either theism or morality, and it appears that morality stands on firmer ground.

5) How do we know that Superman does not exist? Well, one way, is that since we know that he likes to prevent tragedies, and since he has some limited ability to do so, if he existed, we would see him in action more. A more powerful and good being than Superman would, and could, do even more. But no one would suggest such a being exists, because it is obvious that it doesn't for the same reason. But God is meant to be more powerful and more benevolent still. Could it be that the unfamiliarity of the concept of omnipotence prevents us from seeing the obvious conclusion?

Koyaanisqatsi

Another problem that is never addressed is the fact that the god in the bible intervenes on a regular and often horrific manner (because, of course, it is a fear-based motivational fraud), so, at least as far as the bible is concerned, this world could not possibly be "the best of all possible worlds," as evidenced in the bible, since god's intervention in our affairs (and threat of hell for misbehaving) proves that something is rotten in Denmark according to god, whose "judgement" will be parsed.

The only way the "problem of evil" can be resolved is through the dismissal of the bible as having anything to do with god and positing a god of utter indifference. The catholic cult tried to do this, indirectly, of course, in an illogical fashion when they concocted the extra-biblical concept of "free will."

If there is a god and this is the best of all possible worlds, then it necessarily must have been created and utterly abandoned by god the instant "he" created it, so that god only becomes an observer of his own experiment. The second "he" intervenes (including trifurcating and sending himself down to earth in order to commit suicide to save us all from his own wrath) is the second that this world cannot possibly be the "best of all possible worlds."

If it were the "best of all possible worlds," then there would be no need to intervene.

Q.E.D.

Unless, of course, you wish to argue that this is the "best of all possible worlds that god could create" (in order to slip in the loophole), but in that case you are illegitimately limiting god's omnimax abilities.

Suaup

Thanks for the advice, I realized that I was looking too hard to defeat the argument within the rules it established, instead of defeating the argument itself. Though it's too late to revise the paper, I'm very, very appreciative at the criticisms you gave me - it helps me to see these arguments a little differently, that in some cases it's best to not play in to their non-confirmable rules.

I'm awed at how brilliant the people in this community are.

I have one more question for this community - where do you gain the knowledge of your arguments? I've read quite a bit of the standard arguments but some of the perspectives I've seen here just blow my mind. Where does one obtain this knowledge?

Diana, it was nothing like that at all I prefer to wait till the responses even out so I can thank everyone together and write my individual notes of appreciation/questions. When I read your post I was laughing and chuckling at how you approached the argument and so-well debunked it. It really did amaze me. I didn't ask for advice to increase my grade, the paper was due on the day of our finals which already passed. I instead wanted to learn from this since we don't get our last paper back (so, no editorial or logic comments from my professor.) Thank you, it helped me see the argument and logic in general a bit different.

Beastmaster - that's a very thought provoking point. If God is logically constrained from creating a better world than the one we live in, how can heaven be justified? Thank you, that's a point I would have loved to have thought about before hand.

Sodium, Koyaanistatsi - Thanks for the perspectives. I've been scanning through Candide, I must say, for a philosophy satire it's bitterly hilarious. I'm simply amazed at the points you guys have, the more I read the posts here, the more I realize how little I know.

Thank you once again everyone, it's too late to revise the paper but that's not important. I learned much more from this by reading your points, sitting down and rationalizing them in the context of the critic's perspective, then seeing how I could have used them to take on the critic. I can't wait for another shot at this in the future - both in papers and in oral debates. Muchos Gracias!

diana

Well, every now and again, I find myself with my foot in my mouth. It looks like this is one of those times. My apologies for doubting your integrity.

In my (quasi-)defense, however, it is not uncommon for people to come here and ask us to write their papers for them. This is often accompanied by an appeal to pity.

Every since the Blue_Metal incident, I've been quite leery of people's "good intentions." While she didn't ask us to write a paper for her, she did quite blatantly plaigerize then come here expecting understanding and support.

We do have at least one poster that I think uses this forum to help write his papers, but he only uses us to attack his position so he can better defend it--which isn't quite the same thing (that would be Thomas Metcalf).

I'm glad you were able to learn something from our offerings, and I apologize again for accusing you of dishonesty.

I hope you stick around. (In answer to your question about how we learned this stuff,) you learn by doing.

d

Suaup

No problem Diana, I completely understand how you feel, but I think the fact that you gave me such good advice in the first place negates the other post .

After turning the paper in I just felt really uncomfortable about it, usually I'm much more confident about my arguments. I think I was too caught up in the counter argument, causing me to overlook the points about omnipotence. It's strange because my 2nd philosophical essay from last semester argued based on the omnipotence problems, just in a very poor manner instead of direct logical reasoning. For some reason, I still don't know why, I just didn't rationalize till seeing your points that I could apply the argument to the critic's position. I think it' s because I was accepting that their argument was objectively true, and trying to dismiss it based on those premises. I couldn't find a way to do it so just resorted to the benevolence and omnipotent contradiction and Anothny Flew's argument.

I know the argument doesn't show it, but I did put a lot of work in to it. My mind just hit some-sort of block, so I figured I'd get some advice from the experts to learn from my poor reasoning this time around. I did submit a rough draft to my professor, but he was so busy with other students that he didn't get the chance to review my paper and give me guidance about my points.

Thanks again for the advice, you can bet I'll be reading this board often. Hopefully when I get a better feel for the arguments, I'll even start contributing.

theophilus

Too bad you didn't have the intellectual chops to challenge the assignment on the basis that Smith's argument is purely subjective and can't be defended.
Morality can only be evaluated in context of some ultimate authority, i.e., God himself. There is no materialistic morality, matter is neither good nor bad, so earthquakes, as a function of matter, are neither good nor bad in and of themselves.
People, in a materialistic system, have no inherent worth and their pain and suffering are just functions of the natural order.

To say that "God is responsible" for this alleged immorality is to assume that God exists (as the ultimate authority of morality) ; it cannot, therefore be used as an argument against his
existence.