Total Posts:80|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Dr. Craig's PoE Rebuttal

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 3:02:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I remember Dr. Craig arguing in his debates that the PoE is self-refuting as an argument against God, because it assumes evil exists, which assumes God exists. However, one can easily formulate a PoE to dodge this. One can just say that if God exists, moral realism is true, and thus action X would be really wrong if God exists, but if God exists, he wouldn't have allowed it in the first place. You can show an inconsistency in the idea of God. You don't actually have to assume moral realism in the actual world, just that if God exists, such an action would be actually immoral. The PoE still holds (assuming it is sound except for Dr. Craigs objection here), regardless of whether moral realism is true in the actual world or not. As long as it is true if God exists, you can still show a problem.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 3:42:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I thought that was Ravi Zacharias' rebuttal. Anyway, I'd respond it in a similar way. The POE points out an inconsistency in the theist's position. The atheist's position isn't really relevant. It's much like me claiming the source of colors is blue and not blue at the same time. You pointing out this is a contradiction doesn't mean you're wrong, because assuming colors exist mean assuming a color spectrum giver.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 9:14:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There are several different ways of raising the problem of evil. Craig is responding to one version of it, and you're just raising a different version. Alvin Plantinga addressed the version you're raising in his book, God Freedom and Evil, and Craig has also advocated Plantinga's response in some of his writings.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 11:15:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 9:14:21 PM, philochristos wrote:
There are several different ways of raising the problem of evil. Craig is responding to one version of it, and you're just raising a different version. Alvin Plantinga addressed the version you're raising in his book, God Freedom and Evil, and Craig has also advocated Plantinga's response in some of his writings.

Plantinga also addressed your argument against conceivability. What is your point?
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 11:35:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
To be fair, Craig uses this more as a rhetorical device to pivot back to his moral argument. Also, it's a pretty small part of Craig's PoE response (which includes skeptical theism, denial of animal awareness of pain, the evangelising effect of suffering and so on), so it's just one point he makes, in amongst a host of other, more developed criticisms of the PoE.

On the merits of it though, your essentially right. Even if "evil has no moral dimension (at least from an atheist perspective), gratuitous suffering still poses just as big a problem, provided theists accept such suffering would not exist, given theism (all else being equal).
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 12:02:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 11:35:14 AM, unitedandy wrote:
To be fair, Craig uses this more as a rhetorical device to pivot back to his moral argument. Also, it's a pretty small part of Craig's PoE response (which includes skeptical theism, denial of animal awareness of pain, the evangelising effect of suffering and so on), so it's just one point he makes, in amongst a host of other, more developed criticisms of the PoE.

I'm aware of Craig's extensive arsenal against the PoE. This thread is just regarding his one response that he uses in debates.


On the merits of it though, your essentially right. Even if "evil has no moral dimension (at least from an atheist perspective), gratuitous suffering still poses just as big a problem, provided theists accept such suffering would not exist, given theism (all else being equal).

Exactly. Which was my only point.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 1:11:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 3:02:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I remember Dr. Craig arguing in his debates that the PoE is self-refuting as an argument against God, because it assumes evil exists, which assumes God exists. However, one can easily formulate a PoE to dodge this. One can just say that if God exists, moral realism is true, and thus action X would be really wrong if God exists, but if God exists, he wouldn't have allowed it in the first place. You can show an inconsistency in the idea of God. You don't actually have to assume moral realism in the actual world, just that if God exists, such an action would be actually immoral. The PoE still holds (assuming it is sound except for Dr. Craigs objection here), regardless of whether moral realism is true in the actual world or not. As long as it is true if God exists, you can still show a problem.

So let put this in perspective,

You are reversing the argument and stating that God has allowed the conditions for evil to exist, therefore a benevolent God is your opinion can not exist. It doesn't necessarily follow that God doesn't exist. Just a benevolent God.

But then we have to resolve weather there is any meaning in suffering or not, as if to say, that there is no good that can come out of every instance of suffering.

How do you do this?

Granted some people suffer, but if their is an opportunity to learn from that suffering for the betterment of humanity as a whole, then the conditions are not really evil, but a step by step guide into a corrective way of living.

By the way, I am not acute with this argument, I am just giving it my best shot.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 1:15:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 1:11:17 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/28/2014 3:02:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I remember Dr. Craig arguing in his debates that the PoE is self-refuting as an argument against God, because it assumes evil exists, which assumes God exists. However, one can easily formulate a PoE to dodge this. One can just say that if God exists, moral realism is true, and thus action X would be really wrong if God exists, but if God exists, he wouldn't have allowed it in the first place. You can show an inconsistency in the idea of God. You don't actually have to assume moral realism in the actual world, just that if God exists, such an action would be actually immoral. The PoE still holds (assuming it is sound except for Dr. Craigs objection here), regardless of whether moral realism is true in the actual world or not. As long as it is true if God exists, you can still show a problem.

So let put this in perspective,

You are reversing the argument and stating that God has allowed the conditions for evil to exist, therefore a benevolent God is your opinion can not exist.

No, that's not what I'm doing but, ok.

It doesn't necessarily follow that God doesn't exist. Just a benevolent God.

I agree. In fact, I do think that some sort of God probably exists at this current time. The PoE is only against one type of God.


But then we have to resolve weather there is any meaning in suffering or not, as if to say, that there is no good that can come out of every instance of suffering.


How do you do this?


Granted some people suffer, but if their is an opportunity to learn from that suffering for the betterment of humanity as a whole, then the conditions are not really evil, but a step by step guide into a corrective way of living.

By the way, I am not acute with this argument, I am just giving it my best shot.

Well, if there is even one case of gratuitous suffering the argument goes through. Nobody doubts that there may be some cases where the suffering may lead to a greater good. It is the idea that all of them necessarily do that doesn't make much sense based on certain observations.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 1:49:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 1:15:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/29/2014 1:11:17 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/28/2014 3:02:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I remember Dr. Craig arguing in his debates that the PoE is self-refuting as an argument against God, because it assumes evil exists, which assumes God exists. However, one can easily formulate a PoE to dodge this. One can just say that if God exists, moral realism is true, and thus action X would be really wrong if God exists, but if God exists, he wouldn't have allowed it in the first place. You can show an inconsistency in the idea of God. You don't actually have to assume moral realism in the actual world, just that if God exists, such an action would be actually immoral. The PoE still holds (assuming it is sound except for Dr. Craigs objection here), regardless of whether moral realism is true in the actual world or not. As long as it is true if God exists, you can still show a problem.

So let put this in perspective,

You are reversing the argument and stating that God has allowed the conditions for evil to exist, therefore a benevolent God is your opinion can not exist.

No, that's not what I'm doing but, ok.

It doesn't necessarily follow that God doesn't exist. Just a benevolent God.

I agree. In fact, I do think that some sort of God probably exists at this current time. The PoE is only against one type of God.


But then we have to resolve weather there is any meaning in suffering or not, as if to say, that there is no good that can come out of every instance of suffering.


How do you do this?


Granted some people suffer, but if their is an opportunity to learn from that suffering for the betterment of humanity as a whole, then the conditions are not really evil, but a step by step guide into a corrective way of living.

By the way, I am not acute with this argument, I am just giving it my best shot.

Well, if there is even one case of gratuitous suffering the argument goes through. Nobody doubts that there may be some cases where the suffering may lead to a greater good. It is the idea that all of them necessarily do that doesn't make much sense based on certain observations.

I look at it like this, The suffering itself is an illusion, in that it is temporary and not a permanent thing. Although it's as real as anything at the time it's not permanent and forever lasting. The only permanence in the real world should be the soul or spiritual energy. I have arguments for this, but another time. Just take it on face value for now.
The only permanence is the fact that we are building ourselves a character and that character is what lasts forever. The character can only be forged through our own trial and error, and by making the choices we are faced with. This is what the goal of God is I think. Because ultimately he wants our good, but also doesn't want to create robots were they are forced to do good but rather he makes us choose between good and evil. The choices we make forge our character.

Therefore God created the conditions on the basis that we all eventually become better characters, and for those who don't, if there will be any, do so out of their own choices.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 1:58:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 1:49:08 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/29/2014 1:15:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/29/2014 1:11:17 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/28/2014 3:02:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I remember Dr. Craig arguing in his debates that the PoE is self-refuting as an argument against God, because it assumes evil exists, which assumes God exists. However, one can easily formulate a PoE to dodge this. One can just say that if God exists, moral realism is true, and thus action X would be really wrong if God exists, but if God exists, he wouldn't have allowed it in the first place. You can show an inconsistency in the idea of God. You don't actually have to assume moral realism in the actual world, just that if God exists, such an action would be actually immoral. The PoE still holds (assuming it is sound except for Dr. Craigs objection here), regardless of whether moral realism is true in the actual world or not. As long as it is true if God exists, you can still show a problem.

So let put this in perspective,

You are reversing the argument and stating that God has allowed the conditions for evil to exist, therefore a benevolent God is your opinion can not exist.

No, that's not what I'm doing but, ok.

It doesn't necessarily follow that God doesn't exist. Just a benevolent God.

I agree. In fact, I do think that some sort of God probably exists at this current time. The PoE is only against one type of God.


But then we have to resolve weather there is any meaning in suffering or not, as if to say, that there is no good that can come out of every instance of suffering.


How do you do this?


Granted some people suffer, but if their is an opportunity to learn from that suffering for the betterment of humanity as a whole, then the conditions are not really evil, but a step by step guide into a corrective way of living.

By the way, I am not acute with this argument, I am just giving it my best shot.

Well, if there is even one case of gratuitous suffering the argument goes through. Nobody doubts that there may be some cases where the suffering may lead to a greater good. It is the idea that all of them necessarily do that doesn't make much sense based on certain observations.

I look at it like this, The suffering itself is an illusion, in that it is temporary and not a permanent thing. Although it's as real as anything at the time it's not permanent and forever lasting. The only permanence in the real world should be the soul or spiritual energy. I have arguments for this, but another time. Just take it on face value for now.
The only permanence is the fact that we are building ourselves a character and that character is what lasts forever. The character can only be forged through our own trial and error, and by making the choices we are faced with. This is what the goal of God is I think. Because ultimately he wants our good, but also doesn't want to create robots were they are forced to do good but rather he makes us choose between good and evil. The choices we make forge our character.


Therefore God created the conditions on the basis that we all eventually become better characters, and for those who don't, if there will be any, do so out of their own choices.

Well, do you believe God is inherently good? If so, then he cannot choose between good and evil, because him choosing evil would be a logical contradiction for an omnibenevolent being. God is logically restricted to only do good in this scenario. Does this mean God is a robot? Does he not have free-will? If he still does, then even if we couldn't do evil, we would still have free-will.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 3:16:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 1:58:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/29/2014 1:49:08 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/29/2014 1:15:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/29/2014 1:11:17 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/28/2014 3:02:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I remember Dr. Craig arguing in his debates that the PoE is self-refuting as an argument against God, because it assumes evil exists, which assumes God exists. However, one can easily formulate a PoE to dodge this. One can just say that if God exists, moral realism is true, and thus action X would be really wrong if God exists, but if God exists, he wouldn't have allowed it in the first place. You can show an inconsistency in the idea of God. You don't actually have to assume moral realism in the actual world, just that if God exists, such an action would be actually immoral. The PoE still holds (assuming it is sound except for Dr. Craigs objection here), regardless of whether moral realism is true in the actual world or not. As long as it is true if God exists, you can still show a problem.

So let put this in perspective,

You are reversing the argument and stating that God has allowed the conditions for evil to exist, therefore a benevolent God is your opinion can not exist.

No, that's not what I'm doing but, ok.

It doesn't necessarily follow that God doesn't exist. Just a benevolent God.

I agree. In fact, I do think that some sort of God probably exists at this current time. The PoE is only against one type of God.


But then we have to resolve weather there is any meaning in suffering or not, as if to say, that there is no good that can come out of every instance of suffering.


How do you do this?


Granted some people suffer, but if their is an opportunity to learn from that suffering for the betterment of humanity as a whole, then the conditions are not really evil, but a step by step guide into a corrective way of living.

By the way, I am not acute with this argument, I am just giving it my best shot.

Well, if there is even one case of gratuitous suffering the argument goes through. Nobody doubts that there may be some cases where the suffering may lead to a greater good. It is the idea that all of them necessarily do that doesn't make much sense based on certain observations.

I look at it like this, The suffering itself is an illusion, in that it is temporary and not a permanent thing. Although it's as real as anything at the time it's not permanent and forever lasting. The only permanence in the real world should be the soul or spiritual energy. I have arguments for this, but another time. Just take it on face value for now.
The only permanence is the fact that we are building ourselves a character and that character is what lasts forever. The character can only be forged through our own trial and error, and by making the choices we are faced with. This is what the goal of God is I think. Because ultimately he wants our good, but also doesn't want to create robots were they are forced to do good but rather he makes us choose between good and evil. The choices we make forge our character.


Therefore God created the conditions on the basis that we all eventually become better characters, and for those who don't, if there will be any, do so out of their own choices.

Well, do you believe God is inherently good? If so, then he cannot choose between good and evil, because him choosing evil would be a logical contradiction for an omnibenevolent being. God is logically restricted to only do good in this scenario. Does this mean God is a robot? Does he not have free-will? If he still does, then even if we couldn't do evil, we would still have free-will.

I can't get past the idea that God is restricted by an overarching rule that exists outside of Him, or that God is unable to choose. God is good because God is fullof knowledge and by his very nature he is naturally good.

I can not accept that God has to nesserally be good. That makes no sense to me..

But we have had this conversation in the past and I guess I'm just happy to leave it there.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 3:22:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 3:16:13 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/29/2014 1:58:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/29/2014 1:49:08 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/29/2014 1:15:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/29/2014 1:11:17 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/28/2014 3:02:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I remember Dr. Craig arguing in his debates that the PoE is self-refuting as an argument against God, because it assumes evil exists, which assumes God exists. However, one can easily formulate a PoE to dodge this. One can just say that if God exists, moral realism is true, and thus action X would be really wrong if God exists, but if God exists, he wouldn't have allowed it in the first place. You can show an inconsistency in the idea of God. You don't actually have to assume moral realism in the actual world, just that if God exists, such an action would be actually immoral. The PoE still holds (assuming it is sound except for Dr. Craigs objection here), regardless of whether moral realism is true in the actual world or not. As long as it is true if God exists, you can still show a problem.

So let put this in perspective,

You are reversing the argument and stating that God has allowed the conditions for evil to exist, therefore a benevolent God is your opinion can not exist.

No, that's not what I'm doing but, ok.

It doesn't necessarily follow that God doesn't exist. Just a benevolent God.

I agree. In fact, I do think that some sort of God probably exists at this current time. The PoE is only against one type of God.


But then we have to resolve weather there is any meaning in suffering or not, as if to say, that there is no good that can come out of every instance of suffering.


How do you do this?


Granted some people suffer, but if their is an opportunity to learn from that suffering for the betterment of humanity as a whole, then the conditions are not really evil, but a step by step guide into a corrective way of living.

By the way, I am not acute with this argument, I am just giving it my best shot.

Well, if there is even one case of gratuitous suffering the argument goes through. Nobody doubts that there may be some cases where the suffering may lead to a greater good. It is the idea that all of them necessarily do that doesn't make much sense based on certain observations.

I look at it like this, The suffering itself is an illusion, in that it is temporary and not a permanent thing. Although it's as real as anything at the time it's not permanent and forever lasting. The only permanence in the real world should be the soul or spiritual energy. I have arguments for this, but another time. Just take it on face value for now.
The only permanence is the fact that we are building ourselves a character and that character is what lasts forever. The character can only be forged through our own trial and error, and by making the choices we are faced with. This is what the goal of God is I think. Because ultimately he wants our good, but also doesn't want to create robots were they are forced to do good but rather he makes us choose between good and evil. The choices we make forge our character.


Therefore God created the conditions on the basis that we all eventually become better characters, and for those who don't, if there will be any, do so out of their own choices.

Well, do you believe God is inherently good? If so, then he cannot choose between good and evil, because him choosing evil would be a logical contradiction for an omnibenevolent being. God is logically restricted to only do good in this scenario. Does this mean God is a robot? Does he not have free-will? If he still does, then even if we couldn't do evil, we would still have free-will.


I can't get past the idea that God is restricted by an overarching rule that exists outside of Him, or that God is unable to choose. God is good because God is fullof knowledge and by his very nature he is naturally good.

To go against his nature would be a logical contradiction. Thus, God is logically determined to do good. If he does bad, then he isn't God as God is intrinsically good by definition. Thus, he has to do good based on the laws of logic.


I can not accept that God has to nesserally be good. That makes no sense to me..

Well, it is true whether you like it or not. Unless you reject the rules of logic, then we have reject your argument.


But we have had this conversation in the past and I guess I'm just happy to leave it there.

W/e.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 3:46:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 3:22:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/29/2014 3:16:13 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/29/2014 1:58:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/29/2014 1:49:08 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/29/2014 1:15:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/29/2014 1:11:17 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/28/2014 3:02:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I remember Dr. Craig arguing in his debates that the PoE is self-refuting as an argument against God, because it assumes evil exists, which assumes God exists. However, one can easily formulate a PoE to dodge this. One can just say that if God exists, moral realism is true, and thus action X would be really wrong if God exists, but if God exists, he wouldn't have allowed it in the first place. You can show an inconsistency in the idea of God. You don't actually have to assume moral realism in the actual world, just that if God exists, such an action would be actually immoral. The PoE still holds (assuming it is sound except for Dr. Craigs objection here), regardless of whether moral realism is true in the actual world or not. As long as it is true if God exists, you can still show a problem.

So let put this in perspective,

You are reversing the argument and stating that God has allowed the conditions for evil to exist, therefore a benevolent God is your opinion can not exist.

No, that's not what I'm doing but, ok.

It doesn't necessarily follow that God doesn't exist. Just a benevolent God.

I agree. In fact, I do think that some sort of God probably exists at this current time. The PoE is only against one type of God.


But then we have to resolve weather there is any meaning in suffering or not, as if to say, that there is no good that can come out of every instance of suffering.


How do you do this?


Granted some people suffer, but if their is an opportunity to learn from that suffering for the betterment of humanity as a whole, then the conditions are not really evil, but a step by step guide into a corrective way of living.

By the way, I am not acute with this argument, I am just giving it my best shot.

Well, if there is even one case of gratuitous suffering the argument goes through. Nobody doubts that there may be some cases where the suffering may lead to a greater good. It is the idea that all of them necessarily do that doesn't make much sense based on certain observations.

I look at it like this, The suffering itself is an illusion, in that it is temporary and not a permanent thing. Although it's as real as anything at the time it's not permanent and forever lasting. The only permanence in the real world should be the soul or spiritual energy. I have arguments for this, but another time. Just take it on face value for now.
The only permanence is the fact that we are building ourselves a character and that character is what lasts forever. The character can only be forged through our own trial and error, and by making the choices we are faced with. This is what the goal of God is I think. Because ultimately he wants our good, but also doesn't want to create robots were they are forced to do good but rather he makes us choose between good and evil. The choices we make forge our character.


Therefore God created the conditions on the basis that we all eventually become better characters, and for those who don't, if there will be any, do so out of their own choices.

Well, do you believe God is inherently good? If so, then he cannot choose between good and evil, because him choosing evil would be a logical contradiction for an omnibenevolent being. God is logically restricted to only do good in this scenario. Does this mean God is a robot? Does he not have free-will? If he still does, then even if we couldn't do evil, we would still have free-will.


I can't get past the idea that God is restricted by an overarching rule that exists outside of Him, or that God is unable to choose. God is good because God is fullof knowledge and by his very nature he is naturally good.

To go against his nature would be a logical contradiction. Thus, God is logically determined to do good. If he does bad, then he isn't God as God is intrinsically good by definition. Thus, he has to do good based on the laws of logic.


I can not accept that God has to nesserally be good. That makes no sense to me..

Well, it is true whether you like it or not. Unless you reject the rules of logic, then we have reject your argument.

lol no it isn't, you are assuming it's true, God can do what ever he likes, granted if he chooses to be bad then he isn't benevolent, That is so obvious it isn't worth mentioning. But what you propose is even more ridiculous.

You propose a God who hasn't got a choice but to be good, th\at doesn't make God good, because then He is just being good because he has no choice. A little bit like a robot which is forced to act according to it's programing. God is not programed he creates the programs.


But we have had this conversation in the past and I guess I'm just happy to leave it there.

W/e.

Yeah Cheers.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 3:59:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 3:22:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/29/2014 3:16:13 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/29/2014 1:58:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/29/2014 1:49:08 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/29/2014 1:15:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/29/2014 1:11:17 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/28/2014 3:02:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I remember Dr. Craig arguing in his debates that the PoE is self-refuting as an argument against God, because it assumes evil exists, which assumes God exists. However, one can easily formulate a PoE to dodge this. One can just say that if God exists, moral realism is true, and thus action X would be really wrong if God exists, but if God exists, he wouldn't have allowed it in the first place. You can show an inconsistency in the idea of God. You don't actually have to assume moral realism in the actual world, just that if God exists, such an action would be actually immoral. The PoE still holds (assuming it is sound except for Dr. Craigs objection here), regardless of whether moral realism is true in the actual world or not. As long as it is true if God exists, you can still show a problem.

So let put this in perspective,

You are reversing the argument and stating that God has allowed the conditions for evil to exist, therefore a benevolent God is your opinion can not exist.

No, that's not what I'm doing but, ok.

It doesn't necessarily follow that God doesn't exist. Just a benevolent God.

I agree. In fact, I do think that some sort of God probably exists at this current time. The PoE is only against one type of God.


But then we have to resolve weather there is any meaning in suffering or not, as if to say, that there is no good that can come out of every instance of suffering.


How do you do this?


Granted some people suffer, but if their is an opportunity to learn from that suffering for the betterment of humanity as a whole, then the conditions are not really evil, but a step by step guide into a corrective way of living.

By the way, I am not acute with this argument, I am just giving it my best shot.

Well, if there is even one case of gratuitous suffering the argument goes through. Nobody doubts that there may be some cases where the suffering may lead to a greater good. It is the idea that all of them necessarily do that doesn't make much sense based on certain observations.

I look at it like this, The suffering itself is an illusion, in that it is temporary and not a permanent thing. Although it's as real as anything at the time it's not permanent and forever lasting. The only permanence in the real world should be the soul or spiritual energy. I have arguments for this, but another time. Just take it on face value for now.
The only permanence is the fact that we are building ourselves a character and that character is what lasts forever. The character can only be forged through our own trial and error, and by making the choices we are faced with. This is what the goal of God is I think. Because ultimately he wants our good, but also doesn't want to create robots were they are forced to do good but rather he makes us choose between good and evil. The choices we make forge our character.


Therefore God created the conditions on the basis that we all eventually become better characters, and for those who don't, if there will be any, do so out of their own choices.

Well, do you believe God is inherently good? If so, then he cannot choose between good and evil, because him choosing evil would be a logical contradiction for an omnibenevolent being. God is logically restricted to only do good in this scenario. Does this mean God is a robot? Does he not have free-will? If he still does, then even if we couldn't do evil, we would still have free-will.


I can't get past the idea that God is restricted by an overarching rule that exists outside of Him, or that God is unable to choose. God is good because God is fullof knowledge and by his very nature he is naturally good.

To go against his nature would be a logical contradiction.

Yes

Thus, God is logically determined to do good.

Yes, That's why God is good, because His nature is good and it's logical for God to be Good. Once again.

That's why He is good.

Not because he has no choice

But it is logical and God does what is logical as he is also the creator of logic.

If he does bad, then he isn't God as God is intrinsically good by definition.

No, only the definition of a benevolent God.

Thus, he has to do good based on the laws of logic.

No he doesn't, He is good because it is logical. God can still decide to be illogical and he would still be God, Just not your defintion of God.

God comes with many attributes, God is the Supreme eternal being amongst an infinite amount of eternal beings, he is the original ancestor of all living entites, he is the highest authority and the first in rank, the Supreme propieter of and the Supreme controller of all the planets and all the universes, He is the only uncreated being, everything else is created,

All these things and many more make God, God, And if He decides to be illogical, that will not knock him of his perch. He will still be God by many defintions. Just not the defintion of a benevolent God.


I can not accept that God has to nesserally be good. That makes no sense to me..

Well, it is true whether you like it or not. Unless you reject the rules of logic, then we have reject your argument.


But we have had this conversation in the past and I guess I'm just happy to leave it there.

W/e.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 4:03:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
God (tri-omni) cannot choose to do what is logically contradictory, as the laws of logic are necessary. Thus, since an omnibenevolent being is logically contradictory, thus, God cannot do evil.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 4:03:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
*God (tri-omni) cannot choose to do what is logically contradictory, as the laws of logic are necessary. Thus, since an omnibenevolent being doing evil is logically contradictory, God cannot do evil.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 4:12:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 4:03:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
*God (tri-omni) cannot choose to do what is logically contradictory, as the laws of logic are necessary. Thus, since an omnibenevolent being doing evil is logically contradictory, God cannot do evil.

There is no such thing as God can't choose.

And the laws of logic are only necessary for us, not for God. If God deems them necessary then they are, if God deems them not necessary then there not. It's whatever God deems, not that God has no choice.

If God has no choice, it's because he has choosen to have no choice.

There is no such thing as God can't choose.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 4:15:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 4:12:47 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/29/2014 4:03:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
*God (tri-omni) cannot choose to do what is logically contradictory, as the laws of logic are necessary. Thus, since an omnibenevolent being doing evil is logically contradictory, God cannot do evil.


There is no such thing as God can't choose.

And the laws of logic are only necessary for us, not for God. If God deems them necessary then they are, if God deems them not necessary then there not. It's whatever God deems, not that God has no choice.

If God has no choice, it's because he has choosen to have no choice.

There is no such thing as God can't choose.

The laws of logic are necessary for everyone. God (at least an omnibenevolent one) cannot do anything contradictory, like evil.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 4:19:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"If He should determine to do so, If He should gather to Himself His spirit and His breath, All flesh would perish together, And man would return to dust.

Job 34:15

God can determine exactly what he chooses.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 6:50:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 11:15:56 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/28/2014 9:14:21 PM, philochristos wrote:
There are several different ways of raising the problem of evil. Craig is responding to one version of it, and you're just raising a different version. Alvin Plantinga addressed the version you're raising in his book, God Freedom and Evil, and Craig has also advocated Plantinga's response in some of his writings.

Plantinga also addressed your argument against conceivability. What is your point?

I already made my point. I'll make it again in case I was unclear the first time.

There are several ways to raise the problem of evil. In other words, there are several versions of the argument from the problem of evil.

One version asserts, as one of its premises, that evil actually exists. That's the version that Craig was responding to.

Another version asserts that the Christian worldview contains a contradiction since it asserts both the existence of evil and the existence of an all powerful and wholly good God.

When this second version is brought up, Craig responds to it differently than he does the first version. He uses the same response that Alvin Plantinga used in his book, God Freedom and Evil.

So you have no actually rebutted Craig's response. Rather, you have simply brought up a different version of the problem of evil than the one Craig was responding to.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 11:30:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 6:50:35 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/29/2014 11:15:56 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/28/2014 9:14:21 PM, philochristos wrote:
There are several different ways of raising the problem of evil. Craig is responding to one version of it, and you're just raising a different version. Alvin Plantinga addressed the version you're raising in his book, God Freedom and Evil, and Craig has also advocated Plantinga's response in some of his writings.

Plantinga also addressed your argument against conceivability. What is your point?

I already made my point. I'll make it again in case I was unclear the first time.

There are several ways to raise the problem of evil. In other words, there are several versions of the argument from the problem of evil.

One version asserts, as one of its premises, that evil actually exists. That's the version that Craig was responding to.

Another version asserts that the Christian worldview contains a contradiction since it asserts both the existence of evil and the existence of an all powerful and wholly good God.

Hi Philochristos,

Do you have a brief summary as to how Plantinga resolves this problem?

When this second version is brought up, Craig responds to it differently than he does the first version. He uses the same response that Alvin Plantinga used in his book, God Freedom and Evil.


So you have no actually rebutted Craig's response. Rather, you have simply brought up a different version of the problem of evil than the one Craig was responding to.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 12:33:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 11:30:38 PM, johnlubba wrote:

Another version asserts that the Christian worldview contains a contradiction since it asserts both the existence of evil and the existence of an all powerful and wholly good God.

Hi Philochristos,

Do you have a brief summary as to how Plantinga resolves this problem?

He uses a procedure he called "giving a model of S." Here's a blurb from a paper I wrote in college:

The procedure goes like this: "to show that a set S is consistent you think of a possible state of affairs (it needn"t actually obtain) which is such that if it were actual, then all of the members of S would be true" (Plantinga 25). To show that (1) "God is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good," is consistent with (2) "Evil exists," one might find some proposition that is possible, in the broadly logical sense, and that together with (1) entails (2). One candidate might be (3) "God creates a world containing evil and has a good reason for doing so" (Plantinga 26).

He goes on to show that (3) describes a possible state of affairs and then answers objections. I wrote a paper about it in college I'll email you if you want. Or, you could just get his book. It's a short book.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
whatledge
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 2:06:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 12:33:27 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/29/2014 11:30:38 PM, johnlubba wrote:

Another version asserts that the Christian worldview contains a contradiction since it asserts both the existence of evil and the existence of an all powerful and wholly good God.

Hi Philochristos,

Do you have a brief summary as to how Plantinga resolves this problem?

He uses a procedure he called "giving a model of S." Here's a blurb from a paper I wrote in college:

The procedure goes like this: "to show that a set S is consistent you think of a possible state of affairs (it needn"t actually obtain) which is such that if it were actual, then all of the members of S would be true" (Plantinga 25). To show that (1) "God is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good," is consistent with (2) "Evil exists," one might find some proposition that is possible, in the broadly logical sense, and that together with (1) entails (2). One candidate might be (3) "God creates a world containing evil and has a good reason for doing so" (Plantinga 26).

He goes on to show that (3) describes a possible state of affairs and then answers objections. I wrote a paper about it in college I'll email you if you want. Or, you could just get his book. It's a short book.

In short, God created evil because he had a good reason for doing so. The Euthyphro Dilemma comes to mind here. If God can self-justify anything as good or evil, then it seems pointless to assert that he has a "good reason" for doing so. As anything good or bad is dictated by him and his logic alone. In other words, it just makes him a tyrant.
whatledge
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 2:25:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 4:12:47 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/29/2014 4:03:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
*God (tri-omni) cannot choose to do what is logically contradictory, as the laws of logic are necessary. Thus, since an omnibenevolent being doing evil is logically contradictory, God cannot do evil.


There is no such thing as God can't choose.

And the laws of logic are only necessary for us, not for God. If God deems them necessary then they are, if God deems them not necessary then there not. It's whatever God deems, not that God has no choice.

The laws of logic are necessary when discussing the idea of God, or discussing anything for that matter, especially if we are trying to make sense. It seems your argument here is that God creates logic or has a transcendent logic of his own. The problem in either case is akin to the Euthryphro Dilemma. Is what is logical because it is logical, or is it logical because God says it is? If the former, God must be bound by the universal logic that coexists with him; if the latter, there is no meaningful existence of logic because it is wholly arbitrary to what God desires. The latter is problematic, because it literally makes it pointless to make any claims about God, as he defies logic (and thus won't make any sense). God can literally be anything, even Satan himself, or a piece of rat dropping; no one can argue against any claim made about God because God defies logic and thus any sort of argument pertaining to logic (to define/characterize him) is inherently useless.


If God has no choice, it's because he has choosen to have no choice.

If god must have choice/freedom by his nature (as a necessity), then why are you denying rational_thinker's notion that god is benevolent by his nature (as the same necessity), meaning he cannot be malevolent. The Judeo-Christian God that you seem to be advocating is by nature "all-good," so his argument stands. His own omnipotence contradicts His own omnibenevolence.


There is no such thing as God can't choose.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 4:47:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 12:33:27 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/29/2014 11:30:38 PM, johnlubba wrote:

Another version asserts that the Christian worldview contains a contradiction since it asserts both the existence of evil and the existence of an all powerful and wholly good God.

Hi Philochristos,

Do you have a brief summary as to how Plantinga resolves this problem?

He uses a procedure he called "giving a model of S." Here's a blurb from a paper I wrote in college:

The procedure goes like this: "to show that a set S is consistent you think of a possible state of affairs (it needn"t actually obtain) which is such that if it were actual, then all of the members of S would be true" (Plantinga 25). To show that (1) "God is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good," is consistent with (2) "Evil exists," one might find some proposition that is possible, in the broadly logical sense, and that together with (1) entails (2). One candidate might be (3) "God creates a world containing evil and has a good reason for doing so" (Plantinga 26).

He goes on to show that (3) describes a possible state of affairs and then answers objections. I wrote a paper about it in college I'll email you if you want. Or, you could just get his book. It's a short book.

To say God would allow evil, you have to say the most perfectly good being possible has this modal property:

"Possibly the necessary condition for evil"

Over this one:

"Necessarily the necessary condition for only good"

To me, that is widely counter-intuitive, if not self-evidently false.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 11:19:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 2:25:44 AM, whatledge wrote:
At 1/29/2014 4:12:47 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/29/2014 4:03:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
*God (tri-omni) cannot choose to do what is logically contradictory, as the laws of logic are necessary. Thus, since an omnibenevolent being doing evil is logically contradictory, God cannot do evil.


There is no such thing as God can't choose.

And the laws of logic are only necessary for us, not for God. If God deems them necessary then they are, if God deems them not necessary then there not. It's whatever God deems, not that God has no choice.

The laws of logic are necessary when discussing the idea of God, or discussing anything for that matter, especially if we are trying to make sense. It seems your argument here is that God creates logic or has a transcendent logic of his own. The problem in either case is akin to the Euthryphro Dilemma. Is what is logical because it is logical, or is it logical because God says it is? If the former, God must be bound by the universal logic that coexists with him; if the latter, there is no meaningful existence of logic because it is wholly arbitrary to what God desires. The latter is problematic, because it literally makes it pointless to make any claims about God, as he defies logic (and thus won't make any sense). God can literally be anything, even Satan himself, or a piece of rat dropping; no one can argue against any claim made about God because God defies logic and thus any sort of argument pertaining to logic (to define/characterize him) is inherently useless.

You seem to cling to this idea that logic itself is absolute, when in fact it isn't, it's relative, and not absolute. God in fact is absolute. Logic is relative, not absolute. It's logical that the sun will rise tomorrow, but the suns rising is relative to other factors and not absolute.

Also quantum mechanics also defy logic, so how absolute is logic in this sense?

Also Gods ways are not our ways, that's written in the bible I believe, so God abide by our way of thinking but he has his own way. And believe you me, whatever God say's goes. Otherwise what's the use of being God.?


If God has no choice, it's because he has choosen to have no choice.

If god must have choice/freedom by his nature (as a necessity), then why are you denying rational_thinker's notion that god is benevolent by his nature (as the same necessity), meaning he cannot be malevolent. The Judeo-Christian God that you seem to be advocating is by nature "all-good," so his argument stands. His own omnipotence contradicts His own omnibenevolence.


There is no such thing as God can't choose.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 11:22:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
God does not abide by our way of thinking but instead has a higher way of thinking And believe you me, whatever God say's goes. Otherwise there is no meaning of calling God, God.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 11:29:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 12:33:27 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/29/2014 11:30:38 PM, johnlubba wrote:

Another version asserts that the Christian worldview contains a contradiction since it asserts both the existence of evil and the existence of an all powerful and wholly good God.

Hi Philochristos,

Do you have a brief summary as to how Plantinga resolves this problem?

He uses a procedure he called "giving a model of S." Here's a blurb from a paper I wrote in college:

The procedure goes like this: "to show that a set S is consistent you think of a possible state of affairs (it needn"t actually obtain) which is such that if it were actual, then all of the members of S would be true" (Plantinga 25). To show that (1) "God is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good," is consistent with (2) "Evil exists," one might find some proposition that is possible, in the broadly logical sense, and that together with (1) entails (2). One candidate might be (3) "God creates a world containing evil and has a good reason for doing so" (Plantinga 26).

God creates a world containing evil and has a good reason for doing so" (Plantinga

That's all I understood from all that, but thanks all the same.


He goes on to show that (3) describes a possible state of affairs and then answers objections. I wrote a paper about it in college I'll email you if you want. Or, you could just get his book. It's a short book.
whatledge
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 12:20:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You seem to cling to this idea that logic itself is absolute, when in fact it isn't, it's relative, and not absolute. God in fact is absolute. Logic is relative, not absolute. It's logical that the sun will rise tomorrow, but the suns rising is relative to other factors and not absolute.

So 1 + 1 = 2 is relative and not a logical truth? You seem to be confusing logic with perspective. Logic is bound by objective rules, we can't just start pulling things out of our hats and expect them to make sense. The existence of this very language we are typing suggests that there is a logical rule behind the way we communicate, breaking these rules would make communication impossible (as we would only make sense to ourselves, if everyone has their own linguistic logic).


Also quantum mechanics also defy logic, so how absolute is logic in this sense?

Quantum mechanics does not necessarily defy logic, we just do not understand all its significance and complexity. Not to mention, on a philosophic level, there is an objective logic revolving around Reason. Besides, quantum mechanics couldn't even be understood without math (which is founded by the principles of logic).


Also Gods ways are not our ways, that's written in the bible I believe, so God abide by our way of thinking but he has his own way. And believe you me, whatever God say's goes. Otherwise what's the use of being God.?

What makes you believe God abide by our way of thinking? Especially if he is absolute and his own logic?

There is no such thing as God can't choose.

If that is his nature, then he cannot choose to not be able to choose (a limitation to his omnipotence). By the same logic that it is God's inherent nature to be omnibenevolent, it follows that he cannot choose to be evil.