Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Intellectual Sacrifices for Affirming a PoE

Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 3:28:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here are the intellectual sacrifices that I believe an objector to theism must make for affirming a problem of evil.

I. Allowance of Christian Response:

The claim that gratuitous suffering makes theism improbable entails a perfectly legitimate Christian response. Thus the objector must show Christianity as improbable if the theist contends that the best answer for the problem of evil is found in Christ.

II. An affirmation of the irreducible & teleological mind as a substance / The denial of materialism & naturalism:

Ultimately evil is a problem of pain, but does pain qualia exist only as causal inputs & outputs? Surely pain appears more than just its relational features since the intrinsic nature of ‘hurt' is that it 'feels' bad. But if such quale are mere relational features then there wouldn't be a problem with pain; thus pain must be irreducible to physical states for there to be a PoE.

Also, if mental states have purpose then naturalism must be false otherwise there wouldn't be evil. Further if there exists no post-mortem consciousness, which is what Materialism entails, then there wouldn't be a PoE.

III. An affirmation of free will:
If determinism is true, then there wouldn't be anything to undermine a divine purpose, & so there wouldn't be a problem of evil.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So at minimum if you think there's a problem of evil you must give substance-dualists a serious hearing while denying functionalism, eliminativism & affirm that pain is irreducible quale with an intrinsic nature.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 3:36:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 3:28:05 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Here are the intellectual sacrifices that I believe an objector to theism must make for affirming a problem of evil.

I. Allowance of Christian Response:

The claim that gratuitous suffering makes theism improbable entails a perfectly legitimate Christian response. Thus the objector must show Christianity as improbable if the theist contends that the best answer for the problem of evil is found in Christ.

II. An affirmation of the irreducible & teleological mind as a substance / The denial of materialism & naturalism:

Ultimately evil is a problem of pain, but does pain qualia exist only as causal inputs & outputs? Surely pain appears more than just its relational features since the intrinsic nature of ‘hurt' is that it 'feels' bad. But if such quale are mere relational features then there wouldn't be a problem with pain; thus pain must be irreducible to physical states for there to be a PoE.

Also, if mental states have purpose then naturalism must be false otherwise there wouldn't be evil. Further if there exists no post-mortem consciousness, which is what Materialism entails, then there wouldn't be a PoE.

III. An affirmation of free will:
If determinism is true, then there wouldn't be anything to undermine a divine purpose, & so there wouldn't be a problem of evil.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So at minimum if you think there's a problem of evil you must give substance-dualists a serious hearing while denying functionalism, eliminativism & affirm that pain is irreducible quale with an intrinsic nature.

Putting forward a PoE does not require the acceptance of those premises since the goal is to undermine the conclusion of theism which, itself, depends on those premises.

That is, the purpose of the PoE is not to affirm those premises that you state, but rather to demonstrate that those premises, in addition to the tri-omni god, are inconsistent so some piece of the puzzle must fail.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 4:55:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 3:36:45 PM, drafterman wrote:

Putting forward a PoE does not require the acceptance of those premises since the goal is to undermine the conclusion of theism which, itself, depends on those premises.

That is, the purpose of the PoE is not to affirm those premises that you state, but rather to demonstrate that those premises, in addition to the tri-omni god, are inconsistent so some piece of the puzzle must fail.

Note that giving substance-dualists a serious hearing while denying functionalism, eliminativism & affirming that pain is irreducible quale with an intrinsic nature is not itself an affirmation of theism.

I agree the purpose of the PoE is not to 'demonstrate' those premises, indeed they aren't even premises. Rather these are simply the conditions logically presupposed if one thinks there is a problem of evil.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 5:49:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 3:28:05 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Here are the intellectual sacrifices that I believe an objector to theism must make for affirming a problem of evil.

I. Allowance of Christian Response:

The claim that gratuitous suffering makes theism improbable entails a perfectly legitimate Christian response. Thus the objector must show Christianity as improbable if the theist contends that the best answer for the problem of evil is found in Christ.

Huh?


II. An affirmation of the irreducible & teleological mind as a substance / The denial of materialism & naturalism:

Ultimately evil is a problem of pain, but does pain qualia exist only as causal inputs & outputs? Surely pain appears more than just its relational features since the intrinsic nature of ‘hurt' is that it 'feels' bad. But if such quale are mere relational features then there wouldn't be a problem with pain; thus pain must be irreducible to physical states for there to be a PoE.

So what if pain is reduced to physical states? You are not connecting the dots here.


Also, if mental states have purpose then naturalism must be false otherwise there wouldn't be evil. Further if there exists no post-mortem consciousness, which is what Materialism entails, then there wouldn't be a PoE.

This begs the question against Atheistic objective morality. Also, you have not supported your claims.

III. An affirmation of free will:
If determinism is true, then there wouldn't be anything to undermine a divine purpose, & so there wouldn't be a problem of evil.

I'm not naturalist, but not a determinist. There is no rule that to be a naturalist, you have to be a determinist.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So at minimum if you think there's a problem of evil you must give substance-dualists a serious hearing while denying functionalism, eliminativism & affirm that pain is irreducible quale with an intrinsic nature.

Your whole case was based on false assumptions and presuppositions. Next...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 5:56:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
(correction)

*I'm a naturalist, but not a determinist. There is no rule that to be a naturalist, you have to be a determinist.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 6:39:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 3:28:05 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Here are the intellectual sacrifices that I believe an objector to theism must make for affirming a problem of evil.

I. Allowance of Christian Response:

The claim that gratuitous suffering makes theism improbable entails a perfectly legitimate Christian response. Thus the objector must show Christianity as improbable if the theist contends that the best answer for the problem of evil is found in Christ.

II. An affirmation of the irreducible & teleological mind as a substance / The denial of materialism & naturalism:

Ultimately evil is a problem of pain, but does pain qualia exist only as causal inputs & outputs? Surely pain appears more than just its relational features since the intrinsic nature of ‘hurt' is that it 'feels' bad. But if such quale are mere relational features then there wouldn't be a problem with pain; thus pain must be irreducible to physical states for there to be a PoE.

Also, if mental states have purpose then naturalism must be false otherwise there wouldn't be evil. Further if there exists no post-mortem consciousness, which is what Materialism entails, then there wouldn't be a PoE.

III. An affirmation of free will:
If determinism is true, then there wouldn't be anything to undermine a divine purpose, & so there wouldn't be a problem of evil.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So at minimum if you think there's a problem of evil you must give substance-dualists a serious hearing while denying functionalism, eliminativism & affirm that pain is irreducible quale with an intrinsic nature.

Great topic and all great points.

In a debate I also added scientific lines of validation the objector had to overcome.
http://www.debate.org...

"- Do we see any evidence for such a belief, that God will eliminate any problem caused by evil, as plausible or even highly likely?

Do your own memories of pain and suffering fade? We completely see that time causes a slow fade to the memory of pain and suffering. How much more so when we consider the concept of how our relationship to pain and suffering would be viewed in an afterlife scenario?

We have good evidence to verify the belief that God will be able to deal with suffering and pain in a competent way as our very experience of self-awarenss reflects this gradual lessoning.[1]

This also barely scratches the surface of 1st, 2nd and 3rd Primal awareness of suffering, a clear distinction between animals and sentient humans. [2]"
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 6:46:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 5:49:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

II. An affirmation of the irreducible & teleological mind as a substance / The denial of materialism & naturalism:

Ultimately evil is a problem of pain, but does pain qualia exist only as causal inputs & outputs? Surely pain appears more than just its relational features since the intrinsic nature of ‘hurt' is that it 'feels' bad. But if such quale are mere relational features then there wouldn't be a problem with pain; thus pain must be irreducible to physical states for there to be a PoE.

So what if pain is reduced to physical states? You are not connecting the dots here.


He's saying that it isn't reducible to physical states, so at the very least a naturalist would have to accept property dualism (there are plenty of naturalists who do, btw). There are even a couple of "naturalistic", atheist substance dualists out there.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 9:51:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 5:49:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/16/2012 3:28:05 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Here are the intellectual sacrifices that I believe an objector to theism must make for affirming a problem of evil.

I. Allowance of Christian Response:

The claim that gratuitous suffering makes theism improbable entails a perfectly legitimate Christian response. Thus the objector must show Christianity as improbable if the theist contends that the best answer for the problem of evil is found in Christ.

Huh?

If the objector claims that evil disproves God, it's legitimate for the theist to say "not the Christian God!"

II. An affirmation of the irreducible & teleological mind as a substance / The denial of materialism & naturalism:

Ultimately evil is a problem of pain, but does pain qualia exist only as causal inputs & outputs? Surely pain appears more than just its relational features since the intrinsic nature of ‘hurt' is that it 'feels' bad. But if such quale are mere relational features then there wouldn't be a problem with pain; thus pain must be irreducible to physical states for there to be a PoE.

So what if pain is reduced to physical states? You are not connecting the dots here.

I am. I did. I asked the materialist alternative if pain quale is just causal or relational features. If pain actually is reduced to relational features, then there wouldn't be true pain quale.


Also, if mental states have purpose then naturalism must be false otherwise there wouldn't be evil. Further if there exists no post-mortem consciousness, which is what Materialism entails, then there wouldn't be a PoE.

This begs the question against Atheistic objective morality. Also, you have not supported your claims.

Naturalism that denies teleology, but a problem of evil requires teleology as a presupposition. And I supported this claim with, "if mental states have purpose then naturalism must be false otherwise there wouldn't be evil." A person chooses to torture a person another person for fun, say, but so what on naturalism? Where's the problem of evil if human's can't repurpose their goals?

Further what of beasts? Where's the problem of evil if beasts just existed throughout the course of evolution with no purpose other than naturalistic ones?

III. An affirmation of free will:
If determinism is true, then there wouldn't be anything to undermine a divine purpose, & so there wouldn't be a problem of evil.

I'm not naturalist, but not a determinist. There is no rule that to be a naturalist, you have to be a determinist.

Then why argue for naturalism? But then you say there's no 'rule' of deterministic naturalism and no doubt you'll probably appeal to quantum mechanics (a rather cheap appeal though if you so "decide"). Nevertheless this is a wholly different point, it's not using determinism to imply naturalism or anything like that, this point merely states that in a determined world there can be no moral evil if all we're doing is following the causal chain of events. Which is quite obvious.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So at minimum if you think there's a problem of evil you must give substance-dualists a serious hearing while denying functionalism, eliminativism & affirm that pain is irreducible quale with an intrinsic nature.

Your whole case was based on false assumptions and presuppositions. Next...

^Rhetoric.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 9:52:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 6:46:45 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/16/2012 5:49:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

II. An affirmation of the irreducible & teleological mind as a substance / The denial of materialism & naturalism:

Ultimately evil is a problem of pain, but does pain qualia exist only as causal inputs & outputs? Surely pain appears more than just its relational features since the intrinsic nature of ‘hurt' is that it 'feels' bad. But if such quale are mere relational features then there wouldn't be a problem with pain; thus pain must be irreducible to physical states for there to be a PoE.

So what if pain is reduced to physical states? You are not connecting the dots here.


He's saying that it isn't reducible to physical states, so at the very least a naturalist would have to accept property dualism (there are plenty of naturalists who do, btw). There are even a couple of "naturalistic", atheist substance dualists out there.

Emergence theories are also becoming increasingly popular.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 9:52:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 5:56:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
(correction)

*I'm a naturalist, but not a determinist. There is no rule that to be a naturalist, you have to be a determinist.

Right, again that's irrelevant to my point.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 9:55:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 6:39:39 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 7/16/2012 3:28:05 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Here are the intellectual sacrifices that I believe an objector to theism must make for affirming a problem of evil.

I. Allowance of Christian Response:

The claim that gratuitous suffering makes theism improbable entails a perfectly legitimate Christian response. Thus the objector must show Christianity as improbable if the theist contends that the best answer for the problem of evil is found in Christ.

II. An affirmation of the irreducible & teleological mind as a substance / The denial of materialism & naturalism:

Ultimately evil is a problem of pain, but does pain qualia exist only as causal inputs & outputs? Surely pain appears more than just its relational features since the intrinsic nature of ‘hurt' is that it 'feels' bad. But if such quale are mere relational features then there wouldn't be a problem with pain; thus pain must be irreducible to physical states for there to be a PoE.

Also, if mental states have purpose then naturalism must be false otherwise there wouldn't be evil. Further if there exists no post-mortem consciousness, which is what Materialism entails, then there wouldn't be a PoE.

III. An affirmation of free will:
If determinism is true, then there wouldn't be anything to undermine a divine purpose, & so there wouldn't be a problem of evil.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So at minimum if you think there's a problem of evil you must give substance-dualists a serious hearing while denying functionalism, eliminativism & affirm that pain is irreducible quale with an intrinsic nature.


Great topic and all great points.

In a debate I also added scientific lines of validation the objector had to overcome.
http://www.debate.org...

"- Do we see any evidence for such a belief, that God will eliminate any problem caused by evil, as plausible or even highly likely?

Do your own memories of pain and suffering fade? We completely see that time causes a slow fade to the memory of pain and suffering. How much more so when we consider the concept of how our relationship to pain and suffering would be viewed in an afterlife scenario?

We have good evidence to verify the belief that God will be able to deal with suffering and pain in a competent way as our very experience of self-awarenss reflects this gradual lessoning.[1]

This also barely scratches the surface of 1st, 2nd and 3rd Primal awareness of suffering, a clear distinction between animals and sentient humans. [2]"


Good points as well, I especially relate with the bold.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 10:57:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 9:56:34 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Haha, which is a lengthy way to say, 'time heals all wounds.'

lol. Got it in one.