Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The problem of evil and a posteriori argument

socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think the problem of evil is generally moot in the face of a priori arguments for God, like the cosmological or ontological. We obviously don't have perfect epistemic capacities so it seems possible (i.e., conceivable) that we simply don't know why evil exists or if it actually contributes to an overall good.

But I was reading Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Philo brought up the fact that while we can incorporate evil into the existence of God when God's existence is already proven (in the instances of a priori arguments), there's no way to actually extrapolate the existence of God *from* the existence of evil. This is what we do with arguments a posteriori like the design argument. If the existence of God is predicated on what we see in the world, how do we extrapolate perfection and omnibenevolence as properties of God when we clearly don't see that in the world?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 3:31:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I think the problem of evil is generally moot in the face of a priori arguments for God, like the cosmological or ontological. We obviously don't have perfect epistemic capacities so it seems possible (i.e., conceivable) that we simply don't know why evil exists or if it actually contributes to an overall good.

But I was reading Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Philo brought up the fact that while we can incorporate evil into the existence of God when God's existence is already proven (in the instances of a priori arguments), there's no way to actually extrapolate the existence of God *from* the existence of evil. This is what we do with arguments a posteriori like the design argument. If the existence of God is predicated on what we see in the world, how do we extrapolate perfection and omnibenevolence as properties of God when we clearly don't see that in the world?

socialpinko Question: Could the resurrection of Jesus prove the perfection and omnibenevolence properties of God!?

FAITH is BELIEVING in what is not seen by the eyes, but the heart!
The heart tells us... Jesus LOVES us completely...TOTAL GIVING of his "Body, Soul and Divinity"! So completely that he gives his Body and Blood to be completely "Consumed"! This is perfect LOVE it is perfect "GOOD"!

Dogknox
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 4:36:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I think the problem of evil is generally moot in the face of a priori arguments for God, like the cosmological or ontological. We obviously don't have perfect epistemic capacities so it seems possible (i.e., conceivable) that we simply don't know why evil exists or if it actually contributes to an overall good.

But I was reading Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Philo brought up the fact that while we can incorporate evil into the existence of God when God's existence is already proven (in the instances of a priori arguments), there's no way to actually extrapolate the existence of God *from* the existence of evil. This is what we do with arguments a posteriori like the design argument. If the existence of God is predicated on what we see in the world, how do we extrapolate perfection and omnibenevolence as properties of God when we clearly don't see that in the world?

Evil is the absence of God, He is so good that He will not impose His Godhood on us; we must choose it.
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 4:48:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 4:36:02 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I think the problem of evil is generally moot in the face of a priori arguments for God, like the cosmological or ontological. We obviously don't have perfect epistemic capacities so it seems possible (i.e., conceivable) that we simply don't know why evil exists or if it actually contributes to an overall good.

But I was reading Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Philo brought up the fact that while we can incorporate evil into the existence of God when God's existence is already proven (in the instances of a priori arguments), there's no way to actually extrapolate the existence of God *from* the existence of evil. This is what we do with arguments a posteriori like the design argument. If the existence of God is predicated on what we see in the world, how do we extrapolate perfection and omnibenevolence as properties of God when we clearly don't see that in the world?

Evil is the absence of God, He is so good that He will not impose His Godhood on us; we must choose it.
So what about religions that promoted war and proclaimed innocence of Gods judgment to the people.
Were those priests; that blessed the battle grounds and wrote the faiths that they proclaimed to be benevolent. Were they showing Gods mercy and love by persecuting others religions?

Of course not, but the words of those men are preached and there are lots of people who accept and believe these teachings in many societies, and what is socially acceptable tends to be ignored.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 9:40:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
there's no way to actually extrapolate the existence of God *from* the existence of evil.

I think you can. You can make an argument like this:

1. If there's no God, then there's no morality (in the objective sense).
2. If there's no morality, then there's no evil.
3. There is evil.
4. Therefore, there's a God.
"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
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 10:21:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 9:40:48 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
there's no way to actually extrapolate the existence of God *from* the existence of evil.


I think you can. You can make an argument like this:

1. If there's no God, then there's no morality (in the objective sense).
2. If there's no morality, then there's no evil.
3. There is evil.
4. Therefore, there's a God.

Moral concepts =/= morality.

Or, concept of evil =/= actual evil.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 10:24:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 10:21:06 PM, phantom wrote:
At 10/21/2012 9:40:48 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
there's no way to actually extrapolate the existence of God *from* the existence of evil.


I think you can. You can make an argument like this:

1. If there's no God, then there's no morality (in the objective sense).
2. If there's no morality, then there's no evil.
3. There is evil.
4. Therefore, there's a God.

Moral concepts =/= morality.

Or, concept of evil =/= actual evil.

Never mind. I misread SP's statement so I suppose my objection does not apply.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 10:29:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I think the problem of evil is generally moot in the face of a priori arguments for God, like the cosmological or ontological. We obviously don't have perfect epistemic capacities so it seems possible (i.e., conceivable) that we simply don't know why evil exists or if it actually contributes to an overall good.

But I was reading Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Philo brought up the fact that while we can incorporate evil into the existence of God when God's existence is already proven (in the instances of a priori arguments), there's no way to actually extrapolate the existence of God *from* the existence of evil. This is what we do with arguments a posteriori like the design argument. If the existence of God is predicated on what we see in the world, how do we extrapolate perfection and omnibenevolence as properties of God when we clearly don't see that in the world?

I'm surprised no-one's brought up human free will as a response to the last sentence yet.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 11:15:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 10:29:37 PM, phantom wrote:
At 10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
If the existence of God is predicated on what we see in the world, how do we extrapolate perfection and omnibenevolence as properties of God when we clearly don't see that in the world?

I'm surprised no-one's brought up human free will as a response to the last sentence yet.

I don't see how free will could serve as a response to that statement. An appeal to free will might enable you to reconcile the existence of a perfect and omnibenevolent God, but I don't see how it would allow you to draw the conclusion that God is perfect and omnibenevolent from what we see in the world. I would answer Sociopinko differently and just say that I don't think we can infer that God is perfect or omnibenevolent just by observing the world. i've never seen anybody try to make a cosmological argument for God's perfection and omnibenevolence. Usually different arguments are invoked to infer those divine attributes, like the axiological argument, various ontological arguments, and arguments from the resurrection of Jesus and/or revelation or personal subjective experience.
"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
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 11:56:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I think the problem of evil is generally moot in the face of a priori arguments for God, like the cosmological or ontological.

Even if we granted that the ontological and cosmological arguments proved that gods existed, that wouldn't mean they contradicted the problem of evil (PoE).

If the Ont and Cos arguments proved that shapes exited, and the PoE proved that square circles were not among those existent shapes, that wouldn't mean that Ont and Cos contradicted the PoE.

The Ont and Cos arguments are pretty silly, but even if we pretended that they proved that some gods existed, they wouldn't prove that contradictory gods existed. The PoE just points out that one kind of god is contradictory. As far as the PoE is concerned, there could be a plethora of other gods, just not the square circle of a god who would prevent all evil if he could, and who can, and yet who doesn't.

There's no conflict between the PoE and the other arguments mentioned.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 11:59:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 9:40:48 PM, philochristos wrote:
1. If there's no God, then there's no morality (in the objective sense).
2. If there's no morality, then there's no evil.
3. There is evil.
4. Therefore, there's a God.

The first two premises are not defensible. We have no reason to believe them.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2012 12:19:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 11:59:48 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 10/21/2012 9:40:48 PM, philochristos wrote:
1. If there's no God, then there's no morality (in the objective sense).
2. If there's no morality, then there's no evil.
3. There is evil.
4. Therefore, there's a God.

The first two premises are not defensible. We have no reason to believe them.

Sure we do. The first premise can be defended in a number of ways. I have defended it on my blog here:

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

and here:

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

William Lane Craig defends it here:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

The second premise is true by definition. Morality just is what is right/wrong, good/evil, virtuous/vicious, etc.
"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
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2012 1:25:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/22/2012 12:19:14 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 10/21/2012 11:59:48 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 10/21/2012 9:40:48 PM, philochristos wrote:
1. If there's no God, then there's no morality (in the objective sense).
2. If there's no morality, then there's no evil.
3. There is evil.
4. Therefore, there's a God.

The first two premises are not defensible. We have no reason to believe them.

Sure we do. The first premise can be defended in a number of ways.

All of them wrong.

I have defended it on my blog here:

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

I made the mistake of clicking thru. Your "case" came down to this claim: "If there is no God, then whatever meaning and value we attribute to life is only relative." You had me read all of those paragraphs to reach that bald undefended claim? Shame on you.

and here:

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

Don't expect me to click thru again. Make your case here, if you think you have a case.

William Lane Craig defends it here:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

William Lane Craig is a mountebank.

The second premise is true by definition. Morality just is what is right/wrong, good/evil, virtuous/vicious, etc.

If the second premise is a definition, then the third one becomes false.
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2012 5:20:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 4:48:28 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 10/21/2012 4:36:02 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I think the problem of evil is generally moot in the face of a priori arguments for God, like the cosmological or ontological. We obviously don't have perfect epistemic capacities so it seems possible (i.e., conceivable) that we simply don't know why evil exists or if it actually contributes to an overall good.

But I was reading Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Philo brought up the fact that while we can incorporate evil into the existence of God when God's existence is already proven (in the instances of a priori arguments), there's no way to actually extrapolate the existence of God *from* the existence of evil. This is what we do with arguments a posteriori like the design argument. If the existence of God is predicated on what we see in the world, how do we extrapolate perfection and omnibenevolence as properties of God when we clearly don't see that in the world?

Evil is the absence of God, He is so good that He will not impose His Godhood on us; we must choose it.
So what about religions that promoted war and proclaimed innocence of Gods judgment to the people.
Were those priests; that blessed the battle grounds and wrote the faiths that they proclaimed to be benevolent. Were they showing Gods mercy and love by persecuting others religions?

Of course not, but the words of those men are preached and there are lots of people who accept and believe these teachings in many societies, and what is socially acceptable tends to be ignored.

Not sure of the context here..

But if we take the Crusades as an example, then they were fighting for Christianity whilst completely disregarding Christ's teachings.. On not living by the sword.. On loving one's enemies etc..

All the evil in the world shows God's love: it says 'do as you will, but Here, through my Son, is the way to me..'
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2012 11:02:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 10:29:37 PM, phantom wrote:
At 10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I think the problem of evil is generally moot in the face of a priori arguments for God, like the cosmological or ontological. We obviously don't have perfect epistemic capacities so it seems possible (i.e., conceivable) that we simply don't know why evil exists or if it actually contributes to an overall good.

But I was reading Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Philo brought up the fact that while we can incorporate evil into the existence of God when God's existence is already proven (in the instances of a priori arguments), there's no way to actually extrapolate the existence of God *from* the existence of evil. This is what we do with arguments a posteriori like the design argument. If the existence of God is predicated on what we see in the world, how do we extrapolate perfection and omnibenevolence as properties of God when we clearly don't see that in the world?

I'm surprised no-one's brought up human free will as a response to the last sentence yet.

That wouldn't work. My point is that you can incorporate evil into making it compatible with God (via epistemic limitations on our part) and I think this is perfectly valid, but I'm talking about arguments that look around and use that to extrapolate the existence of God. Given the existence of suffering and terrible evil, how does one conclude that an all perfect and benevolent being exists?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2012 12:49:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/22/2012 11:02:43 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/21/2012 10:29:37 PM, phantom wrote:
At 10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I think the problem of evil is generally moot in the face of a priori arguments for God, like the cosmological or ontological. We obviously don't have perfect epistemic capacities so it seems possible (i.e., conceivable) that we simply don't know why evil exists or if it actually contributes to an overall good.

But I was reading Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Philo brought up the fact that while we can incorporate evil into the existence of God when God's existence is already proven (in the instances of a priori arguments), there's no way to actually extrapolate the existence of God *from* the existence of evil. This is what we do with arguments a posteriori like the design argument. If the existence of God is predicated on what we see in the world, how do we extrapolate perfection and omnibenevolence as properties of God when we clearly don't see that in the world?

I'm surprised no-one's brought up human free will as a response to the last sentence yet.

That wouldn't work. My point is that you can incorporate evil into making it compatible with God (via epistemic limitations on our part) and I think this is perfectly valid, but I'm talking about arguments that look around and use that to extrapolate the existence of God. Given the existence of suffering and terrible evil, how does one conclude that an all perfect and benevolent being exists?

Evil is the thoughts of the devil acted out by man.

God does not control us, therefore he does not control evil.
Suqua
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 12:39:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I think the problem of evil is generally moot in the face of a priori arguments for God, like the cosmological or ontological. We obviously don't have perfect epistemic capacities so it seems possible (i.e., conceivable) that we simply don't know why evil exists or if it actually contributes to an overall good.

But I was reading Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Philo brought up the fact that while we can incorporate evil into the existence of God when God's existence is already proven (in the instances of a priori arguments), there's no way to actually extrapolate the existence of God *from* the existence of evil. This is what we do with arguments a posteriori like the design argument. If the existence of God is predicated on what we see in the world, how do we extrapolate perfection and omnibenevolence as properties of God when we clearly don't see that in the world?

"In the world" , what is your meaning? Sorry to pull this apart, but bear with me.!
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 12:53:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 12:39:56 AM, Suqua wrote:
At 10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
If the existence of God is predicated on what we see in the world, how do we extrapolate perfection and omnibenevolence as properties of God when we clearly don't see that in the world?

"In the world" , what is your meaning? Sorry to pull this apart, but bear with me.!

We observe the world, the universe, god's creation. What we observe is a mix of good and bad. Is it possible to infer from that mixture that the creator is all good or all bad?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 12:58:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 12:53:02 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:39:56 AM, Suqua wrote:
At 10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
If the existence of God is predicated on what we see in the world, how do we extrapolate perfection and omnibenevolence as properties of God when we clearly don't see that in the world?

"In the world" , what is your meaning? Sorry to pull this apart, but bear with me.!

We observe the world, the universe, god's creation. What we observe is a mix of good and bad. Is it possible to infer from that mixture that the creator is all good or all bad?

That. If we're strictly inferring from the world around us, we're inevitably led to a mix of evil/good traits in the deity. That is, unless we posit some insane post hoc justification for the way the world looks (lookin' at you Genesis). If we arrive at God wholly empirically, I'd assume God would either be divided into different types for different phenomenon while also being profoundly more human-like than the Judeo-Christian God. Basically see Greek/Roman conceptions of their deities.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Suqua
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 1:08:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 12:53:02 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:39:56 AM, Suqua wrote:
At 10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
If the existence of God is predicated on what we see in the world, how do we extrapolate perfection and omnibenevolence as properties of God when we clearly don't see that in the world?

"In the world" , what is your meaning? Sorry to pull this apart, but bear with me.!

We observe the world, the universe, god's creation. What we observe is a mix of good and bad. Is it possible to infer from that mixture that the creator is all good or all bad?

Thanks for that, but I'm waiting on socialpinko to define what his clearer meaning on it is, since he wrote it. But thanks anyway!
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 1:09:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 1:08:26 AM, Suqua wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:53:02 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:39:56 AM, Suqua wrote:
At 10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
If the existence of God is predicated on what we see in the world, how do we extrapolate perfection and omnibenevolence as properties of God when we clearly don't see that in the world?

"In the world" , what is your meaning? Sorry to pull this apart, but bear with me.!

We observe the world, the universe, god's creation. What we observe is a mix of good and bad. Is it possible to infer from that mixture that the creator is all good or all bad?

Thanks for that, but I'm waiting on socialpinko to define what his clearer meaning on it is, since he wrote it. But thanks anyway!

What Wiploc said, obviously.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Suqua
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 1:35:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 1:09:47 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/31/2012 1:08:26 AM, Suqua wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:53:02 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:39:56 AM, Suqua wrote:
At 10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
If the existence of God is predicated on what we see in the world, how do we extrapolate perfection and omnibenevolence as properties of God when we clearly don't see that in the world?

"In the world" , what is your meaning? Sorry to pull this apart, but bear with me.!

We observe the world, the universe, god's creation. What we observe is a mix of good and bad. Is it possible to infer from that mixture that the creator is all good or all bad?


Thanks for that, but I'm waiting on socialpinko to define what his clearer meaning on it is, since he wrote it. But thanks anyway!

What Wiploc said, obviously.

Obviously, No!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 5:04:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 12:53:02 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:39:56 AM, Suqua wrote:
At 10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
If the existence of God is predicated on what we see in the world, how do we extrapolate perfection and omnibenevolence as properties of God when we clearly don't see that in the world?

"In the world" , what is your meaning? Sorry to pull this apart, but bear with me.!

We observe the world, the universe, god's creation. What we observe is a mix of good and bad. Is it possible to infer from that mixture that the creator is all good or all bad?

That inference cannot be made accurately because you're judging the creation and the Creator, by the standards of your own morality. As a non-omniscient creation with free will, you have the ability to question the motives and morality of the Creator, but not the ability to see what He sees, or know what He knows. Therefore, no matter how good you think you are, you don't have the proper perspective with which to judge whether the creation, or the Creator, is bad, or maximally perfect.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 5:19:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 5:04:12 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:53:02 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:39:56 AM, Suqua wrote:
At 10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
If the existence of God is predicated on what we see in the world, how do we extrapolate perfection and omnibenevolence as properties of God when we clearly don't see that in the world?

"In the world" , what is your meaning? Sorry to pull this apart, but bear with me.!

We observe the world, the universe, god's creation. What we observe is a mix of good and bad. Is it possible to infer from that mixture that the creator is all good or all bad?

That inference cannot be made accurately because you're judging the creation and the Creator, by the standards of your own morality. As a non-omniscient creation with free will, you have the ability to question the motives and morality of the Creator, but not the ability to see what He sees, or know what He knows. Therefore, no matter how good you think you are, you don't have the proper perspective with which to judge whether the creation, or the Creator, is bad, or maximally perfect.

Okay this is the problem. You're looking for post hoc justifications after the fact. Yes I admit it's pretty easy to invoke the fact that we're not omniscient to just say "oh well Gawd has his reasons" but what you can't do is infer the existence of an all good being *from* the world we see. This is what you're doing.

Presupposition: God exists:
Observation: The world kinda sucks.
Explanation: Don't worry that's just God's plan.

Now if you come to believe in God by a priori reasoning that's all well and good, but if you're relying on empirical evidence, you fail to actually justify the presupposition that God exists since it's exactly by way of observation that a posteriori arguments seek to establish God in the first place! Therefore God's mysterious plan are just cop-outs to an actual explanation.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 1:41:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I think the problem of evil is generally moot in the face of a priori arguments for God, like the cosmological or ontological. We obviously don't have perfect epistemic capacities so it seems possible (i.e., conceivable) that we simply don't know why evil exists or if it actually contributes to an overall good.

But I was reading Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Philo brought up the fact that while we can incorporate evil into the existence of God when God's existence is already proven (in the instances of a priori arguments), there's no way to actually extrapolate the existence of God *from* the existence of evil. This is what we do with arguments a posteriori like the design argument. If the existence of God is predicated on what we see in the world, how do we extrapolate perfection and omnibenevolence as properties of God when we clearly don't see that in the world?

Atheistic arguments and Theistic argument both fail. The Problem of Evil argument is just as bad as the Cosmological argument or the Ontological argument.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 4:03:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 5:19:59 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/31/2012 5:04:12 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:53:02 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:39:56 AM, Suqua wrote:
At 10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
If the existence of God is predicated on what we see in the world, how do we extrapolate perfection and omnibenevolence as properties of God when we clearly don't see that in the world?

"In the world" , what is your meaning? Sorry to pull this apart, but bear with me.!

We observe the world, the universe, god's creation. What we observe is a mix of good and bad. Is it possible to infer from that mixture that the creator is all good or all bad?

That inference cannot be made accurately because you're judging the creation and the Creator, by the standards of your own morality. As a non-omniscient creation with free will, you have the ability to question the motives and morality of the Creator, but not the ability to see what He sees, or know what He knows. Therefore, no matter how good you think you are, you don't have the proper perspective with which to judge whether the creation, or the Creator, is bad, or maximally perfect.

Okay this is the problem. You're looking for post hoc justifications after the fact. Yes I admit it's pretty easy to invoke the fact that we're not omniscient to just say "oh well Gawd has his reasons" but what you can't do is infer the existence of an all good being *from* the world we see. This is what you're doing.

If you can't argue from after the fact then your own argument falls apart. You can't say that if God existed, things would be a certain way. That's a presupposition within a presupposition. That part of your argument would have to be dropped, otherwise you're special pleading. The person making the argument against God is making many presuppositions...

That God doesn't exist.
That the world wasn't maximally perfect at creation.
That their view of the state of the world is the correct view.
That their standard by which they judge is the correct standard.
That if God existed (notice the presupposition of existence within the larger presupposition), He would create the world in any particular way.

Presupposition: God exists
Observation: Evil exists
Explanation: If there is no God then there is no objective means by which to determine that evil even exists. Therefore, if objective evil exists, then God must necessarily exist. If objective evil does not exist, then there is no problem of evil.

Your observation supports my presupposition, and turns evil into logical proof of God's existence.

Now if you come to believe in God by a priori reasoning that's all well and good, but if you're relying on empirical evidence, you fail to actually justify the presupposition that God exists since it's exactly by way of observation that a posteriori arguments seek to establish God in the first place! Therefore God's mysterious plan are just cop-outs to an actual explanation.

There's no reference to a mysterious plan. Your observation is all I need.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 4:10:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 1:41:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I think the problem of evil is generally moot in the face of a priori arguments for God, like the cosmological or ontological. We obviously don't have perfect epistemic capacities so it seems possible (i.e., conceivable) that we simply don't know why evil exists or if it actually contributes to an overall good.

But I was reading Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Philo brought up the fact that while we can incorporate evil into the existence of God when God's existence is already proven (in the instances of a priori arguments), there's no way to actually extrapolate the existence of God *from* the existence of evil. This is what we do with arguments a posteriori like the design argument. If the existence of God is predicated on what we see in the world, how do we extrapolate perfection and omnibenevolence as properties of God when we clearly don't see that in the world?

Atheistic arguments and Theistic argument both fail. The Problem of Evil argument is just as bad as the Cosmological argument or the Ontological argument.

The problem of evil works in a few cases depending on specifics. Otherwise I agree.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Suqua
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 6:06:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 12:58:37 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:53:02 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:39:56 AM, Suqua wrote:
At 10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
If the existence of God is predicated on what we see in the world, how do we extrapolate perfection and omnibenevolence as properties of God when we clearly don't see that in the world?

"In the world" , what is your meaning? Sorry to pull this apart, but bear with me.!

We observe the world, the universe, god's creation. What we observe is a mix of good and bad. Is it possible to infer from that mixture that the creator is all good or all bad?

That. If we're strictly inferring from the world around us, we're inevitably led to a mix of evil/good traits in the deity. That is, unless we posit some insane post hoc justification for the way the world looks (lookin' at you Genesis). If we arrive at God wholly empirically, I'd assume God would either be divided into different types for different phenomenon while also being profoundly more human-like than the Judeo-Christian God. Basically see Greek/Roman conceptions of their deities.

Unless we look at the world before sin entered the picture, then you are going to come up with your conclusion, and trying to explain this idea of a good god. Not the way it was intended or the intention of it!!! Then whats the point, we'll all agree with you.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 9:41:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 4:10:11 PM, phantom wrote:
At 10/31/2012 1:41:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I think the problem of evil is generally moot in the face of a priori arguments for God, like the cosmological or ontological. We obviously don't have perfect epistemic capacities so it seems possible (i.e., conceivable) that we simply don't know why evil exists or if it actually contributes to an overall good.

But I was reading Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Philo brought up the fact that while we can incorporate evil into the existence of God when God's existence is already proven (in the instances of a priori arguments), there's no way to actually extrapolate the existence of God *from* the existence of evil. This is what we do with arguments a posteriori like the design argument. If the existence of God is predicated on what we see in the world, how do we extrapolate perfection and omnibenevolence as properties of God when we clearly don't see that in the world?

Atheistic arguments and Theistic argument both fail. The Problem of Evil argument is just as bad as the Cosmological argument or the Ontological argument.

The problem of evil works in a few cases depending on specifics. Otherwise I agree.

Could you post an example?? I don't think I've ever seen it argued in a way that is effective.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 10:31:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 3:00:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I think the problem of evil is generally moot in the face of a priori arguments for God, like the cosmological or ontological. We obviously don't have perfect epistemic capacities so it seems possible (i.e., conceivable) that we simply don't know why evil exists or if it actually contributes to an overall good.

But I was reading Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Philo brought up the fact that while we can incorporate evil into the existence of God when God's existence is already proven (in the instances of a priori arguments), there's no way to actually extrapolate the existence of God *from* the existence of evil. This is what we do with arguments a posteriori like the design argument. If the existence of God is predicated on what we see in the world, how do we extrapolate perfection and omnibenevolence as properties of God when we clearly don't see that in the world?

The cosological and teleological arguments in general are a posteriori...

They have evidence-led premises.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...