Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Changed my mind on the PoE

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 11:13:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would like both atheists to weigh in. The basic formulation for the PoE is:

P1) If God exists evil would not exist
P2) Evil exists
C) Therefore God does not exist

There are lots of variations of this with gratuitous suffering, etc, but none of them matter. If seems that anyone who endorses divine command theory automatically gets by this argument, where omnibenevolence is defined according to God's nature, or will.

Of course I don't think it helps the theist who advocates for an omnibenevolent god, as what is 'Good' becomes completely detached from human or sentient well being, and indeed even a God who prefers everything to burn would automatically have it's actions defined as 'Good'.

This pretty much comes from the other born of the Euthyphro Dilemma, where Good is arbitrarily defined according to what God is, or what he commands. Ergo if God commands the torture rape and murder of millions of Jews, Muslims, or Christians for example, it would automatically be good, even if those people have no enumeration after dying.

In either case, this appears to be a water tight rebuttal to the PoE.

/rant /thesis
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 11:19:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 11:13:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
I would like both atheists to weigh in. The basic formulation for the PoE is:

P1) If God exists evil would not exist
P2) Evil exists
C) Therefore God does not exist

There are lots of variations of this with gratuitous suffering, etc, but none of them matter. If seems that anyone who endorses divine command theory automatically gets by this argument, where omnibenevolence is defined according to God's nature, or will.

Of course I don't think it helps the theist who advocates for an omnibenevolent god, as what is 'Good' becomes completely detached from human or sentient well being, and indeed even a God who prefers everything to burn would automatically have it's actions defined as 'Good'.

This pretty much comes from the other born of the Euthyphro Dilemma, where Good is arbitrarily defined according to what God is, or what he commands. Ergo if God commands the torture rape and murder of millions of Jews, Muslims, or Christians for example, it would automatically be good, even if those people have no enumeration after dying.

In either case, this appears to be a water tight rebuttal to the PoE.

/rant /thesis

I would rebut this argument on the grounds that gratuitous suffering does't exist. If overall good is maximized by actualizing evil, this becomes a fallacious argument. I'm sure people appreciate what that have by recognizing a state of having absence of anything. It's very possible that evil is a way of appreciating the overall good in everything.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 11:23:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 11:13:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
I would like both atheists to weigh in. The basic formulation for the PoE is:

P1) If God exists evil would not exist
P2) Evil exists
C) Therefore God does not exist

This pretty much comes from the other born of the Euthyphro Dilemma, where Good is arbitrarily defined according to what God is, or what he commands. Ergo if God commands the torture rape and murder of millions of Jews, Muslims, or Christians for example, it would automatically be good, even if those people have no enumeration after dying.

In either case, this appears to be a water tight rebuttal to the PoE.

/rant /thesis

Evil is like the cold or a hole in the wall. It has no true existence. You cannot describe a hole in the wall without describing the absence of wall.

Regardless, I don't think the water tight rebuttal helps the theists case. While it does refute the PoE, I don't think people would endorse a God that commands murder to be good.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 11:30:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 11:23:16 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:13:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
I would like both atheists to weigh in. The basic formulation for the PoE is:

P1) If God exists evil would not exist
P2) Evil exists
C) Therefore God does not exist

This pretty much comes from the other born of the Euthyphro Dilemma, where Good is arbitrarily defined according to what God is, or what he commands. Ergo if God commands the torture rape and murder of millions of Jews, Muslims, or Christians for example, it would automatically be good, even if those people have no enumeration after dying.

In either case, this appears to be a water tight rebuttal to the PoE.

/rant /thesis

Evil is like the cold or a hole in the wall. It has no true existence. You cannot describe a hole in the wall without describing the absence of wall.

That seems absurd given that there are a-moral actions and morally neutral actions. By that take on evil morally neutral actions are as bad as the most immoral actions.

Regardless, I don't think the water tight rebuttal helps the theists case. While it does refute the PoE, I don't think people would endorse a God that commands murder to be good.

True, but it's the only good defence I have found so far for the PoE, and often defences to it fall back to this type of argumentation.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 11:31:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 11:19:14 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:13:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
I would like both atheists to weigh in. The basic formulation for the PoE is:

P1) If God exists evil would not exist
P2) Evil exists
C) Therefore God does not exist

There are lots of variations of this with gratuitous suffering, etc, but none of them matter. If seems that anyone who endorses divine command theory automatically gets by this argument, where omnibenevolence is defined according to God's nature, or will.

Of course I don't think it helps the theist who advocates for an omnibenevolent god, as what is 'Good' becomes completely detached from human or sentient well being, and indeed even a God who prefers everything to burn would automatically have it's actions defined as 'Good'.

This pretty much comes from the other born of the Euthyphro Dilemma, where Good is arbitrarily defined according to what God is, or what he commands. Ergo if God commands the torture rape and murder of millions of Jews, Muslims, or Christians for example, it would automatically be good, even if those people have no enumeration after dying.

In either case, this appears to be a water tight rebuttal to the PoE.

/rant /thesis

I would rebut this argument on the grounds that gratuitous suffering does't exist. If overall good is maximized by actualizing evil, this becomes a fallacious argument. I'm sure people appreciate what that have by recognizing a state of having absence of anything. It's very possible that evil is a way of appreciating the overall good in everything.

Then you are conceding god isn't omnipotent. Since he could accomplish all of that without needing to use evil.

But that is off topic.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 11:34:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 11:31:43 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:19:14 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:13:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
I would like both atheists to weigh in. The basic formulation for the PoE is:

P1) If God exists evil would not exist
P2) Evil exists
C) Therefore God does not exist

There are lots of variations of this with gratuitous suffering, etc, but none of them matter. If seems that anyone who endorses divine command theory automatically gets by this argument, where omnibenevolence is defined according to God's nature, or will.

Of course I don't think it helps the theist who advocates for an omnibenevolent god, as what is 'Good' becomes completely detached from human or sentient well being, and indeed even a God who prefers everything to burn would automatically have it's actions defined as 'Good'.

This pretty much comes from the other born of the Euthyphro Dilemma, where Good is arbitrarily defined according to what God is, or what he commands. Ergo if God commands the torture rape and murder of millions of Jews, Muslims, or Christians for example, it would automatically be good, even if those people have no enumeration after dying.

In either case, this appears to be a water tight rebuttal to the PoE.

/rant /thesis

I would rebut this argument on the grounds that gratuitous suffering does't exist. If overall good is maximized by actualizing evil, this becomes a fallacious argument. I'm sure people appreciate what that have by recognizing a state of having absence of anything. It's very possible that evil is a way of appreciating the overall good in everything.

Then you are conceding god isn't omnipotent. Since he could accomplish all of that without needing to use evil.

But that is off topic.

Assuming human beings have free will, and freely choose to do evil, this doesn't rebut God's omnipotence at all.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 11:36:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 11:34:10 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:31:43 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:19:14 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:13:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
I would like both atheists to weigh in. The basic formulation for the PoE is:

P1) If God exists evil would not exist
P2) Evil exists
C) Therefore God does not exist

There are lots of variations of this with gratuitous suffering, etc, but none of them matter. If seems that anyone who endorses divine command theory automatically gets by this argument, where omnibenevolence is defined according to God's nature, or will.

Of course I don't think it helps the theist who advocates for an omnibenevolent god, as what is 'Good' becomes completely detached from human or sentient well being, and indeed even a God who prefers everything to burn would automatically have it's actions defined as 'Good'.

This pretty much comes from the other born of the Euthyphro Dilemma, where Good is arbitrarily defined according to what God is, or what he commands. Ergo if God commands the torture rape and murder of millions of Jews, Muslims, or Christians for example, it would automatically be good, even if those people have no enumeration after dying.

In either case, this appears to be a water tight rebuttal to the PoE.

/rant /thesis

I would rebut this argument on the grounds that gratuitous suffering does't exist. If overall good is maximized by actualizing evil, this becomes a fallacious argument. I'm sure people appreciate what that have by recognizing a state of having absence of anything. It's very possible that evil is a way of appreciating the overall good in everything.

Then you are conceding god isn't omnipotent. Since he could accomplish all of that without needing to use evil.

But that is off topic.

Assuming human beings have free will, and freely choose to do evil, this doesn't rebut God's omnipotence at all.

Free will has nothing to do with naturalistic evil. Or any evil that is not directly a result of human choices.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 11:37:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 11:36:32 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:34:10 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:31:43 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:19:14 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:13:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
I would like both atheists to weigh in. The basic formulation for the PoE is:

P1) If God exists evil would not exist
P2) Evil exists
C) Therefore God does not exist

There are lots of variations of this with gratuitous suffering, etc, but none of them matter. If seems that anyone who endorses divine command theory automatically gets by this argument, where omnibenevolence is defined according to God's nature, or will.

Of course I don't think it helps the theist who advocates for an omnibenevolent god, as what is 'Good' becomes completely detached from human or sentient well being, and indeed even a God who prefers everything to burn would automatically have it's actions defined as 'Good'.

This pretty much comes from the other born of the Euthyphro Dilemma, where Good is arbitrarily defined according to what God is, or what he commands. Ergo if God commands the torture rape and murder of millions of Jews, Muslims, or Christians for example, it would automatically be good, even if those people have no enumeration after dying.

In either case, this appears to be a water tight rebuttal to the PoE.

/rant /thesis

I would rebut this argument on the grounds that gratuitous suffering does't exist. If overall good is maximized by actualizing evil, this becomes a fallacious argument. I'm sure people appreciate what that have by recognizing a state of having absence of anything. It's very possible that evil is a way of appreciating the overall good in everything.

Then you are conceding god isn't omnipotent. Since he could accomplish all of that without needing to use evil.

But that is off topic.

Assuming human beings have free will, and freely choose to do evil, this doesn't rebut God's omnipotence at all.

Free will has nothing to do with naturalistic evil. Or any evil that is not directly a result of human choices.

What evil is not a direct result of human choices?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 11:39:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
@Envisage, It's an easy argument to get around in other way. An omnibenevolent God has to allow free will. Free will causes evil. Then God has to create other catastrophes to insure his divine plan stays on course.

Evil must exist due to free will.

I agree with the reason you mentioned as well, but it's not necessary to get around the argument. The POE never did and never will work as a disqualifier for an Omni-God.
Toviyah
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 11:41:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Mazel tov.
I think you're generally right. On a related note, I would add that to argue for the PoE requires some form of universalistic or absolute morality to be posited. But there is no such theory that doesn't entail DCT or something similar to that.
Regardless, there is always a de jure case for the theist to reject the PoE.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 11:41:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 11:37:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:36:32 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:34:10 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:31:43 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:19:14 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:13:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
I would like both atheists to weigh in. The basic formulation for the PoE is:

P1) If God exists evil would not exist
P2) Evil exists
C) Therefore God does not exist

There are lots of variations of this with gratuitous suffering, etc, but none of them matter. If seems that anyone who endorses divine command theory automatically gets by this argument, where omnibenevolence is defined according to God's nature, or will.

Of course I don't think it helps the theist who advocates for an omnibenevolent god, as what is 'Good' becomes completely detached from human or sentient well being, and indeed even a God who prefers everything to burn would automatically have it's actions defined as 'Good'.

This pretty much comes from the other born of the Euthyphro Dilemma, where Good is arbitrarily defined according to what God is, or what he commands. Ergo if God commands the torture rape and murder of millions of Jews, Muslims, or Christians for example, it would automatically be good, even if those people have no enumeration after dying.

In either case, this appears to be a water tight rebuttal to the PoE.

/rant /thesis

I would rebut this argument on the grounds that gratuitous suffering does't exist. If overall good is maximized by actualizing evil, this becomes a fallacious argument. I'm sure people appreciate what that have by recognizing a state of having absence of anything. It's very possible that evil is a way of appreciating the overall good in everything.

Then you are conceding god isn't omnipotent. Since he could accomplish all of that without needing to use evil.

But that is off topic.

Assuming human beings have free will, and freely choose to do evil, this doesn't rebut God's omnipotence at all.

Free will has nothing to do with naturalistic evil. Or any evil that is not directly a result of human choices.

What evil is not a direct result of human choices?

Depends on the definition of evil (this is what the OP is about), I am saying that it appears to me the only way to avoid the PoE is to advocate for DCT. Since our basic notions if morality clearly falsify God.

Um earthquakes, droughts, disease, famine, fire, etc. Naturalistic animal suffering for those who are Christians.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 11:42:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 11:31:43 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:19:14 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:13:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
I would like both atheists to weigh in. The basic formulation for the PoE is:

P1) If God exists evil would not exist
P2) Evil exists
C) Therefore God does not exist

There are lots of variations of this with gratuitous suffering, etc, but none of them matter. If seems that anyone who endorses divine command theory automatically gets by this argument, where omnibenevolence is defined according to God's nature, or will.

Of course I don't think it helps the theist who advocates for an omnibenevolent god, as what is 'Good' becomes completely detached from human or sentient well being, and indeed even a God who prefers everything to burn would automatically have it's actions defined as 'Good'.

This pretty much comes from the other born of the Euthyphro Dilemma, where Good is arbitrarily defined according to what God is, or what he commands. Ergo if God commands the torture rape and murder of millions of Jews, Muslims, or Christians for example, it would automatically be good, even if those people have no enumeration after dying.

In either case, this appears to be a water tight rebuttal to the PoE.

/rant /thesis

I would rebut this argument on the grounds that gratuitous suffering does't exist. If overall good is maximized by actualizing evil, this becomes a fallacious argument. I'm sure people appreciate what that have by recognizing a state of having absence of anything. It's very possible that evil is a way of appreciating the overall good in everything.

Then you are conceding god isn't omnipotent. Since he could accomplish all of that without needing to use evil.

But that is off topic.

He could only accomplish that by taking away free will. This has been explained to you ad nauseum. Despite how good it looks that we'd all fully appreciate God's benevolence upon just merely existing, it would be bad due to the fact it restricts free will.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 11:43:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 11:41:31 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:37:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:36:32 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:34:10 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:31:43 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:19:14 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:13:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
I would like both atheists to weigh in. The basic formulation for the PoE is:

P1) If God exists evil would not exist
P2) Evil exists
C) Therefore God does not exist

There are lots of variations of this with gratuitous suffering, etc, but none of them matter. If seems that anyone who endorses divine command theory automatically gets by this argument, where omnibenevolence is defined according to God's nature, or will.

Of course I don't think it helps the theist who advocates for an omnibenevolent god, as what is 'Good' becomes completely detached from human or sentient well being, and indeed even a God who prefers everything to burn would automatically have it's actions defined as 'Good'.

This pretty much comes from the other born of the Euthyphro Dilemma, where Good is arbitrarily defined according to what God is, or what he commands. Ergo if God commands the torture rape and murder of millions of Jews, Muslims, or Christians for example, it would automatically be good, even if those people have no enumeration after dying.

In either case, this appears to be a water tight rebuttal to the PoE.

/rant /thesis

I would rebut this argument on the grounds that gratuitous suffering does't exist. If overall good is maximized by actualizing evil, this becomes a fallacious argument. I'm sure people appreciate what that have by recognizing a state of having absence of anything. It's very possible that evil is a way of appreciating the overall good in everything.

Then you are conceding god isn't omnipotent. Since he could accomplish all of that without needing to use evil.

But that is off topic.

Assuming human beings have free will, and freely choose to do evil, this doesn't rebut God's omnipotence at all.

Free will has nothing to do with naturalistic evil. Or any evil that is not directly a result of human choices.

What evil is not a direct result of human choices?

Depends on the definition of evil (this is what the OP is about), I am saying that it appears to me the only way to avoid the PoE is to advocate for DCT. Since our basic notions if morality clearly falsify God.

Um earthquakes, droughts, disease, famine, fire, etc. Naturalistic animal suffering for those who are Christians.

Would you classify those catastrophes as an immoral act?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 11:44:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 11:39:15 AM, Wylted wrote:
@Envisage, It's an easy argument to get around in other way. An omnibenevolent God has to allow free will. Free will causes evil. Then God has to create other catastrophes to insure his divine plan stays on course.

I don't find that at all convincing. I don't see how free will is intrinsically good, if free will causes suffering and evil then it is obviously an evil act to grant it.

Evil must exist due to free will.

Again, not convinced, since we don't regard things that alter our personalities to void our free will, hence god could easily have done things differently. But we already debated this (although my arguments have changed and become more general).

I agree with the reason you mentioned as well, but it's not necessary to get around the argument. The POE never did and never will work as a disqualifier for an Omni-God.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 11:46:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 11:41:31 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:37:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:36:32 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:34:10 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:31:43 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:19:14 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:13:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
I would like both atheists to weigh in. The basic formulation for the PoE is:

P1) If God exists evil would not exist
P2) Evil exists
C) Therefore God does not exist

There are lots of variations of this with gratuitous suffering, etc, but none of them matter. If seems that anyone who endorses divine command theory automatically gets by this argument, where omnibenevolence is defined according to God's nature, or will.

Of course I don't think it helps the theist who advocates for an omnibenevolent god, as what is 'Good' becomes completely detached from human or sentient well being, and indeed even a God who prefers everything to burn would automatically have it's actions defined as 'Good'.

This pretty much comes from the other born of the Euthyphro Dilemma, where Good is arbitrarily defined according to what God is, or what he commands. Ergo if God commands the torture rape and murder of millions of Jews, Muslims, or Christians for example, it would automatically be good, even if those people have no enumeration after dying.

In either case, this appears to be a water tight rebuttal to the PoE.

/rant /thesis

I would rebut this argument on the grounds that gratuitous suffering does't exist. If overall good is maximized by actualizing evil, this becomes a fallacious argument. I'm sure people appreciate what that have by recognizing a state of having absence of anything. It's very possible that evil is a way of appreciating the overall good in everything.

Then you are conceding god isn't omnipotent. Since he could accomplish all of that without needing to use evil.

But that is off topic.

Assuming human beings have free will, and freely choose to do evil, this doesn't rebut God's omnipotence at all.

Free will has nothing to do with naturalistic evil. Or any evil that is not directly a result of human choices.

What evil is not a direct result of human choices?

Depends on the definition of evil (this is what the OP is about), I am saying that it appears to me the only way to avoid the PoE is to advocate for DCT. Since our basic notions if morality clearly falsify God.

Um earthquakes, droughts, disease, famine, fire, etc. Naturalistic animal suffering for those who are Christians.

I don't get the whole animal suffering point. We're not animals. We have no way of knowing if they feel pain. You're familiar with Descartes work and his explanation of why animals don't feel pain, right?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 11:46:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 11:42:59 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:31:43 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:19:14 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:13:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
I would like both atheists to weigh in. The basic formulation for the PoE is:

P1) If God exists evil would not exist
P2) Evil exists
C) Therefore God does not exist

There are lots of variations of this with gratuitous suffering, etc, but none of them matter. If seems that anyone who endorses divine command theory automatically gets by this argument, where omnibenevolence is defined according to God's nature, or will.

Of course I don't think it helps the theist who advocates for an omnibenevolent god, as what is 'Good' becomes completely detached from human or sentient well being, and indeed even a God who prefers everything to burn would automatically have it's actions defined as 'Good'.

This pretty much comes from the other born of the Euthyphro Dilemma, where Good is arbitrarily defined according to what God is, or what he commands. Ergo if God commands the torture rape and murder of millions of Jews, Muslims, or Christians for example, it would automatically be good, even if those people have no enumeration after dying.

In either case, this appears to be a water tight rebuttal to the PoE.

/rant /thesis

I would rebut this argument on the grounds that gratuitous suffering does't exist. If overall good is maximized by actualizing evil, this becomes a fallacious argument. I'm sure people appreciate what that have by recognizing a state of having absence of anything. It's very possible that evil is a way of appreciating the overall good in everything.

Then you are conceding god isn't omnipotent. Since he could accomplish all of that without needing to use evil.

But that is off topic.

He could only accomplish that by taking away free will. This has been explained to you ad nauseum. Despite how good it looks that we'd all fully appreciate God's benevolence upon just merely existing, it would be bad due to the fact it restricts free will.

Also that ignores naturalistic suffering, which has been explained to you ad nauseum.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 11:48:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 11:46:27 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:41:31 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:37:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:36:32 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:34:10 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:31:43 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:19:14 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:13:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
I would like both atheists to weigh in. The basic formulation for the PoE is:

P1) If God exists evil would not exist
P2) Evil exists
C) Therefore God does not exist

There are lots of variations of this with gratuitous suffering, etc, but none of them matter. If seems that anyone who endorses divine command theory automatically gets by this argument, where omnibenevolence is defined according to God's nature, or will.

Of course I don't think it helps the theist who advocates for an omnibenevolent god, as what is 'Good' becomes completely detached from human or sentient well being, and indeed even a God who prefers everything to burn would automatically have it's actions defined as 'Good'.

This pretty much comes from the other born of the Euthyphro Dilemma, where Good is arbitrarily defined according to what God is, or what he commands. Ergo if God commands the torture rape and murder of millions of Jews, Muslims, or Christians for example, it would automatically be good, even if those people have no enumeration after dying.

In either case, this appears to be a water tight rebuttal to the PoE.

/rant /thesis

I would rebut this argument on the grounds that gratuitous suffering does't exist. If overall good is maximized by actualizing evil, this becomes a fallacious argument. I'm sure people appreciate what that have by recognizing a state of having absence of anything. It's very possible that evil is a way of appreciating the overall good in everything.

Then you are conceding god isn't omnipotent. Since he could accomplish all of that without needing to use evil.

But that is off topic.

Assuming human beings have free will, and freely choose to do evil, this doesn't rebut God's omnipotence at all.

Free will has nothing to do with naturalistic evil. Or any evil that is not directly a result of human choices.

What evil is not a direct result of human choices?

Depends on the definition of evil (this is what the OP is about), I am saying that it appears to me the only way to avoid the PoE is to advocate for DCT. Since our basic notions if morality clearly falsify God.

Um earthquakes, droughts, disease, famine, fire, etc. Naturalistic animal suffering for those who are Christians.

I don't get the whole animal suffering point. We're not animals. We have no way of knowing if they feel pain. You're familiar with Descartes work and his explanation of why animals don't feel pain, right?

I'm not, and I find that notion quite frankly absurd.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 11:50:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 11:44:46 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:39:15 AM, Wylted wrote:
@Envisage, It's an easy argument to get around in other way. An omnibenevolent God has to allow free will. Free will causes evil. Then God has to create other catastrophes to insure his divine plan stays on course.

I don't find that at all convincing. I don't see how free will is intrinsically good, if free will causes suffering and evil then it is obviously an evil act to grant it.

Evil must exist due to free will.

Again, not convinced, since we don't regard things that alter our personalities to void our free will, hence god could easily have done things differently. But we already debated this (although my arguments have changed and become more general).

I agree with the reason you mentioned as well, but it's not necessary to get around the argument. The POE never did and never will work as a disqualifier for an Omni-God.

I'll get into why free will is inherently good at some other point. If the god desires the love of man than he needs to give us the free will to hate him, and the only way to do that is to allow some amount of evil and suffering.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 11:52:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 11:41:19 AM, Toviyah wrote:
Mazel tov.
I think you're generally right. On a related note, I would add that to argue for the PoE requires some form of universalistic or absolute morality to be posited. But there is no such theory that doesn't entail DCT or something similar to that.
Regardless, there is always a de jure case for the theist to reject the PoE.

De Jure? You seem to contradict yourself here in those two paragraphs. Either there is a theory outside of DCT, or there isn't. If the isn't then defences against the PoE don't work with good undefined.

Personally I define good with respect to sentient well-being, but that's irrelevant to the PoE, although it does let me say if any alleged divinely commanded act is evil or not.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 11:53:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 11:42:59 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:31:43 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:19:14 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:13:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
I would like both atheists to weigh in. The basic formulation for the PoE is:

P1) If God exists evil would not exist
P2) Evil exists
C) Therefore God does not exist

There are lots of variations of this with gratuitous suffering, etc, but none of them matter. If seems that anyone who endorses divine command theory automatically gets by this argument, where omnibenevolence is defined according to God's nature, or will.

Of course I don't think it helps the theist who advocates for an omnibenevolent god, as what is 'Good' becomes completely detached from human or sentient well being, and indeed even a God who prefers everything to burn would automatically have it's actions defined as 'Good'.

This pretty much comes from the other born of the Euthyphro Dilemma, where Good is arbitrarily defined according to what God is, or what he commands. Ergo if God commands the torture rape and murder of millions of Jews, Muslims, or Christians for example, it would automatically be good, even if those people have no enumeration after dying.

In either case, this appears to be a water tight rebuttal to the PoE.

/rant /thesis

I would rebut this argument on the grounds that gratuitous suffering does't exist. If overall good is maximized by actualizing evil, this becomes a fallacious argument. I'm sure people appreciate what that have by recognizing a state of having absence of anything. It's very possible that evil is a way of appreciating the overall good in everything.

Then you are conceding god isn't omnipotent. Since he could accomplish all of that without needing to use evil.

But that is off topic.

He could only accomplish that by taking away free will. This has been explained to you ad nauseum. Despite how good it looks that we'd all fully appreciate God's benevolence upon just merely existing, it would be bad due to the fact it restricts free will.

Are you an Atheist lol?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 11:53:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 11:50:49 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:44:46 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:39:15 AM, Wylted wrote:
@Envisage, It's an easy argument to get around in other way. An omnibenevolent God has to allow free will. Free will causes evil. Then God has to create other catastrophes to insure his divine plan stays on course.

I don't find that at all convincing. I don't see how free will is intrinsically good, if free will causes suffering and evil then it is obviously an evil act to grant it.

Evil must exist due to free will.

Again, not convinced, since we don't regard things that alter our personalities to void our free will, hence god could easily have done things differently. But we already debated this (although my arguments have changed and become more general).

I agree with the reason you mentioned as well, but it's not necessary to get around the argument. The POE never did and never will work as a disqualifier for an Omni-God.

I'll get into why free will is inherently good at some other point. If the god desires the love of man than he needs to give us the free will to hate him, and the only way to do that is to allow some amount of evil and suffering.

Again doesn't seem plausibly necessary given god is omnipotent.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 11:54:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 11:46:52 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:42:59 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:31:43 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:19:14 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:13:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
I would like both atheists to weigh in. The basic formulation for the PoE is:

P1) If God exists evil would not exist
P2) Evil exists
C) Therefore God does not exist

There are lots of variations of this with gratuitous suffering, etc, but none of them matter. If seems that anyone who endorses divine command theory automatically gets by this argument, where omnibenevolence is defined according to God's nature, or will.

Of course I don't think it helps the theist who advocates for an omnibenevolent god, as what is 'Good' becomes completely detached from human or sentient well being, and indeed even a God who prefers everything to burn would automatically have it's actions defined as 'Good'.

This pretty much comes from the other born of the Euthyphro Dilemma, where Good is arbitrarily defined according to what God is, or what he commands. Ergo if God commands the torture rape and murder of millions of Jews, Muslims, or Christians for example, it would automatically be good, even if those people have no enumeration after dying.

In either case, this appears to be a water tight rebuttal to the PoE.

/rant /thesis

I would rebut this argument on the grounds that gratuitous suffering does't exist. If overall good is maximized by actualizing evil, this becomes a fallacious argument. I'm sure people appreciate what that have by recognizing a state of having absence of anything. It's very possible that evil is a way of appreciating the overall good in everything.

Then you are conceding god isn't omnipotent. Since he could accomplish all of that without needing to use evil.

But that is off topic.

He could only accomplish that by taking away free will. This has been explained to you ad nauseum. Despite how good it looks that we'd all fully appreciate God's benevolence upon just merely existing, it would be bad due to the fact it restricts free will.

Also that ignores naturalistic suffering, which has been explained to you ad nauseum.

No it doesn't, in order for his divine plan to stay on course naturalistic suffering would need to offset the incorrect choices made by humans. On top of that some naturalistic suffering would have to be set in place for the reasons I've already mentioned.

God knowing that people will choose evil when given free will still must give us the benefit of the doubt by creating naturalistic suffering.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 11:56:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 11:54:08 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:46:52 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:42:59 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:31:43 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:19:14 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:13:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
I would like both atheists to weigh in. The basic formulation for the PoE is:

P1) If God exists evil would not exist
P2) Evil exists
C) Therefore God does not exist

There are lots of variations of this with gratuitous suffering, etc, but none of them matter. If seems that anyone who endorses divine command theory automatically gets by this argument, where omnibenevolence is defined according to God's nature, or will.

Of course I don't think it helps the theist who advocates for an omnibenevolent god, as what is 'Good' becomes completely detached from human or sentient well being, and indeed even a God who prefers everything to burn would automatically have it's actions defined as 'Good'.

This pretty much comes from the other born of the Euthyphro Dilemma, where Good is arbitrarily defined according to what God is, or what he commands. Ergo if God commands the torture rape and murder of millions of Jews, Muslims, or Christians for example, it would automatically be good, even if those people have no enumeration after dying.

In either case, this appears to be a water tight rebuttal to the PoE.

/rant /thesis

I would rebut this argument on the grounds that gratuitous suffering does't exist. If overall good is maximized by actualizing evil, this becomes a fallacious argument. I'm sure people appreciate what that have by recognizing a state of having absence of anything. It's very possible that evil is a way of appreciating the overall good in everything.

Then you are conceding god isn't omnipotent. Since he could accomplish all of that without needing to use evil.

But that is off topic.

He could only accomplish that by taking away free will. This has been explained to you ad nauseum. Despite how good it looks that we'd all fully appreciate God's benevolence upon just merely existing, it would be bad due to the fact it restricts free will.

Also that ignores naturalistic suffering, which has been explained to you ad nauseum.

No it doesn't, in order for his divine plan to stay on course naturalistic suffering would need to offset the incorrect choices made by humans. On top of that some naturalistic suffering would have to be set in place for the reasons I've already mentioned.

God knowing that people will choose evil when given free will still must give us the benefit of the doubt by creating naturalistic suffering.

Formalize this defence please, it appears incoherent, let alone persuasive.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 12:03:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 11:48:39 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:46:27 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:41:31 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:37:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:36:32 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:34:10 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:31:43 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:19:14 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:13:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
I would like both atheists to weigh in. The basic formulation for the PoE is:

P1) If God exists evil would not exist
P2) Evil exists
C) Therefore God does not exist

There are lots of variations of this with gratuitous suffering, etc, but none of them matter. If seems that anyone who endorses divine command theory automatically gets by this argument, where omnibenevolence is defined according to God's nature, or will.

Of course I don't think it helps the theist who advocates for an omnibenevolent god, as what is 'Good' becomes completely detached from human or sentient well being, and indeed even a God who prefers everything to burn would automatically have it's actions defined as 'Good'.

This pretty much comes from the other born of the Euthyphro Dilemma, where Good is arbitrarily defined according to what God is, or what he commands. Ergo if God commands the torture rape and murder of millions of Jews, Muslims, or Christians for example, it would automatically be good, even if those people have no enumeration after dying.

In either case, this appears to be a water tight rebuttal to the PoE.

/rant /thesis

I would rebut this argument on the grounds that gratuitous suffering does't exist. If overall good is maximized by actualizing evil, this becomes a fallacious argument. I'm sure people appreciate what that have by recognizing a state of having absence of anything. It's very possible that evil is a way of appreciating the overall good in everything.

Then you are conceding god isn't omnipotent. Since he could accomplish all of that without needing to use evil.

But that is off topic.

Assuming human beings have free will, and freely choose to do evil, this doesn't rebut God's omnipotence at all.

Free will has nothing to do with naturalistic evil. Or any evil that is not directly a result of human choices.

What evil is not a direct result of human choices?

Depends on the definition of evil (this is what the OP is about), I am saying that it appears to me the only way to avoid the PoE is to advocate for DCT. Since our basic notions if morality clearly falsify God.

Um earthquakes, droughts, disease, famine, fire, etc. Naturalistic animal suffering for those who are Christians.

I don't get the whole animal suffering point. We're not animals. We have no way of knowing if they feel pain. You're familiar with Descartes work and his explanation of why animals don't feel pain, right?

I'm not, and I find that notion quite frankly absurd.

It's an easy way to dismiss the notion, but if you buy the arguments for duality this is a natural extension, and I believe you find some merit in Cartesian duality.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 12:04:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 11:53:33 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:42:59 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:31:43 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:19:14 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:13:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
I would like both atheists to weigh in. The basic formulation for the PoE is:

P1) If God exists evil would not exist
P2) Evil exists
C) Therefore God does not exist

There are lots of variations of this with gratuitous suffering, etc, but none of them matter. If seems that anyone who endorses divine command theory automatically gets by this argument, where omnibenevolence is defined according to God's nature, or will.

Of course I don't think it helps the theist who advocates for an omnibenevolent god, as what is 'Good' becomes completely detached from human or sentient well being, and indeed even a God who prefers everything to burn would automatically have it's actions defined as 'Good'.

This pretty much comes from the other born of the Euthyphro Dilemma, where Good is arbitrarily defined according to what God is, or what he commands. Ergo if God commands the torture rape and murder of millions of Jews, Muslims, or Christians for example, it would automatically be good, even if those people have no enumeration after dying.

In either case, this appears to be a water tight rebuttal to the PoE.

/rant /thesis

I would rebut this argument on the grounds that gratuitous suffering does't exist. If overall good is maximized by actualizing evil, this becomes a fallacious argument. I'm sure people appreciate what that have by recognizing a state of having absence of anything. It's very possible that evil is a way of appreciating the overall good in everything.

Then you are conceding god isn't omnipotent. Since he could accomplish all of that without needing to use evil.

But that is off topic.

He could only accomplish that by taking away free will. This has been explained to you ad nauseum. Despite how good it looks that we'd all fully appreciate God's benevolence upon just merely existing, it would be bad due to the fact it restricts free will.

Are you an Atheist lol?

Yes, just an atheist that finds the POE to be ineffective as a disqualifier.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 12:06:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 11:53:34 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:50:49 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:44:46 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:39:15 AM, Wylted wrote:
@Envisage, It's an easy argument to get around in other way. An omnibenevolent God has to allow free will. Free will causes evil. Then God has to create other catastrophes to insure his divine plan stays on course.

I don't find that at all convincing. I don't see how free will is intrinsically good, if free will causes suffering and evil then it is obviously an evil act to grant it.

Evil must exist due to free will.

Again, not convinced, since we don't regard things that alter our personalities to void our free will, hence god could easily have done things differently. But we already debated this (although my arguments have changed and become more general).

I agree with the reason you mentioned as well, but it's not necessary to get around the argument. The POE never did and never will work as a disqualifier for an Omni-God.

I'll get into why free will is inherently good at some other point. If the god desires the love of man than he needs to give us the free will to hate him, and the only way to do that is to allow some amount of evil and suffering.

Again doesn't seem plausibly necessary given god is omnipotent.

Then how do you suppose he gives us the free will to hate him if he doesn't give us any reasons to?

Remember that omnipotent doesn't include the logically absurd.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 12:06:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 12:04:50 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:53:33 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:42:59 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:31:43 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:19:14 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:13:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
I would like both atheists to weigh in. The basic formulation for the PoE is:

P1) If God exists evil would not exist
P2) Evil exists
C) Therefore God does not exist

There are lots of variations of this with gratuitous suffering, etc, but none of them matter. If seems that anyone who endorses divine command theory automatically gets by this argument, where omnibenevolence is defined according to God's nature, or will.

Of course I don't think it helps the theist who advocates for an omnibenevolent god, as what is 'Good' becomes completely detached from human or sentient well being, and indeed even a God who prefers everything to burn would automatically have it's actions defined as 'Good'.

This pretty much comes from the other born of the Euthyphro Dilemma, where Good is arbitrarily defined according to what God is, or what he commands. Ergo if God commands the torture rape and murder of millions of Jews, Muslims, or Christians for example, it would automatically be good, even if those people have no enumeration after dying.

In either case, this appears to be a water tight rebuttal to the PoE.

/rant /thesis

I would rebut this argument on the grounds that gratuitous suffering does't exist. If overall good is maximized by actualizing evil, this becomes a fallacious argument. I'm sure people appreciate what that have by recognizing a state of having absence of anything. It's very possible that evil is a way of appreciating the overall good in everything.

Then you are conceding god isn't omnipotent. Since he could accomplish all of that without needing to use evil.

But that is off topic.

He could only accomplish that by taking away free will. This has been explained to you ad nauseum. Despite how good it looks that we'd all fully appreciate God's benevolence upon just merely existing, it would be bad due to the fact it restricts free will.

Are you an Atheist lol?

Yes, just an atheist that finds the POE to be ineffective as a disqualifier.

Wow I'm impressed I've never seen this before lol, I've never had an atheist share a similar belief, not sure about the naturalistic disaster thing though..
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 12:08:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 11:56:35 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:54:08 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:46:52 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:42:59 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:31:43 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:19:14 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:13:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
I would like both atheists to weigh in. The basic formulation for the PoE is:

P1) If God exists evil would not exist
P2) Evil exists
C) Therefore God does not exist

There are lots of variations of this with gratuitous suffering, etc, but none of them matter. If seems that anyone who endorses divine command theory automatically gets by this argument, where omnibenevolence is defined according to God's nature, or will.

Of course I don't think it helps the theist who advocates for an omnibenevolent god, as what is 'Good' becomes completely detached from human or sentient well being, and indeed even a God who prefers everything to burn would automatically have it's actions defined as 'Good'.

This pretty much comes from the other born of the Euthyphro Dilemma, where Good is arbitrarily defined according to what God is, or what he commands. Ergo if God commands the torture rape and murder of millions of Jews, Muslims, or Christians for example, it would automatically be good, even if those people have no enumeration after dying.

In either case, this appears to be a water tight rebuttal to the PoE.

/rant /thesis

I would rebut this argument on the grounds that gratuitous suffering does't exist. If overall good is maximized by actualizing evil, this becomes a fallacious argument. I'm sure people appreciate what that have by recognizing a state of having absence of anything. It's very possible that evil is a way of appreciating the overall good in everything.

Then you are conceding god isn't omnipotent. Since he could accomplish all of that without needing to use evil.

But that is off topic.

He could only accomplish that by taking away free will. This has been explained to you ad nauseum. Despite how good it looks that we'd all fully appreciate God's benevolence upon just merely existing, it would be bad due to the fact it restricts free will.

Also that ignores naturalistic suffering, which has been explained to you ad nauseum.

No it doesn't, in order for his divine plan to stay on course naturalistic suffering would need to offset the incorrect choices made by humans. On top of that some naturalistic suffering would have to be set in place for the reasons I've already mentioned.

God knowing that people will choose evil when given free will still must give us the benefit of the doubt by creating naturalistic suffering.

Formalize this defence please, it appears incoherent, let alone persuasive.

Heading out, remind me in a PM later, and I'll formalize it.
mrsatan
Posts: 429
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 2:53:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 11:46:27 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:41:31 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:37:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:36:32 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:34:10 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:31:43 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:19:14 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/4/2014 11:13:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
I would like both atheists to weigh in. The basic formulation for the PoE is:

P1) If God exists evil would not exist
P2) Evil exists
C) Therefore God does not exist

There are lots of variations of this with gratuitous suffering, etc, but none of them matter. If seems that anyone who endorses divine command theory automatically gets by this argument, where omnibenevolence is defined according to God's nature, or will.

Of course I don't think it helps the theist who advocates for an omnibenevolent god, as what is 'Good' becomes completely detached from human or sentient well being, and indeed even a God who prefers everything to burn would automatically have it's actions defined as 'Good'.

This pretty much comes from the other born of the Euthyphro Dilemma, where Good is arbitrarily defined according to what God is, or what he commands. Ergo if God commands the torture rape and murder of millions of Jews, Muslims, or Christians for example, it would automatically be good, even if those people have no enumeration after dying.

In either case, this appears to be a water tight rebuttal to the PoE.

/rant /thesis

I would rebut this argument on the grounds that gratuitous suffering does't exist. If overall good is maximized by actualizing evil, this becomes a fallacious argument. I'm sure people appreciate what that have by recognizing a state of having absence of anything. It's very possible that evil is a way of appreciating the overall good in everything.

Then you are conceding god isn't omnipotent. Since he could accomplish all of that without needing to use evil.

But that is off topic.

Assuming human beings have free will, and freely choose to do evil, this doesn't rebut God's omnipotence at all.

Free will has nothing to do with naturalistic evil. Or any evil that is not directly a result of human choices.

What evil is not a direct result of human choices?

Depends on the definition of evil (this is what the OP is about), I am saying that it appears to me the only way to avoid the PoE is to advocate for DCT. Since our basic notions if morality clearly falsify God.

Um earthquakes, droughts, disease, famine, fire, etc. Naturalistic animal suffering for those who are Christians.

I don't get the whole animal suffering point. We're not animals. We have no way of knowing if they feel pain. You're familiar with Descartes work and his explanation of why animals don't feel pain, right?

I'm not familiar Descartes work, but to say we have no way of knowing if animals feel pain is simply untrue. Ever hear a cat screech after someone stepped on its tail? Ever see an animal limping because they've sustained an injury to their foot or leg? Ever see a dog cower when an owner, who constantly "disciplines" it, raises a hand to it?

A human in a situation similar to any of those will often react in a similar manner. And in each one, the reaction would be due to pain, or the memory of it. And because we know that, we can be reasonably certain that animals feel pain as well.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
Rasputin45
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 3:00:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 11:13:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
I would like both atheists to weigh in. The basic formulation for the PoE is:

P1) If God exists evil would not exist
P2) Evil exists
C) Therefore God does not exist

There are lots of variations of this with gratuitous suffering, etc, but none of them matter. If seems that anyone who endorses divine command theory automatically gets by this argument, where omnibenevolence is defined according to God's nature, or will.

Of course I don't think it helps the theist who advocates for an omnibenevolent god, as what is 'Good' becomes completely detached from human or sentient well being, and indeed even a God who prefers everything to burn would automatically have it's actions defined as 'Good'.

This pretty much comes from the other born of the Euthyphro Dilemma, where Good is arbitrarily defined according to what God is, or what he commands. Ergo if God commands the torture rape and murder of millions of Jews, Muslims, or Christians for example, it would automatically be good, even if those people have no enumeration after dying.

In either case, this appears to be a water tight rebuttal to the PoE.

/rant /thesis

If the torture, rape and murder of an entire people is good, then that makes any kindness shown towards them evil. This means that there is still the problem of evil at hand because you have to explain an omnibenevolent omnipotent god who allows kindness to exist.
Grigori Rasputin (James FRJ Hall)
Untertan des "bersicht. Hageln Sie ihm!

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...