the logical problem of evil? Is it dead?

[bowmore]

That would be having no life, in that example.

Indeed it would.

To use similar real examples: my ex-wife was killed by a drunk driver and my parents died within two years, one after the other. All that loss really hurt and I almost lost faith in God entirely, but I struggled through it and learned a lot of things, mainly that I need to stay close to God for times like that, and that I need to appreciate who and what I have more.

I miss them all but my faith tells me I'll see them in Heaven and they are happy there. So I wouldn't trade that learning experience because it made me a better person.

If I was an atheist and didn't think I'd ever see them again, I would probably say it would be better for me they didn't die. So again, a lot of the reason you think it would be better not to have evil/death/murder is because this life is all you have to hold on to, and you see nothing good from evil in the long run. That's why you can't show your way is better with proof, only by opinion.

Well, this is just another example of what your god's modus operandi is. It doesn't address my last post.

[John Goddard]

Well, this is just another example of what your god's modus operandi is. It doesn't address my last post.

What if I did simply say, it's better for me to have murder than be without CSI? How are you going to refute that with something other than opinion?

[bowmore]

Well, here are the two hidden assumptions:
4. If God is all-loving, He prefers a world without evil.
5. If God is all-powerful, He can make any world He desires.
Note here: what I mean by a world is a maximal state of affairs (With a creation, a world and since we are talking about the God of the Bible a heaven and hell for eternity).

Now do you think these are necessary true? (not even possibly false)
You can’t show this; so neither of these are necessary true.

Of course they are necessarily true.

4 : if god doesn't prefer a world without evil, a god that does would be more benevolent. The one that doesn't therefore cannot be omnibenevolent.
5 : if god can't make any world he desires, a god that can would be more powerful. The one that can't therefore isn't omnipotent.

So where does this leave us? Well nowhere!
Booth sides (atheist and the theist) have equal positions the set (1, 2 and 3), it could either be implicitly contradictory or may be implicitly consistent.

What's with the atheist having equal positions on this? 1,2 and 3 have a god in them, that can't be premises an atheist agrees with.

Your 6 and 7 of course also use a hidden premise, namely that god necessarily had to create a world. Even if he couldn't create any world he desires, he could just not create a world at all, and would thus avoid needing evil to exist.

[bowmore]

What if I did simply say, it's better for me to have murder than be without CSI? How are you going to refute that with something other than opinion?

Assuming murder is considered evil.

Having murder necessarily implies evil exists.

Not having CSI does not, (so evil may exist, or it may not)

In all cases the first is not better than the second.
And that is still just based on no evil is better than some evil.

[bowmore]

People who propagate this line of thinking (free will such that it is incompatible with omniscience) are just showing a lack of understanding on the issue. Not even Calvinists think this is true. All arguments for fatalism have been shown to be unsound.
I think God omniscience is conceptual, not perceptual. Also, if it is even logically possible that an omniscient being has conceptual, hypothetical omniscient propositional knowledge then fatalism fails. If you don’t think that it is even logically possibly true, then you need to start thinking about what are thinking. There are other ways of attacking it, but one will do.

This is just equivocating. All knowing implies knowing everything.
For the record, I don't think free will exists, and I don't think there are any omniscient beings.

“And knowing that giving us free will would result in evil, is in contradiction with omnibenevolence.”
What the? It will also result in good, but that is beside the point, since it is good for beings to have it.

Why is the ability to do evil a good thing? It seems better for beings not to have it.
But more than that, being omniscient god knows we will do evil with it. Granting free will then amounts to god knowingly creating evil.

This is the other type of the logically, deductive problem of evil.
‘The problem of the kinds of evil’:
1. If God an all powerful and all loving then He would have created a world with less evil than the actual world.
2. He did not create that world
3. Therefore God does not exist.

Another one to knock out (easy to), but may create some talk.

This one perhaps another time. My time is limited.

[John Goddard]

Assuming murder is considered evil.

Having murder necessarily implies evil exists.

Not having CSI does not, (so evil may exist, or it may not)

In all cases the first is not better than the second.
And that is still just based on no evil is better than some evil.

Your logic requires that you seem to believe in some kind absolute morality, which is merely subjective morality for those who don't adhere to absolute morality.

So if I think it is better to have murder than be without CSI, to use that simple example, then murder is not evil and is a good thing because it gives me CSI. And likewise, for God to deprive me of CSI would be evil.

So how do you prove with logic that your sense of absolute morality and thus evil isn't just subjective based on your own perception of what should and shouldn't be considered evil?

[bowmore]

Your logic requires that you seem to believe in some kind absolute morality, which is merely subjective morality for those who don't adhere to absolute morality.

I'm still using the definition of evil you supplied. Evil is a void of god.
Murder implies a void of god.
CSI not existing may or may not imply a void of god (does your god give any specifics on this?)
So either both imply evil, or only murder does.
In both cases having murder is not better.

So if I think it is better to have murder than be without CSI, to use that simple example, then murder is not evil and is a good thing because it gives me CSI. And likewise, for God to deprive me of CSI would be evil.

That would just be substituting one evil with another, net result : zero. Not better, just equally evil.

So how do you prove with logic that your sense of absolute morality and thus evil isn't just subjective based on your own perception of what should and shouldn't be considered evil?

I don't believe in absolute morality.
If one believes in a god, and that that god dispenses a morality, one could argue that morality to be absolute.

[John Goddard]

I don't believe in absolute morality.
If one believes in a god, and that that god dispenses a morality, one could argue that morality to be absolute.

However what is moral for God, like telling people they are going to Hell, isn't necessarily moral for man to do, since we don't make that decision.

Likewise it is moral for Gentiles to be uncircumcised, not for Jews per Acts 15.

So there is no absolute morality even in the Bible.

So if we both agree there is no absolute morality, then what may be evil for you may not be evil for me.

For me, there may just be the illusion of evil used for learning purposes, like monsters in a video game. When we are done playing, the illusion ends and we go about our business. Which would be Heaven.

So if evil is nothing more than an illusion from my perspective, then there is no reason for me to say God is not omnibenevolent.

While you still may have a reason depending on your moral position, and due to any position you have of no afterlife.

[bowmore]

However what is moral for God, like telling people they are going to Hell, isn't necessarily moral for man to do, since we don't make that decision.

Likewise it is moral for Gentiles to be uncircumcised, not for Jews per Acts 15.

So there is no absolute morality even in the Bible.

So if we both agree there is no absolute morality, then what may be evil for you may not be evil for me.

For me, there may just be the illusion of evil used for learning purposes, like monsters in a video game. When we are done playing, the illusion ends and we go about our business. Which would be Heaven.

So if evil is nothing more than an illusion from my perspective, then there is no reason for me to say God is not omnibenevolent.

While you still may have a reason depending on your moral position, and due to any position you have of no afterlife.

But god it is not because of what you or me think is evil that god is not omnibenevolent, but because of what he thinks is evil. And the PoE isn't concerned about what exactly god thinks is evil and what not. All it needs is that at least one thing which god thinks is evil, exists.

Since one of the ten commandments tells us "thou shalt not kill" I think it is reasonable to assume god thinks murder is evil. As such I used that as an example.

[John Goddard]

But god it is not because of what you or me think is evil that god is not omnibenevolent, but because of what he thinks is evil. And the PoE isn't concerned about what exactly god thinks is evil and what not. All it needs is that at least one thing which god thinks is evil, exists.

Since one of the ten commandments tells us "thou shalt not kill" I think it is reasonable to assume god thinks murder is evil. As such I used that as an example.

But if our life is like school as I say, and the problem of evil is no more than a question on a quiz, then evil only exists on paper, so to speak. Once the question is answered it doesn't exist anymore but we do.

So when you put yourself in the perspective of a theist like me, evil is no more evil than a question about evil on paper. And that's how morality can be relative between a theist and an atheist: evil doesn't really exist for a theist, except as a concept on paper. And God remains omnibenevolent the whole time.

However, the existence of evil is all the reality there will ever be for an atheist, since there is that limited perspective of reality restricting it as a problem for you.

[bowmore]

But if our life is like school as I say, and the problem of evil is no more than a question on a quiz, then evil only exists on paper, so to speak. Once the question is answered it doesn't exist anymore but we do.

So when you put yourself in the perspective of a theist like me, evil is no more evil than a question about evil on paper. And that's how morality can be relative between a theist and an atheist: evil doesn't really exist for a theist, except as a concept on paper. And God remains omnibenevolent the whole time.

However, the existence of evil is all the reality there will ever be for an atheist, since there is that limited perspective of reality restricting it as a problem for you.

So now you are saying that evil (from god's perspective) doesn't exist. Then, surely sin doesn't exist. And Jesus died for nothing.
I think "evil doesn't exist (because it is good really)" isn't the christian view at all.
But perhaps you are a different type of christian?

[John Goddard]

So now you are saying that evil (from god's perspective) doesn't exist. Then, surely sin doesn't exist. And Jesus died for nothing.
I think "evil doesn't exist (because it is good really)" isn't the christian view at all.
But perhaps you are a different type of christian?

We're talking about two different perspectives since we already agree there is no absolute morality, it's relative to your circumstances. There is real sin and evil from your perspective, but outside of the box it doesn't exist, evil is not eternal. It's only on paper -- for believers.

So now put yourself in my position and ask yourself, if evil is nothing more than a problem to work through in the quiz of life...

Is a problem on a quiz evil in some way, just because it deals with evil? Is the teacher somehow not benevolent for giving you the problem?

[Birdman]

Bowmore said,
---
Of course they are necessarily true.
4 : if god doesn't prefer a world without evil, a god that does would be more benevolent. The one that doesn't therefore cannot be omnibenevolent.
5 : if god can't make any world he desires, a god that can would be more powerful. The one that can't therefore isn't omnipotent.
---
Do you think that it’s logically impossible that these are possibly false? If you do, then you should be able to logically prove that to us, and not by just restating points. You must prove it since you are making the claim.
As for you two answers, well, I’m sorry but they simply do not follow necessarily, and if they do not follow necessarily then they fail.
A hint, it seems that you only seeing one side coin, on the other side is good.

On 4 and 5,
• It may be logically impossible for Him to create a world where all free beings that He wants to exist are always do good.
• It may be logically impossible for Him (go against His ‘good’ nature) to create a world where there is only a one or a few people exist, over a world where lots persons come to freely and loving personal relationship with Himself.
• It may also be logically impossible for Him to create a world where Jesus, did not die on the cross for peoples sins.
• It may also be logically impossible for Him to create a world that does not include one nation thru which, lots of persons come to freely and loving personal relationship with Himself.
• It may be logically impossible for Him to create a world where people don’t come to salvation a without the indwelling of the Holy Sprit.
• It may be logically impossible for Him to create a world where a certain x people are not allowed freely and loving personal relationship with Himself.
• And so on, and so on, and so on.
4 and 5 are clearly possibly false.


Bowmore said,
---
What's with the atheist having equal positions on this? 1,2 and 3 have a god in them, that can't be premises an atheist agrees with.
----
Well, that is not what I’m trying to say; I’m just using the word ‘atheist’ as someone who is a proponent for the problem of evil (context, context, context).


Bowmore said,
----
Your 6 and 7 of course also use a hidden premise, namely that god necessarily had to create a world. Even if he couldn't create any world he desires, he could just not create a world at all, and would thus avoid needing evil to exist.
----
Yer, but so what? You are just affirming this again,
4. If God is all-loving, He prefers a world without evil.
I think it is absurd, no it is absurd; that it’s better that God should not create any world over the creating actual world.
If you really believe this, then you must also believe that it is better that we should blow up current earth. Absurd, to say the least.


Bowmore said,
-----
This is just equivocating. All knowing implies knowing everything.
-----
All knowing, just means total propositional knowledge.
I don’t understand what you point is?
If it is even logically possible that, God’s omniscience (total propositional knowledge) is conceptual, and also includes total hypothetical propositional knowledge, then fatalism fails.
I hardly see how that is equivocating, it just shows that if what I said is even logically possible then God can be omniscient and people can have a free will. You are going to need to attack the free will defense another way. Also as for the POE, the argument for fatalism fail on it’s own, but I don’t want to spend my days splitting hairs, so I went for the easy.


Bowmore said,
----
Why is the ability to do evil a good thing? It seems better for beings not to have it.
But more than that, being omniscient god knows we will do evil with it. Granting free will then amounts to god knowingly creating evil.
----
Well now you are equivocating, I never said that “the ability to do evil a good thing” but the ability to have free will is a good thing.
But more than that, being omniscient god knows we will also do good with it.
Do you think it’s better that we are all robots?

From the fact that we can do evil with free will, it does not follow that free will is not good. On top of this, from the fact that God knows that we can do evil with free will, it does not follow that God is evil.


Bowmore said,
---
This one perhaps another time. My time is limited.
----
Me to.

[bowmore]

We're talking about two different perspectives since we already agree there is no absolute morality, it's relative to your circumstances. There is real sin and evil from your perspective, but outside of the box it doesn't exist, evil is not eternal. It's only on paper -- for believers.

So now put yourself in my position and ask yourself, if evil is nothing more than a problem to work through in the quiz of life...

Is a problem on a quiz evil in some way, just because it deals with evil? Is the teacher somehow not benevolent for giving you the problem?

We went over this : the PoE is about god's perspective, not yours or mine.

[John Goddard]

We went over this : the PoE is about god's perspective, not yours or mine.

My God is outside that box, or quiz paper, too.

Can you answer my questions?