The Problem of Evil: wiploc vs. punkforchrist

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This thread has been set up for a formal debate between wiploc and punkforchrist who will debate the following resolution:

"Resolved: the Problem of Evil proves that a perfect god does not exist. "

wiploc will affirm and punkforchrist will oppose. The debate will proceed in turns in the following special format, per the parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=4237049&postcount=6).

Part I: Introductory arguments

Round 1: wiploc opens; punkforchrist rebuts
Round 2: wiploc defends; punkforchrist rebuts

Part II: Cross-examination (3 statements per round)

Round 3:
- wiploc submits 3 questions
- punkforchrist submits 3 answers
- wiploc submits 3 replies

Round 4:
- punkforchrist submits 3 questions
- wiploc submits 3 answers
- punkforchrist submits 3 replies

Round 5: wiploc evaluates cross-examination; punkforchrist evaluates cross-examination

Part III: Conclusion

Round 6: wiploc concludes; punkforchrist concludes

A Peanut Gallery (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4239213#post4239213) is set up in the Existence of God(s) forum for the rest of us to comment on the debate.

Enjoy the debate!

- KWSN, FD Moderator




Part I: Introductory Arguments

[wiploc]

The Problem of Evil – Wiploc vs. PunkforChrist

Wiploc's Opening Statement:

P1: If there were a god powerful enough to eliminate evil or unhappiness, and if that god wanted to eliminate evil or unhappiness, then there would be no evil or unhappiness. That's obvious. If there is evil or unhappiness, then there is no such god.

P2: There is evil or unhappiness.

P3: Therefore, there is no such god.

But, you might ask, what if there was such a god, strong enough and good enough to eliminate evil, but too stupid or ignorant? That's a good point, regardless of the fact that I know of no worshippers who believe god is stupid. We can deal with that by tweaking the PoE into standard form:

P1b: If there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god, then evil cannot exist.
P2: Evil exists.
C: Therefore, such a god does not exist.

That's the PoE (problem of evil) in a nutshell. Short, but bulletproof. There's no way around it. It is obviously valid, obviously sound. It makes it obvious that this god does not exist.

To my way of thinking, this god (what I call the PoE god, the tri-omni god, the Omni-max god, or the "perfect" god) is the standard Christian god. So, to my way of thinking, the PoE proves that the Christian god does not exist. However, there are many Christians who believe god is weaker, stupider, or less good than the PoE god. Some of them like to accuse me of misrepresenting Christianity, even of lying about what Christians believe. That is not the subject of this debate. I am not here to prove Christians believe in the PoE god. My point is that the PoE god does not exist. I don't know how many Jews, Christians, or Muslims believe in the PoE god; but those who do are wrong. The PoE god does not exist.

Terminology:

Evil: is whatever the heck punk wants it to be. I used to define evil as the sources of unhappiness; but people argued with the definition rather than engaging with the PoE itself. So, I don't care what evil is. If evil exists, and if omnibenevolence is opposed to evil, then the PoE god logically cannot exist. Period. Regardless of what evil is.

Omnipotence: Able to do anything that isn't a logical contradiction. (True omnipotence would be able to violate logic, making square circles, for instance; but this debate is intended to be logical. If we are to rely on logic, we must assume logic is reliable. In other words, we must assume that any existent gods are punk-omnipotent at best.) Since few enough people believe in true omnipotence anyway, many use the word "omnipotence" to refer to punk omnipotence. We shall do the same: For the purposes of this discussion, "omnipotent" means, "Able to do anything that doesn't involve logical contradiction." (Does this suggest that logic must have been created by a god greater than the PoE god? We leave this issue aside.)

Omniscience: Knows everything. Knows the future. Knows everything that ever happened or will happen, in all worlds possible and impossible. Knows everything.

Omnibenevolent: Good. Purely, totally, awfully, infinitely good. And good is the opposite of evil. If evil is the sources of unhappiness, then good is the sources of happiness. And if punk wants evil to be something else, then good is the opposite of that. An omnibenevolent god strongly, totally, infinitely wants to eliminate evil.

Responses: The Christian can argue that
1. god isn't all that strong,
2. god isn't all that smart, knowing, or wise,
3. god isn't all that good,
4. evil doesn't exist, or
5. logic is wrong.

Because the PoE has only five elements, those five responses are the only possible logical responses. None of them work. The first three are concessions that the PoE is correct: They say god is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. The fourth is a linguistically nonsensical non-starter of an argument. As they say, "That dog won't hunt." The fifth is a concession that Christianity (or at least the version of Christianity that believes in the PoE god) is illogical.

So, we know that these are the only possible responses to the PoE. And we know that none of them work. And we know that punk will have to use one or more of these responses. Which will it be, and how will he disguise it? He must disguise it, because, except in the case of outright concession ("That's not the god I believe in") the art of responding to the PoE consists of making one of these fatal concessions in such a way that not even the responder himself knows that he has done so.

In subsequent posts, then, unless punk agrees that the PoE is sound, my job will be to say things like, "In that case, your god isn't omniscient," or, "But you are saying that your god's goodness is on the back burner, that there is something more important to him than defeating evil." That is, I'll be pointing out that punk has, regardless of how well he has disguised them, made concessions fatal to his claim that the PoE fails.

The PoE is bulletproof: If god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then evil does not exist. Therefore, if evil exists, then there is no omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god.

crc

*Not a reference to punkforchrist. I was using "punk-omnipotence" as the term for "able to do anything that doesn't violate logic" long before I met punk.

[punkforchrist]

Thanks to the IIDB forum, KnightWhoSaysNi, and wiploc. In light of our recent interactions, I look forward to this exchange, as well.

First of all, I would like to congratulate wiploc for the manner in which he has laid out the argument. In it my contention, however, that in spite of his debating skills, the argument itself is fundamentally flawed.

My opening statement will cover two main areas of thought. 1) The moral sufficiency of God’s permitting evil; and 2) the irrationality of atheism in light of the PoE.

Let’s restate the argument:

P1: If there were a god powerful enough to eliminate evil or unhappiness, and if that god wanted to eliminate evil or unhappiness, then there would be no evil or unhappiness.

P2: There is evil or unhappiness.

P3: Therefore, there is no such god.


I willingly grant the second premise. Evil exists. Where the PoE is presumptuous, though, is in the first premise. How does my opponent know that God does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil? If the greatest of all possible worlds includes the existence of some evil, then it is surely consistent for a perfectly good (as well as omnipotent and omnibenevolent) being to allow it.

There are certainly instances where allowing a level of pain serves a greater good. A child may refuse to eat the healthy food he is given. A good parent, in this case, will not coddle the child and let him eat whatever he wants. The child will eventually decide that eating broccoli is better than going hungry. What’s to prevent the analogy from applying to God?

Perhaps wiploc will respond that if God is all-powerful, then He can find a way to have the greatest good without allowing any evil whatsoever. But this would be question begging. Have all logical possibilities been exhaustively searched and known by the proponent of the PoE? If not, then the existence of God and the existence of evil are not necessarily contradictory, and therefore, the argument fails.

Let’s put this in a formal syllogism. Let G = “If God exists, He is powerful enough and knowledgeable enough to eliminate evil.” W = “God wants to eliminate evil.” E = “Evil exists.” When we use substitution for these variables, this is what we get:

1. (G^W) --> ~E
2. E
3. ~G

There are three conclusions we may draw from this.

1. ~G^W
2. ~G^~W

These two options conclude that God does not exist. The first because God wants to eliminate all evil, but does not, which casts doubt upon his omnipotence or omniscience; the second because God does not want to eliminate evil, and is therefore, morally imperfect.

The believer offers a third option:

3. G^~W

With this conclusion, the believer contends that God does not want to eliminate all evil, but that He has a morally sufficient reason for allowing it in light of the greatest good. So far, wiploc has only demonstrated ~(G^W), which leaves open all three options as real possibilities. He must additionally prove that G^~W is logically impossible.

That said, let’s next turn to the additional bind the proponent of the PoE finds himself in. I’m referring to the impossibility of raising the PoE as an argument against God. If evil is real, then there must be some perfect standard in which to determine whether or not something is evil in the first place. This brings us to the argument from perfection, which can be formalized as follows.

1. We observe things that are imperfect.
2. In order to know that something is imperfect, we must correspond the imperfection to a standard of perfection.
3. Since there are real imperfections, there is a real standard of perfection.
4. This standard of perfection must have being, or else it is non-existent, which has been disproved.
5. God is defined as a perfect being.
6. Therefore, God exists.

What this argument reveals is that the PoE actually undermines its own conclusion. Perhaps wiploc will respond that there are no real imperfections. If this so, however, the debate becomes superfluous. I’m not in any way raising a question about wiploc’s integrity, but one could ask a hypothetical: does wiploc have an obligation to follow the debate rules? Is there such a thing as real unhappiness, or real limitations on our moral capabilities? If so, then how do we have knowledge of these things apart from the existence of a perfect being?

To give a visualization, C.S. Lewis aptly noted that one cannot recognize a crooked line without corresponding it to a straight one. This is exactly what’s at issue with the PoE.

The PoE ultimately deals with a more central issue. It is inherent in our human nature to act apart from the perfect standard that we all know exists. With every bout of anger and jealousy, every obsession with greed, and every half-truth we tell, we fall short of the glory of God. There is no problem of evil in an atheist world, since there is no God, and thus no perfect standard of goodness by which to measure it. Only in a world with God is there any problem of evil at all, but the evil that God allows, He allows for a morally sufficient reason.

To sum up, wiploc must demonstrate two things. 1) It is logically impossible for God to have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil; and 2) it is possible to raise an objection against the existence of God without presupposing the very thing that is supposed to be disproved.

[wiploc]

Thanks to IIDB, to KnightWhoSaysNi, and to our particularly strong peanut gallery!

Debate Parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=4237049&postcount=6):. Good reading for some in the Peanut gallery.

Let P = god is omniPotent.
Let B = god is omniBenevolent.

1. If P&B then ~E
2. E
3. Therefore, not P&B.

That's my case. One might call it "trivially" valid (which means?) but it is nonetheless valid. (Given that many people claim P&B, I suspect it's not trivial.)

It is impossible to grant the validity without granting the soundness, because it starts with "If." If it is valid, it must be sound.

And it's unquestionably valid.

Brian (I'm coming to punk) says "the Christian position" is that P but not P&B. That's not a refutation. My point (my only point, until we get this settled) is ~P&B. And Brian's position (#3 on the list below) is not "the Christian position," as he claimed. (emphasis added.) Christians use all five of the possible responses:


1. god isn't all that strong,
2. god isn't all that smart, knowing, or wise,
3. god isn't all that good,
4. evil doesn't exist, or
5. logic is wrong.

Punk used two of them himself.

1. God isn't strong enough to get what he wants plus goodness.
3. God isn't good enough to prefer goodness to some other thing he wants.


So, we know that these are the only possible responses to the PoE. And we know that none of them work. And we know that punk will have to use one or more of these responses. Which will it be, and how will he disguise it?
He disguises his move by picking a synonym for good/benevolent, and using it as an antonym. What if, punk asks, god's desire for goodness was opposed to a higher moral purpose? But morality is good, right?

Or not. We can analyze it either way. If morality is not good, and god puts morality ahead of goodness, then god is not omnibenevolent. And, if morality is good, then god cannot possibly put it ahead of goodness. So, either way, the logic of punk's rebuttal fails.

Let's look at it another way. Suppose there are two different things (just as an example, let me offer happiness and free will, though I am not binding punk to those) that are good. Suppose god wants both of them. And suppose they are in conflict so that he can't have both.

Once again, there are two ways we can analyze it. If god is omnipotent, then he can have them both unless they are logical opposites. Even an omnipotent god can't have both square and circular. Or good and evil. So, if one of the good things is good, and the other is evil, then god can't have both. But that doesn't even make sense---evil is not good. If the thing that god wanted more than good was evil, he would not be omnibenevolent.

The other way we can look at it is by assuming god is not really all that strong. If he's not omnipotent, then there could be some practical conflict between (again, just as a for instance) happiness and free will. But practical conflicts only matter if god is less than omnipotent. If he is omnipotent, then he can easily dispose of any number of practical difficulties. Happiness and free will are clearly not logical opposites. For an omnipotent god, they'd be a piece of cake.

To sum up: If god wants two things, then he can have them both unless either
1. They are logical opposites like good and evil or happiness and unhappiness, or
2. god is not omnipotent.

If he wants evil or unhappiness, then he is not omnibenevolent; and if he's not omnipotent, then he's not omnipotent. Either way he's not P&B.

There aren't two sides to this. Here's the syllogism again.

1. If P&B then ~E
2. E
3. Therefore, not P&B.

The only reasonable responses are,

A. Yes, that's right.

and

B. Well, yes, that's right, but that's not the god I believe in.

Either way, you are in agreement with the PoE. You aren't refuting it.




If evil is real, then there must be some perfect standard in which to determine whether or not something is evil in the first place.
<snip>
2. In order to know that something is imperfect, we must correspond the imperfection to a standard of perfection.
<snip>
5. God is defined as a perfect being.
6. Therefore, God exists.

I note that, for the purposes of this argument, "perfect" is defined as, "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent." I'm not entirely certain that this observation is irrelevant, given that, since the PoE is obviously bulletproof, any apparent defense must necessarily be based on obscurantism.

Setting that aside, let's give punk a concrete example. He hasn't said what he means by evil, so I'm going to stick with my offering: unhappiness. Is it true, as punk is claiming, that we couldn't tell we were unhappy unless happiness existed? And is it true that god is defined as the standard of happiness? And is it true that the existence of god follows from the existence of unhappiness?

None of those is proven. None of them is plausible. None is true.

It's perverse to claim you can't know something without an objective standard. When someone asks where you live, you don't give directions from galactic center; you just ask, "Where are you now?"

Punk also introduces the moral argument. It's off topic right now, but I'll be pleased to kick the stuffing out of it as soon as punk admits that

1. If P&B then ~E
2. E
3. Therefore, not P&B.

crc

[punkforchrist]

In my opening statement I presented two primary reasons why the PoE is an ineffective and unsound argument against the existence of a perfect God. I want to pay close attention to some of the points wiploc raised in his rebuttal and demonstrate why they likewise fall short.

A Hidden Premise Revealed

I have demonstrated that my opponent’s first attempt at defending the PoE was not only unsound, but actually invalid.

1. (G^W) --> ~E
2. E
3. ~G

This is an invalid argument. The conclusion one can draw from this is ~(G^W), which I pointed out allows G^~W to be a possible deduction.

Wiploc responded by changing the argument and likewise putting it in the form of modal logic:

1. If P&B then ~E
2. E
3. Therefore, not P&B.

I will grant that this is a valid argument. However, it is still unsound. He assumes the hidden premise that B=W, which begs the question. How does he know that an all-good God wants to eliminate all evil? In spite of my opponent’s appeal to the debate parameters, there is nothing there that eliminates G^~W as a possibility.

Omnibenevolence: He is good, totally good, purely good, infinitely good, strongly good. His goodness is not on a back burner to anything.

Just because God is all-good doesn’t mean He has to eliminate all evil. He merely has to create the best of all possible worlds. If wiploc intended to spell out his definition in the debate parameters, then it wasn’t made explicit enough. The burden of proof remains on him to demonstrate that God cannot have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil.

Essentially, wiploc has changed his argument from “(G^W) --> ~E” to “(G^B) --> ~E,” where B=E B=W. Wiploc must demonstrate that B=E B=W, but the problem is clear. If he tries to argue that B=E B=W necessarily, then his definition is entirely subjective and arbitrary.

Wiploc makes his definition clear in his rebuttal:

If he wants evil or unhappiness, then he is not omnibenevolent

I disagree with this understanding of omnibenevolent. It was not put forth in the debate parameters. In the Peanut Gallery, Brian Bosse elaborates:

Omnibenevolent: A being is omnibenevolent if and only if that being desires the greatest good (the omni-good, if you will).

This definition is entirely consistent with the debate parameters. God can be omnibenevolent if He allows evil for the sake of the greater good, just as the parent does in my analogy.

if morality is good, then god cannot possibly put it ahead of goodness. So, either way, the logic of punk's rebuttal fails.

This misses the point I’ve raised. If God has created the best of all possible worlds, then He has likewise done the most moral thing. God is, therefore, perfectly good and perfectly moral without contradiction.

It is interesting that a great number of atheist philosophers have abandoned the form of the PoE that my opponent is advancing. God’s being all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good is not logically inconsistent with the existence of evil. Michael Martin, an atheist philosopher and professor at the University of Boston writes, “the conjunction of the following three statements [1. God is all-powerful and all-knowing; 2. God is all-good; 3. Evil exists] is not inconsistent” (emphasis Martin’s).*

No Objective Standard?

My second critique of the PoE involved the impossibility of even raising the question of evil against God in an atheist worldview. I argued that by admitting that evil exists, the proponent of the PoE concedes that there is a standard of goodness, which is impossible without God.

It's perverse to claim you can't know something without an objective standard. When someone asks where you live, you don't give directions from galactic center; you just ask, "Where are you now?"

I disagree with this conclusion. Can objective knowledge exist apart from an objective standard?

When someone asks for directions, the objective standard is already implicit. If wiploc asks me, “where are you?” and I answer, “Texas,” then he can only make sense of my answer in light of the relationship of Texas to the United States, and the United States to North America, and so on. Further, if I answer “Texas,” but the answer is not objective, what gives him reason to believe I’m in Texas anyway?

My opponent has not provided a rational basis by which one can determine whether or not something is evil in the first place. He asserts that a perfect standard is not a necessary precondition, but with this reasoning, evil has no objective existence, and thus wiploc is left without an intelligible objection against God. Only in a world where evil is real can there be a problem of evil at all, but such a world necessitates that there be a standard of goodness. Can a crooked line be recognized as crooked without corresponding it to a straight one (as I alluded to before)? If so, its crookedness is completely arbitrary.

Wiploc needs to establish 1) that omnibenevolence requires God to eliminate all evil; and 2) that evil can exist without presupposing a standard of goodness. So far, my opponent has changed his argument in light of number one, and has not yet given an adequate justification for how number two makes any sense.

*Martin, Michael. Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (pg. 341). Temple University Press 1990.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Part II: Cross-examination

(wiploc will begin with three questions)

[wiploc]

Question 1:
My point is that P and B and E cannot all be true. Beyond terminology ("omnibenevolent," whether "B=E B=W") do we disagree? Do you agree that P and B and E cannot logically all be true?



Question 2:

If I understand your position, you believe
P
and
E
and you agree that
If P&B then ~E,

and you therefore believe that

~B.

Is that right? You don't believe god omni-wants to eliminate suffering and/or evil?



Question 3:

If I re-phrase it for you

1. If B&W P&W then ~E
2. E
3. Therefore, not B&W P&W

then you agree that that's is valid, sound, conclusive, bullet-proof?

crc

[punkforchrist]

Question 1:
My point is that P and B and E cannot all be true. Beyond terminology ("omnibenevolent," whether "B=E B=W") do we disagree? Do you agree that P and B and E cannot logically all be true?

What needs to be demonstrated here is that B=W. I would not agree that P and B and E cannot all logically be true. I do, however, agree with you that God does not want to eliminate all evil, so ~W, but not ~B. The word omnibenevolent (B) ought to be used in the way the proponent of an all-good God would define it. In this case, God is omnibenevolent if He desires to make the best of all possible worlds. This is consistent with the debate parameters.

Question 2:

If I understand your position, you believe
P
and
E
and you agree that
If P&B then ~E,

Instead of P&B then ~E, I would say P&W then ~E.

and you therefore believe that

~B.

Is that right? You don't believe god omni-wants to eliminate suffering and/or evil?

I agree with the last sentence, but ~B doesn’t follow. In light of my above answer, it only means ~W.

Question 3:

If I re-phrase it for you

1. If P&W then ~E
2. E
3. Therefore, not P&W

then you agree that that's is valid, sound, conclusive, bullet-proof?

This is close, but a more accurate way of deducing this would be not-(P&W), including the parentheses. ~(P&W) is identical to ~(G^W). In a strictly logical sense, this allows G^~W (or P&~W) to be a valid option.

What your argument has demonstrated is that ~(G^W), but nothing further than this can be proved (i.e. ~G is both invalid and unsound), which means the PoE is unsuccessful in raising a sound objection against God.

[wiploc]

Question 2:

Is that right? You don't believe god omni-wants to eliminate suffering and/or evil?
I agree with the last sentence …

As near as I can tell, we're done here. Punk doesn't like my label ("omnibenevolence") for wanting to eliminate evil; but, regardless of what we call this characteristic, punk's god doesn't have it.

That's what I set out to prove. And punk agrees with me.

Yes, my proof is logically trivial. But it's not socially trivial, not so long as people line up to argue against it. Not so long as many theists think god is both P (omnipotent) and W (totally against evil).


Question 1:

What needs to be demonstrated here is that B=W.

So god likes to have a little evil, but punk still wants to call him omni-benevolent? Wouldn't a god who didn't want any evil be even more benevolent? And if something could be more benevolent, doesn't that mean his god isn't really omnibenevolent?

Or, maybe god wants to eliminate evil, but he can't. He's not powerful enough to get rid of evil while retaining good. No, that's not punk's position. Punk says god is P, but is not W. So it's like I said above: punk's god likes evil, and he keeps some around out of choice.

Which raises this question: Why is punk arguing against the PoE. The PoE says ~(P&W&E), and punk is in full agreement. He agrees with the PoE, so he should be using it to straighten out those misguided theists who believe god is against evil.


Question 3:

This is close, but a more accurate way of deducing this would be not-(P&W),

Agreed.



including the parentheses. ~(P&W) is identical to ~(G^W).

Yes.



In a strictly logical sense, this allows G^~W (or P&~W) to be a valid option.

I'll ignore punk's "G" notation. He wants symbolic form, so we have:


If P&B, then ~E.
E
Therefore, ~(P&B).
He wants me to change B to W, so we have:


If P&W, then ~E
E
Therefore, ~(P&W)
Punk is correct that this allows an omnipotent god to exist. Of course it does---I never said different. What cannot exist is a god who is P (omnipotent) and W (totally against evil). That god does not exist. The PoE proves it. And punk agrees with the PoE.

crc

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

For the next stage of Part II, punkforchrist will now ask wiploc three questions.

[punkforchrist]

1. Assuming this is your position, what is the proof that the greatest of all possible worlds cannot contain evil?

2. You had said the following in response to my answer to question 1:

punk's god likes evil, and he keeps some around out of choice.

Is it your understanding that God’s allowing some evil to pass is the same as God liking evil?

3. Is evil real and objective, or is it merely conventional and subjective?

[wiploc]

1. Assuming this is your position, what is the proof that the greatest of all possible worlds cannot contain evil?


Any world with evil would be better without it.

But what if the evil couldn't be eliminated without eliminating good? If that's true, then god isn't omnipotent. An omnipotent god can do anything that does not involve logical contradiction. Reducing evil while maintaining good is not a logical contradiction, no more than reducing heat while maintaining cold.

So, if there were an omnipotent god, he could eliminate evil while maintaining good. The only question is whether he would want to. If he was able to, and wanted to, then there wouldn't be any evil.




2. Is it your understanding that God’s allowing some evil to pass is the same as God liking evil?


For an omnipotent being, yes. An omnipotent being gets what he wants. If he gets evil, it's by choice, because that's what he wants.

He's not like a dentist who can say, "I'm giving you this lesser pain in order to prevent a greater." An omnipotent dentist could never say that.




3. Is evil real and objective, or is it merely conventional and subjective?


I think I covered this exhaustively in the set-up. For the PoE, it doesn't matter what evil is, so long as evil is black to good's white, or cold to good's hot. Regardless of what evil is, so long as you stipulate that evil exists, then we know that god is not both P (omnipotent) and W (totally, purely, strongly, and infinitely wanting to eliminate evil).

So, the bulletproof nature of the PoE is independent of what I think evil is.

But I'm happy to tell you what I think evil is (so long as we're not going to convert this into a debate on whether I'm right). Because the PoE works regardless.

I think evil is unhappiness. (More technically: the causes of unhappiness.) Unhappiness is objectively real. It happens in the mind, so you can call it subjective if you want. But it's still objectively real that it happens.

crc

[punkforchrist]

1. Any world with evil would be better without it.

This is what wiploc needs to demonstrate. How does he know that the best of all possible worlds contains no evil?

But what if the evil couldn't be eliminated without eliminating good? If that's true, then god isn't omnipotent.

This is true unless it is a logical contradiction for the greatest good to be attainable without some evil co-existing with it. How does wiploc know what the greatest good is without being omniscient?

Reducing evil while maintaining good is not a logical contradiction

I agree, but the question concerns not just good, but the greatest good. Is it logically possible for God to create the greatest good without allowing some evil? If not, then neither God’s omnipotence nor His omnibenevolence are affected.

2. My second question was “Is it your understanding that God’s allowing some evil to pass is the same as God liking evil?” Notice carefully how wiploc answers:

For an omnipotent being, yes. An omnipotent being gets what he wants. If he gets evil, it's by choice, because that's what he wants.

Nowhere did my opponent provide an argument that wanting = liking. If the greatest good is only achievable by allowing some evil to exist, then God may want evil without liking evil. This is an instance of equivocation.

3. Wiploc did not directly answer my third question. He argues:

the bulletproof nature of the PoE is independent of what I think evil is.

He shifts the burden of defining evil to me. Wiploc must do this, since otherwise we are left with two options. Either:

1. There is no objective evil. Consequently, wiploc is left without an argument against God.

2. There is objective evil. In this case, my opponent is unable to give an account for the existence of evil without presupposing God as the standard of goodness.

The proponent of the PoE is left wanting for a third option. Either evil is objectively real or it is not.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

For the final stage of Part II, wiploc and punkforchrist will evaluate their cross-examinations.

[wiploc]

How does he know that the best of all possible worlds contains no evil?

Even if punk can't personally tell that good is better than evil, we are discussing the PoE god, who opposes evil. He, by definition, prefers a world without evil.



This is true unless it is a logical contradiction for the greatest good to be attainable without some evil co-existing with it.
Sure, but there's no contradiction. It is not a contradiction for the hottest world not to have cold in it. It is not a contradiction for the blackest world not to have white in it. And it is not a contradiction for the best world not to have bad in it. There is no contradiction; therefore an omnipotent god could achieve it.


Is it logically possible for God to create the greatest good without allowing some evil?

Of course. As the very driest world doesn't have any water at all, so the very best world doesn't have evil at all. That's obvious. There's nothing illogical about it. An omnipotent god could create it. An omnibenevolent god would want to create it. An omnipotent and omnibenevolent god would create it.




If the greatest good is only achievable by allowing some evil to exist, then God may want evil without liking evil.

Sure, but that can only happen if god's power is limited, if he is less than omnipotent. If he's omnipotent, he can do anything that doesn't involve logical contradiction. There's no contradiction in not having evil in the best world. It's true that there might be practical problems, but practical problems are nothing to an omnipotence.




He shifts the burden of defining evil to me.

Untrue. Evil is unhappiness. That's my definition. I gave punk the option of using any other definition of his choosing, but I was upfront with my definition.




1. There is no objective evil. Consequently, wiploc is left without an argument against God.


Unhappiness exists. (uncontestable fact)
Unhappiness is evil. (uncontested definition)
Evil exists. (irrefutable conclusion)

Unless punk claims evil doesn't exist, he doesn't have a case. And if he believes that, he should have said so in the set-up thread; we'd have avoided this whole debate.




2. There is objective evil. In this case, my opponent is unable to give an account for the existence of evil without presupposing God as the standard of goodness.


Again with the moral argument? Again I offer to kick the stuffing out of it in a separate debate. In this debate, punk's position is that evil exists, and that god is omnipotent, and that god does not want people to be entirely happy.

My position too is that there is evil (as I have defined it), and that therefore, if god is omnipotent, then he must not want people to be entirely happy.

Punk's position, though he refuses to recognize it, is not a refutation of the PoE. He is in agreement with the PoE. He has admitted that there is no P&W god (no god who both is omnipotent and wants there to be no evil). Therefore, we are in agreement on every significant thing except that he, for no reason I can see, refuses to admit that the PoE is a sound argument.

crc

[punkforchrist]

In my response during the cross-examination, I asked the following question:

How does he know that the best of all possible worlds contains no evil?

Wiploc answered:

Even if punk can't personally tell that good is better than evil, we are discussing the PoE god, who opposes evil. He, by definition, prefers a world without evil.

He hasn’t answered the question. My question wasn’t what God preferred, but what is logically possible. Unless wiploc can demonstrate that the best of all possible worlds contains no evil, he has no sound argument against the existence of God. This is no easy task.

In regards to what is logically possible, wiploc responded:

There is no contradiction; therefore an omnipotent god could achieve it.

However, this is merely an assertion, which is not proof. How does he know there is no contradiction? The examples he has given where the hottest world contains no coldness is not analogous to the question of good and evil. We know the hottest world would have no coldness because it is definitional. But we don’t know the best of all possible worlds contains no evil, since we have no way of knowing what the moral condition of the world would be if there were no evil. Is it better, for example, for God to coddle us and remove our moral responsibility? If not, then we have no reason for suggesting that eliminating all evil would be best.

I pointed out:

If the greatest good is only achievable by allowing some evil to exist, then God may want evil without liking evil.

My opponent answered:

Sure, but that can only happen if god's power is limited, if he is less than omnipotent.

This begs the question. If God’s omnipotence is not affected by logical absurdities, then He can be both omni-max and allow evil to exist if evil is necessary for the best of all possible worlds. Wiploc’s appeal to analogies is unpersuasive.

Now as far as defining evil, my opponent has stated that evil is “unhappiness.” He then states that unhappiness is objective, so in a sense he agrees that evil is objective. This raises a couple problems, though. For one, it is not clear what he means by “objective.” Why should we avoid unhappiness? If there is such an obligation, then we must have a foundation for it.

Again with the moral argument? Again I offer to kick the stuffing out of it in a separate debate. In this debate, punk's position is that evil exists, and that god is omnipotent, and that god does not want people to be entirely happy.

This is the second problem. Although he suggests that this is not an essential part of the debate, I respectfully disagree. Without a foundation for determining whether something is evil or not, wiploc has no argument against God. I agree that there is evil, but I have contended that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil. My opponent has not proved this to be a logical contradiction.

My position too is that there is evil (as I have defined it), and that therefore, if god is omnipotent, then he must not want people to be entirely happy.

Unhappiness certainly exists, but what moral consequence is there in not eliminating it? As a Christian, I can provide an answer. It is that God created the world and the world reflects the moral statutes that He imposes on it by His sovereign governing.* Unless wiploc can give us a coherent reason for why we are obligated to prevent unhappiness, without at the same time presupposing God, then there is no problem of evil in an atheist worldview.

Punk's position, though he refuses to recognize it, is not a refutation of the PoE. He is in agreement with the PoE. He has admitted that there is no P&W god (no god who both is omnipotent and wants there to be no evil). Therefore, we are in agreement on every significant thing except that he, for no reason I can see, refuses to admit that the PoE is a sound argument.

It is crucial for wiploc to prove that B=W. He has not yet provided any compelling reason for assuming such. We’ve heard his assertion that it is so, but there is nothing definite about it. In order for wiploc’s argument to succeed, he must know what is ultimately best for the world. However, he has not provided any substantial reason to believe that 1) what is best for the world is the elimination of all evil (keep in mind he must demonstrate what is logically possible); or 2) there is any compelling moral reason for eliminating unhappiness. Without a rational foundation for good and evil, there is no problem of evil.

*Bahnsen-Stein Debate.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Part III: Conclusion

[wiploc]

Initial Notes:

P = God is omniPotent.
W = God purely, totally, strongly, and infinitely Wants to eliminate evil or unhappiness.
E = Evil exists.
~ = "not."


Recap:

I opened with:
P1: If there were a god powerful enough to eliminate evil or unhappiness, and if that god wanted to eliminate evil or unhappiness, then there would be no evil or unhappiness. That's obvious. If there is evil or unhappiness, then there is no such god.

P2: There is evil or unhappiness.

P3: Therefore, there is no such god.

Obviously there's no way around that.

And punk even agrees. He agrees that god doesn't want to eliminate evil or unhappiness. And he agrees that

1. If P&W then ~E
2. E
3. Therefore, ~(P&W)

You might call that total agreement. (I do myself, since that's all I set out to prove.)

But punk insists that he doesn't agree.



Punk's objections:



Maybe "benevolence" doesn't refer to wanting to eliminate evil or unhappiness.Disputed nomenclature doesn't change the fact that if E then ~(P&W).




Maybe god's benevolence is less than omni (maybe god would like to eliminate evil or unhappiness, but he's got something else (punk suggests undefined "moral" considerations) on the front burner).That's my point. If E and P, then ~W.




Some guy said something construed as disagreement with me.But punk agrees that I'm right. He not only stipulates to E, P, and ~W, but he agrees that E&P entail ~W. If somebody truly disagrees with punk and me, then he's just wrong. Punk and I are right.




Some moral argument.
There is no room for it in the PoE. Punk agrees that E&P entails ~W. Further, he agrees that ~W. Whatever punk might say about mysticism, music, or morality won't change that.




Something about "objective knowledge."Punk agrees that ~(P&W). If the fact that ~(P&W) doesn't preclude objective knowledge for punk, then it doesn't preclude it for me.




What if god could have more good by allowing some evil?
That supposes ~P. If P (if god is omnipotent) then he can have all good and no evil.




But what if there is some secret rule of logic requiring god to allow some evil in order to have lots of good?That doesn't make sense. Does maximal honesty require some lying? Does maximal chastity require some promiscuity? Does maximal dryness require some wetness? Does maximal good require some bad? The answers---totally obviously---are no, no, no, and no.



Conclusion:

The PoE remains bulletproof. Given that evil or unhappiness exists, it is not possible for there to be an omnipotent god who is totally against evil and unhappiness.



Final Notes:

Our 500 word limit requires compression; my apologies if punk thinks I misrepresented him anywhere.

Thanks everybody for this engaging discussion. Thanks to IIDB, the moderators, to our readers, to the peanuts for their thoughtful comments, and especially to punk for his spirited and good natured effort.

crc

[punkforchrist]

First off, I offer my sincere appreciation for wiploc and how he has carried himself in this exchange. Thanks again to the IIDB, KnightWhoSaysNi, and everyone in the Peanut Gallery.

Let’s take a look at the main points in our debate.

Equivocation

Wiploc made the case in his opening statement, and indeed throughout the course of the entire debate, that God does not want to eliminate all evil. I agree. I demonstrated through the use of formal logic that G^~W is a perfectly acceptable conclusion one may draw from ~(G^W).

My opponent went on to assert that if God does not want to eliminate all evil, then He must not be omnibenevolent. His justification for this has been the presupposition that omnibenevolence is the same as the desire to eliminate all evil.

I pointed out that 1) this was not covered in the debate parameters; and 2) there is no way one can know if the elimination of all evil is really the best scenario. Now, wiploc has asserted that it is logically possible for the best of all possible worlds to exist without any evil whatsoever. My challenge has been that he must demonstrate this claim. His analogies have not been successful, and as such, my opponent must be omniscient in order to know what is and what is not logically possible in the best world.

That doesn't make sense. Does maximal honesty require some lying?

The answer is clearly no, but I’ve expressed that the two are not analogous. I raised the point earlier that if God restricts our moral obligations in order to eliminate evil, then that world may be less desirable than allowing some evil for the sake of man’s responsibility. If this is true, then it is apparent that an omnibenevolent being would prefer the latter.

The Crooked Line

I’ve challenged wiploc to provide a foundation for his distinction between good and evil. He asserts:

There is no room for it in the PoE.

This is indeed the case in a world that undermines the foundation for distinguishing good and evil. However, if wiploc is going to argue that God has a moral obligation to eliminate all evil, then my question is: on what basis? Why be good at all? If there are no objective moral obligations, then it is meaningless to presume that God has any moral obligation whatsoever. But deep down everyone knows that there are objective moral obligations. My response to an atheist, then, would be to ask: what is the foundation of these values? My opponent has not attempted to answer. Therefore, I contend that the PoE has not been a successful argument against God.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

The formal debate is now complete. We would like to thank wiploc and punkforchrist for their participation. Discussion can be continued in the peanut gallery.

- KWSN, FD Moderator