PEANUT GALLERY: The Problem of Evil Proves that Perfect Gods do not Exist

[Jo]

Start Date: Monday 12 May 2008

wiploc vs. Adonael

This thread has been set up to provide a Peanut Gallery for a FORMAL DEBATE (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=243113) between wiploc and Adonael who will debate the following resolution:

"The Problem of Evil Proves that Perfect Gods do not Exist"

wiploc will affirm and Adonael will oppose.

We ask that the formal debate opponents refrain from posting in the Peanut Gallery until after the debate is over.

Enjoy the debate!

-FD&P Moderators

[dr lazer blast]

The thread "The problem with evil is bunk" should be the peanut gallery for this debate! :D

[Deleet]

Start date 12th may. Current date 14th may. Mmmh?

[Moridin]

The funny thing is that wiploc could argue that even if his opponent proposed a perfect theodicy, the theist position would still fail, since a PT denies morality (all evil is justified => no morality exists), which is incompatible with the 3O god of theism.

- Moridin

[diana]

Start date 12th may. Current date 14th may. Mmmh?For future reference: from the start date, the affirmative constructive has the agreed-upon length of time to compose and present his argument. That is, he had through 21 May (12 May + 9 days per post).

Or maybe you were just anxious for the debate to begin. ;)

d

[Deleet]

Start date 12th may. Current date 14th may. Mmmh?For future reference: from the start date, the affirmative constructive has the agreed-upon length of time to compose and present his argument. That is, he had through 21 May (12 May + 9 days per post).

Or maybe you were just anxious for the debate to begin. ;)

d

Ah, I thought the first post was supposed to be posted at the 'start' of the debate.

[HelpingHand]

For future reference: from the start date, the affirmative constructive has the agreed-upon length of time to compose and present his argument. That is, he had through 21 May (12 May + 9 days per post).

Or maybe you were just anxious for the debate to begin. ;)

d

Ah, I thought the first post was supposed to be posted at the 'start' of the debate.

Just like the universe, an iidb-debate seems to have no real beginning. I wonder if it has a cause :)

greetings

Walter

[WVIncagold]

Adonel seams to use "its a fact" or "the fact" to much without any reference to back his position. I think more apt language is "I disagree because" or "your point is taken but" would be possibly more appropriate.
PoE is so hard for theist to actually defend so i am hoping for a good debate. so far they are just warming up so i cant wait to see the results.

[Deleet]

I found Wiploc's case somewhat un-philosophical. Some questionable claims, which Adonael was not slow to catch. Adonael's reply was hard to read and understand because it was not very structured.

[A Stable Flux]

Wiploc's approach is definitely casual, but he can afford to be. His introduction is sufficient in my opinion, the problem was well laid out and the possible responses were laid out.
I don't like the calling of things "opposites", but it is fair to say that goodness and evil are against each other and if you have perfect goodness (like what many apologists ascribe to God) you have no evil. Here the analogy of parents comes in handy, if parents are perfectly good then no bad (or evil) would occur to the parented children.
The debate has already steered toward the "Evil doesn't exist" path, which makes me cringe to think people who allege to love others like they love themselves can exclude so much phenomena from being labeled evil. Wiploc did an adequate job with emphasising the incremental levels of evil, from the littlest evil like stubbing your toe to suffering in hellfire (yet he has modestly avoided pathos and emphasising evil such as the suffering and deaths of children and Auschwitz). The large problem with the omnimax God is that his standards are too high, believers granted him too many abilities. Thus the lack of humility undoes God logically. Perfectly benevolent means no evil, such as perfectly good parents would have no bad happen to their children. The all embracing high standard of perfection does mean that the littlest evil such as toe stubbing is too much, if only the apologists of the omnimax God had some humility with their religion!

Onto Adonael's 'introduction'. It is disappointing to see this "anti-position" in an introduction. By "3 rounds" as is stated in the parameters I expected Wiploc's introduction, Adonael's introduction, Wiploc's rebuttal, Adonael's rebuttal then Wiploc's conclusion and Adonael's conclusion. But like a loyal apologist in my opinion Adonael is maintaining a brazen "anti-position" where he just scatters unstructured retorts back at Wiploc's argument. There are some detailed arguments amongst his smoke and mirrors, but I doubt he'll structure them with the appropriateness they deserve and will simply respond with elusive and weak scepticism time and time again.
First point poorly structured with semi-interesting substance is For instance, if we were to define evil (as many do) as a necessarily existing opposite of good, then wiploc’s PoE will surely fail. It would fail because a necessary existing evil is an evil that must exist in all possible worlds and thus there is no possible world without evil. Accordingly, any world that God exists must also have evil.The argument that good and evil or opposites must simultaneously exist I don't take to be true. In baseball for example a hit is the opposite of a miss, yet a team can have a "perfect game" where they hit every ball well and have no misses. Misses thus aren't necessary to the existence of their opposite hits. That the opposites (which Wiploc declared) must necessarily both exist has to be argued for more substantially by Adonael, as I showed with the example above it's not at all apparent. I'm sure all of us can think of a day containing evil which we wish never had it's evils. Moreover, if an omnipotent and all benevolent God existed I find it logical to expect there to be no days with evil, a perfectly created world can be created by a perfect Creator. An endnote here, it's poor argumentation to say " as many do", say what [I]you are arguing! Not what others have argued.
wiploc defined evil as the source of unhappiness but that does not tell me what evil is or even why unhappiness is an example of evil.This statement is partially contradictory, it at least tries to contend more than is logically consistent. Wiploc did define evil, evil is unhappiness. Now the games begin, what is unhappiness? I find it repugnant that apologists resort to such nihilism, "how are values possible?". This will probably be the main path of the argument, so I won't detail my opinions on this line of argument now.
why does perfect goodness would require the wish that we have no pain at all? This seems to be taking the path of argument that "Logic doesn't work." It seems perfectly logical to me that perfect goodness excludes any evil, toe stubbing to damnation in hellfire. My "perfect game" of baseball above I find illustrates this point.
wiploc is under the impression that since there is no logical contradiction between having a world with no evil, then it “follows” that a world without evil is logically possible. In response, I ask: Is goodness a contingency too? This is a unique sidetracking embarrassment. The case was made that given the premises that a God exists which is all powerful, all knowing and all benevolent there would be no evil. Nearly no atheist contests the world is without evil or suffering. It is commonly the atheist's understanding of the world being evil which makes him/her an atheist. The contention is that presuming an omnimax God exists evil is unneeded or contingent.

The second last paragraph is just a rant about possible worlds with no relationship to the problem of evil. It reads like an even-more-stupid-than-usual Plantinga, going on about possible worlds.

Adonael's conclusion is a perfect conclusion. It sums up his anti-position, reviewing the attempted dodges made through his 'argument'. The phrase wiploc needs objective and necessary standards for goodness. is the only interesting part of the conclusion, which pursues the expected line of argument:"Evil doesn't exist", or you can't properly define evil. I expect this to be the crux of the debate, I doubtlessly belief evil exists and it can be well established (although "objective and necessary standards" may not properly establish evil) although much argument can be made on both sides. Hopefully both sides argue well.

[Deleet]

What is a necessary standard anyway? I'm assuming he's not using modal logic necessary, that would be nonsense.

[Argenta]

Wiploc states that “so long as good and evil are opposites”, then the PoE can operate on any definition of evil. This is untrue. For instance, if we were to define evil (as many do) as a necessarily existing opposite of good, then wiploc’s PoE will surely fail. It would fail because a necessary existing evil is an evil that must exist in all possible worlds and thus there is no possible world without evil. Accordingly, any world that God exists must also have evil.
This is a curious argument. I agree with A Stable Flux, that there is no reason to suppose that good and evil are opposites and therefore must exist simultaneously. But I wonder why theists use this argument at all for, if it is true, the concept of heaven cannot be cogent. So God may exist but a heaven without evil cannot exist. :confused:

Argenta

[HelpingHand]

Wiploc states that “so long as good and evil are opposites”, then the PoE can operate on any definition of evil. This is untrue. For instance, if we were to define evil (as many do) as a necessarily existing opposite of good, then wiploc’s PoE will surely fail. It would fail because a necessary existing evil is an evil that must exist in all possible worlds and thus there is no possible world without evil. Accordingly, any world that God exists must also have evil.
This is a curious argument. I agree with A Stable Flux, that there is no reason to suppose that good and evil are opposites and therefore must exist simultaneously. But I wonder why theists use this argument at all for, if it is true, the concept of heaven cannot be cogent. So God may exist but a heaven without evil cannot exist. :confused:

Argenta

It's even worse: if Adoneal uses the necessary existence of evil as an argument, then wiploc has already won the debate. If evil is a necessarily existing opposite for good ,the logical conclusion of course is that an all-good God cannot logically exist without being all-evil too. So this clearly disproves the existence of an all-good God and it alters the definition of a perfect God. A perfect God must logically have equal quantities of good and evil.


Greetings

Walter

[Deleet]

Wiploc states that “so long as good and evil are opposites”, then the PoE can operate on any definition of evil. This is untrue. For instance, if we were to define evil (as many do) as a necessarily existing opposite of good, then wiploc’s PoE will surely fail. It would fail because a necessary existing evil is an evil that must exist in all possible worlds and thus there is no possible world without evil. Accordingly, any world that God exists must also have evil.
This is a curious argument. I agree with A Stable Flux, that there is no reason to suppose that good and evil are opposites and therefore must exist simultaneously. But I wonder why theists use this argument at all for, if it is true, the concept of heaven cannot be cogent. So God may exist but a heaven without evil cannot exist. :confused:

Argenta

I suppose hell is the opposite. Therefore heaven and hell are interconnected.
I don't think the debate is explicit enough. It's too hard to follow their lines of thought, especially Adanael's. Let's hope that will change.

[Robin Z]

Mmm, I think wiploc slipped up in his latest round. In his opening statement, he claims "[t]here is no logical contradiction---no square circle---in a world without evil, so it follows that an omnipotent god could create such a world" - but the claim that evil is necessary contradicts this.

Of course, if there are degrees of happiness (say, from "vaguely bored" to "ecstatic"), or different styles of happiness ("satisfied", "orgasmic", "peaceful"), the usual contrast argument for necessary-evil fails, and I've never seen any other satisfactory one.

Edit: Besides, all wiploc needs to demonstrate is that the world could be the slightest bit better than it is now. Which, for example, would be the case if starvation were impossible. Q.E.D.

[gregfl]

Wiploc states that “so long as good and evil are opposites”, then the PoE can operate on any definition of evil. This is untrue. For instance, if we were to define evil (as many do) as a necessarily existing opposite of good, then wiploc’s PoE will surely fail. It would fail because a necessary existing evil is an evil that must exist in all possible worlds and thus there is no possible world without evil. Accordingly, any world that God exists must also have evil.


and if you define a flying horse as a pidgeon, you then have a flying horse.

[Stupidity's Ugly Head]

I can't even follow Adonael. His grammar is god-awful, with the wrong words or seemingly random words replacing whole phrases, or inserted unnecessarily. It also seems that his train of thought switches in the middle of a sentence, and several times within a paragraph.

"Finally, wiploc is under the impression that since there is no logical contradiction between having a world with no evil [[AND the contrasting element is where??]] , then it “follows” that a world without evil is logically possible."

Adonael's main argumentation is shredding wiploc's syntax. However, Adonael doesn't have an adequate command of the language to be authoritative with that method. More essential to Adonael's current failure, the method is invalid as a primary contention to the argument.

be·nev·o·lent /bəˈnɛvələnt/ [buh-nev-uh-luhnt] –adjective
1. characterized by or expressing goodwill or kindly feelings: a benevolent attitude; her benevolent smile.
2. desiring to help others; charitable: gifts from several benevolent alumni.
3. intended for benefits rather than profit: a benevolent institution.

If this is the acceptable definition when describing an omni benevolent god, it doesn't include elimination of evil, if the ultimate good is for us/human beings/sheep merely to be processed here on earth for our unitement with god's love/ heaven, and the way we become closest to god's love is by surviving or taking on trials that test our faith the hardest, including victimization, starvation, and murder.

If god is presumed to exist at all, and is firstly to be presumed as omniscient, then he knows the ultimate and best good that he is going to steer us/humans/sheep to. Since we/humans/sheep do NOT know everything that the presumed god knows, we have no place to question god for anything evil that happens, because at the end will be the ultimate good.

The bible is the best proof against a 3-O god, since it describes the horrible, short-sighted, tantrums and attempts to qualify his pride to the devil above and beyond the well-being of we the sheep.

[Deleet]

I can't even follow Adonael. His grammar is god-awful, with the wrong words or seemingly random words replacing whole phrases, or inserted unnecessarily. It also seems that his train of thought switches in the middle of a sentence, and several times within a paragraph.

I cannot say I agree with that.

"Finally, wiploc is under the impression that since there is no logical contradiction between having a world with no evil [[AND the contrasting element is where??]] , then it “follows” that a world without evil is logically possible."

What's wrong with that? That's the definition of logically possible, no contradiction. The problem is that Wiploc accepts that good and evil are relational opposites, i.e. they don't exist unless the other one exists. But that makes evil necessary for good, and if it's necessary even an omnipotent god cannot remove it, and thus the AfE fails.

[Stupidity's Ugly Head]

I cannot say I agree with that.


Why? The quote I give is an example of that... between having a world with no evil AAANNNDDD... what?

What's wrong with that? That's the definition of logically possible, no contradiction. The problem is that Wiploc accepts that good and evil are relational opposites, i.e. they don't exist unless the other one exists. But that makes evil necessary for good, and if it's necessary even an omnipotent god cannot remove it, and thus the AfE fails.

The main point of posting that was to point out the directionless grammar. By introducing the word 'between' fulfillment of the sentence expects two contrasted elements.

Did he accept that they are necessary for the existence of each other, or did he just state that they are opposite?

As I understand good and evil, they are on opposite ends of a spectrum. The spectrum would include at the good end, the most positive and life-affirming events and behavior, and on the opposite end, the most destructive and suffering-inducing behavior.

That seems to be most people's understanding of good and evil in my anecdotal experience. In that case, a god could eliminate from our existence all economic problems such as scarcity and unequal opportunity- in other words everyone could be happy with what they have without the desire to obtain more- everyone could be provided with the most fulfilling mate- sociopaths and mental illness would not exist anymore. An all loving, tentative god would place us in a utopia absent of destruction and the seven deadlies.

This is the most popular spiritual layperson's dream of heaven. Dogmatic believers just insert into this life that all the bad things are a trial by fire to earn your ticket to heaven. The real question of the debate which first assumes a 3-O god would be "Is it benevolent for a god to put we sheep on trial before allowing us into heaven, the absolute good," and the answer becomes "You don't question god." as it always does.

Any debate can start out logical, but as soon as the question involves the supernatural unprovable, the theist will move all of his pieces into the "untouchable zone." Just watch the debate unfold.

[Deleet]

The main point of posting that was to point out the directionless grammar. By introducing the word 'between' fulfillment of the sentence expects two contrasted elements.

I didn't notice any grammar problems, but I'm not a native.


Did he accept that they are necessary for the existence of each other, or did he just state that they are opposite?

Wiploc states it in the first post.


As I understand good and evil, they are on opposite ends of a spectrum. The spectrum would include at the good end, the most positive and life-affirming events and behavior, and on the opposite end, the most destructive and suffering-inducing behavior.

That seems to be most people's understanding of good and evil in my anecdotal experience. In that case, a god could eliminate from our existence all economic problems such as scarcity and unequal opportunity- in other words everyone could be happy with what they have without the desire to obtain more- everyone could be provided with the most fulfilling mate- sociopaths and mental illness would not exist anymore. An all loving, tentative god would place us in a utopia absent of destruction and the seven deadlies.

I can easily understand that, but Wiploc stated that they are relative opposites and thus require each other to exist.

This is the most popular spiritual layperson's dream of heaven. Dogmatic believers just insert into this life that all the bad things are a trial by fire to earn your ticket to heaven.

The testing defence or trial defence is very implausible given God's omniscience.

[HelpingHand]

What's wrong with that? That's the definition of logically possible, no contradiction. The problem is that Wiploc accepts that good and evil are relational opposites, i.e. they don't exist unless the other one exists. But that makes evil necessary for good, and if it's necessary even an omnipotent god cannot remove it, and thus the AfE fails.

No, that is not true. If evil cannot exist without good and good cannot exist without evil this proves that an all-good God cannot logically exist (since He must also contain evil). So God would have to be both good and evil.

Greetings

Walter

[Deleet]

What's wrong with that? That's the definition of logically possible, no contradiction. The problem is that Wiploc accepts that good and evil are relational opposites, i.e. they don't exist unless the other one exists. But that makes evil necessary for good, and if it's necessary even an omnipotent god cannot remove it, and thus the AfE fails.

No, that is not true. If evil cannot exist without good and good cannot exist without evil this proves that an all-good God cannot logically exist (since He must also contain evil). So God would have to be both good and evil.

Greetings

Walter

Why must he also contain evil?

[Stupidity's Ugly Head]

Wiploc states it in the first post.

I can easily understand that, but Wiploc stated that they are relative opposites and thus require each other to exist.

No, he didn't. Adonael inserted relativity, but wiploc did not assert relativity.


The testing defence or trial defence is very implausible given God's omniscience.

"I know past, future, present, but I'm going to put you on trial because that's the only way for you to confirm to yourself that you have "the right stuff." " What business do you have in heaven if you haven't taken your licks? There's no end to supernatural retreat beyond logic.

[Deleet]

No, he didn't. Adonael inserted relativity, but wiploc did not assert relativity.

I was not entirely correct...

Wiploc:
But the PoE doesn't depend on my definition. It works equally well with any other definition, so long as good and evil are opposites.

Notice, "Any other definition".

Adonael found the flaw:

Wiploc states that “so long as good and evil are opposites”, then the PoE can operate on any definition of evil. This is untrue. For instance, if we were to define evil (as many do) as a necessarily existing opposite of good, then wiploc’s PoE will surely fail. It would fail because a necessary existing evil is an evil that must exist in all possible worlds and thus there is no possible world without evil. Accordingly, any world that God exists must also have evil.

So, Adonael has defeated Wiploc's argument by defining it as a relatively opposition to goodness. If there is no evil, there can be no good. God wants good(he's benevolent), but he cannot do that without letting some minimum of evil exist also, even though he is (punk-)omnipotent.

[Adonael]

Edit

Sorry. i thought it was a PM

[A Stable Flux]

Just as I expected, elusive arguing and doubt casting. No structure or substance against the PoE as usual.

But, if it is logically impossible for evil to not exist, then God could not rid evil because God can only do what is logically possible! Thus, there is an irreconcilable confliction in wiploc’s definition of omnipotence and that evil necessarily exists. Wiploc’s argument fails. This is so naive! We are presuming evil is necessary. The omnimax God logically has to remove all evil (this is what the argument is centered upon, the logical necessity of an all powerful, all knowing and all benevolent God to remove/prevent all evil). In the quote above Adonael is presuming God is necessary! It's not that it is a logical impossibility of God removing evil, but the logical impossibility is God. That is, an omnimax God which due to it's benevolence logically would remove all evil.

I may also note that there is no explicit contradiction within the denial of the statement “a perfectly good being would want to extinguish all unhappiness” and thus there is (prima facie) no good reason to think “a perfectly good being would want to extinguish all unhappiness” is logically necessary. This is just ignorance, and it's lurking in the centre of the debate. Let's say there's a perfect cleaner in the world, who is all knowing and all powerful. Given the definition that a cleaner cleans up or prevents uncleanliness, in a perfect manner in this case, then it logically follows there would be no uncleanliness in the world.
This quasi-Plantinga argument about possible worlds is really getting tiresome, and it's completely irrelevant. The case hasn't been made an omnimax God would not remove/prevent all evil. There's just been that drive-by statement above refusing substantial and intelligent argument.

Adonael must explain why a God would let evil exist. No explanation has been made, free will theodicy, necessity for greater good, etc. "I may note", this frivolous weak arguing that thinks it can just point towards an argument instead of presenting and detailing the argument itself, is likely to be the best we'll see with another limited attempt to refute the PoE.

[Argenta]

I assume wiploc chose to say that any definition of good and evil will work so long as they are opposites:
[… the PoE doesn't depend on my definition. It works equally well with any other definition, so long as good and evil are opposites.
because Christians do not claim that God is not evil, they claim He is omnibenevolent. So if omnibenevolent and evil are not opposites, the PoE is no problem at all for the existence of God. But I think allowing any definition was a mistake since it allowed Adonael, perfectly fairly, to propose the definition:
... if we were to define evil (as many do) as a necessarily existing opposite of good, then wiploc’s PoE will surely fail. It would fail because a necessary existing evil is an evil that must exist in all possible worlds and thus there is no possible world without evil. Accordingly, any world that God exists must also have evil.
So I would suggest this definition of evil:

A “Intentional action (or inaction where action is possible) that increases avoidable suffering.”

The opposite of this would be:

B “Intentional action (or inaction where action is possible) that reduces avoidable suffering.”

The PoE bites if definition B is something we could reasonably expect an omnibenevolent God to pursue to the exclusion of its opposite (definition A).

So now we have the problem of understanding what theists mean by the word “omnibenevolent”. Unfortunately, theists are a bit slippery with definitions (I wonder why?). The online FreeDictionary has no definition but gives this definition of benevolent:

be•nev•o•lent
adj.
1. Characterized by or suggestive of doing good.
2. Of, concerned with, or organized for the benefit of charity.

Definition 1 fits quite well as theists often substitute the phrase “perfectly good” in place of omnibenevolent. But what is “good”? The online FreeDictionary rather unhelpfully gives us 20 definitions! I would suggest definition 17 is the most appropriate:

17.
a. Of moral excellence; upright: a good person.
b. Benevolent; kind: a good soul; a good heart.
c. Loyal; staunch: a good Republican.

So I think we can say that a good being is one who demonstrates moral excellence, tries to help others and is loyal. A perfectly good (omnibenevolent) being must be one who shows these qualities to the highest possible degree and never fails.

It seems to me that a being that is perfectly good by this definition would be bound to pursue:

B “Intentional action (or inaction where action is possible) that reduces avoidable suffering.”

And to avoid its opposite (evil):

A “Intentional action (or inaction where action is possible) that increases avoidable suffering.”

Consequently, if we have evidence that God ever refused to act to reduce avoidable suffering, we have to conclude that an omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God does not exist.

Argenta

[Deleet]

Just as I expected, elusive arguing and doubt casting. No structure or substance against the PoE as usual.

I disagree.

This is so naive! We are presuming evil is necessary. The omnimax God logically has to remove all evil (this is what the argument is centered upon, the logical necessity of an all powerful, all knowing and all benevolent God to remove/prevent all evil).

No. Punk-omnipotence is only the power to remove all non-necessary evil.

In the quote above Adonael is presuming God is necessary! It's not that it is a logical impossibility of God removing evil, but the logical impossibility is God. That is, an omnimax God which due to it's benevolence logically would remove all evil.

No. Adonael is assuming that evil is necessary. Wiploc's definition of evil allowed him to do so.

This is just ignorance, and it's lurking in the centre of the debate. Let's say there's a perfect cleaner in the world, who is all knowing and all powerful. Given the definition that a cleaner cleans up or prevents uncleanliness, in a perfect manner in this case, then it logically follows there would be no uncleanliness in the world.

No. The analogy fails because it does not follow, at least prima facie from omnibenevolence that god's highest wish is to remove evil. Adonael notes that there is no contradiction in denying it, and thus no prima facie to believe it is necessary. Wiploc has to show how removing evil is god's highest priority, deducing it from his omnibenevolence.

This quasi-Plantinga argument about possible worlds is really getting tiresome, and it's completely irrelevant. The case hasn't been made an omnimax God would not remove/prevent all evil. There's just been that drive-by statement above refusing substantial and intelligent argument.

Random ad hominem noted.

Adonael must explain why a God would let evil exist. No explanation has been made, free will theodicy, necessity for greater good, etc. "I may note", this frivolous weak arguing that thinks it can just point towards an argument instead of presenting and detailing the argument itself, is likely to be the best we'll see with another limited attempt to refute the PoE.

No, he must not. Wiploc has the burden of proof, to show that necessary god would remove evil, as his highest priority.

[A Stable Flux]

As I've said on this board before, the logical PoE I find underachieving because it divorces reality from the discussion. The gratuitous problem of evil makes better sense because it talks about the actual world, not abstraction. It's a bit beyond the scope of the current debate to talk about non-necessary (gratuitous) evils.

I took the necessity of evil to be a hypothetical argument. If evil was apart of the world, then God couldn't exist. Upon reviewing my assumptions I agree punk-omnipotence wouldn't be required to remove or prevent the necessary evils. I do not believe that God would be a moral consequentialist though. That is, that an all powerful, all knowing and all loving God would need necessary evils.

The elasticity given to the ideas of benevolence and moral goodness irritates me when it comes from people who claim to live by love. If omnibenevolence doesn't by definition want to remove all evil so all goodness may reign, I don't see the point of using the word "omnibenevolence". I certainly think if there was a God It would of been more kinder than the powers that be which have crafted this world. Which is the gratuitous PoE again.

[Stupidity's Ugly Head]

Adonael found the flaw:

Wiploc states that “so long as good and evil are opposites”, then the PoE can operate on any definition of evil. This is untrue. For instance, if we were to define evil (as many do) as a necessarily existing opposite of good, then wiploc’s PoE will surely fail. It would fail because a necessary existing evil is an evil that must exist in all possible worlds and thus there is no possible world without evil. Accordingly, any world that God exists must also have evil.

Yes, you've pointed out where adonael asserted this relativity. However. Wiploc stated "any definition of good or evil", not "any wide field relational concept descriptor".

[HelpingHand]

No, that is not true. If evil cannot exist without good and good cannot exist without evil this proves that an all-good God cannot logically exist (since He must also contain evil). So God would have to be both good and evil.

Greetings

Walter

Why must he also contain evil?

Because under the assumed definition ,evil is necessary, which means it must exist in all possible worlds, including a possible world which has only God. Therefore God must logically contain evil ,which in itself already disproves the tri-omni God.

Greetings

Walter

[gregfl]

If Adonael cannot explain why evil is necessary, then his argument fails with a thud. Just because you define something as an opposite concept doesn´t make it necessary, and just because you call something necessary doesn´t make it so. This leaves Adonael´s argument as a weak semantic attempt at circumventing Wiploc´s premise.


I am not even sure evil is the opposite of good but I am willing to agree it is so for the sake of this argument. We are then left with Adonael just defining evil as necessary.

So perhaps Wiploc should concede this minor point, that if you define evil as necessary then evil is necessary (for the sake of argument only), but it still neuters the tri omni god unless Adonael can demonstrate that the lack of evil causes a logical contradiction.

[HelpingHand]

Adonael must explain why a God would let evil exist. No explanation has been made, free will theodicy, necessity for greater good, etc. "I may note", this frivolous weak arguing that thinks it can just point towards an argument instead of presenting and detailing the argument itself, is likely to be the best we'll see with another limited attempt to refute the PoE.

No, he must not. Wiploc has the burden of proof, to show that necessary god would remove evil, as his highest priority.


No, Wiploc just has to show that an omnibenevolent God would remove evil. 'As His highest priority' has no bearing in this.
Now, the very definition of omni-bene-volence: 'always wanting good' requires God to remove all evil.
One escape for the theist would be that at least some 'good' cannot exist without evil, but this would also mean that God cannot be all-good, since to be all-good, he would also have to have some 'evil' in Him.
Since God is described as all-good without evil, it is clear that absolute good requires no evil at all.
So, the only logical conclusion is: a God that is all-good does not have to allow evil and cannot logically allow evil without having at least some evil in Him (which would contradict His all-good nature).
Therefore the PoE disproves an all-good God.

greetings

Walter

[Deleet]

Why must he also contain evil?

Because under the assumed definition ,evil is necessary, which means it must exist in all possible worlds, including a possible world which has only God. Therefore God must logically contain evil ,which in itself already disproves the tri-omni God.

Greetings

Walter

Oh, that's a neat argument.

[Deleet]

If Adonael cannot explain why evil is necessary, then his argument fails with a thud. Just because you define something as an opposite concept doesn´t make it necessary, and just because you call something necessary doesn´t make it so. This leaves Adonael´s argument as a weak semantic attempt at circumventing Wiploc´s premise.

Not really. Wiploc said that his AfE works for any definition of evil, as long as it is opposed to good. Adonael has showed that under some defitinions of evil, the AfE fails.


I am not even sure evil is the opposite of good but I am willing to agree it is so for the sake of this argument. We are then left with Adonael just defining evil as necessary.

I certainly wouldn't see it as the opposite.

So perhaps Wiploc should concede this minor point, that if you define evil as necessary then evil is necessary (for the sake of argument only), but it still neuters the tri omni god unless Adonael can demonstrate that the lack of evil causes a logical contradiction.

Wiplic could change his requirement to the definition of evil, and show how that leads to a necessary true AfE.

Or..

He could conclude that god would remove all non-necessary evils, and show that there are still evils in this world, that are non-necessary, and this the AfE is sound.

[Deleet]

No, he must not. Wiploc has the burden of proof, to show that necessary god would remove evil, as his highest priority.

No, Wiploc just has to show that an omnibenevolent God would remove evil. 'As His highest priority' has no bearing in this.

Yes it has. Because god might have some other motive that has a higher priority than to remove evil, and if that motive requires some evil to be accomplished. Then that evil is more important to god than removing evil. I guess this is some form of the MSR theodicy.


Now, the very definition of omni-bene-volence: 'always wanting good' requires God to remove all evil.

Depends what good is. If good is non-evil, then yes. But again, god could have some other reason. See above.

One escape for the theist would be that at least some 'good' cannot exist without evil, but this would also mean that God cannot be all-good, since to be all-good, he would also have to have some 'evil' in Him.
Since God is described as all-good without evil, it is clear that absolute good requires no evil at all.

True. Per the possible world with only god in it.

So, the only logical conclusion is: a God that is all-good does not have to allow evil and cannot logically allow evil without having at least some evil in Him (which would contradict His all-good nature).
Therefore the PoE disproves an all-good God.

Hmm.

[HelpingHand]

No, Wiploc just has to show that an omnibenevolent God would remove evil. 'As His highest priority' has no bearing in this.

Yes it has. Because god might have some other motive that has a higher priority than to remove evil, and if that motive requires some evil to be accomplished. Then that evil is more important to god than removing evil. I guess this is some form of the MSR theodicy.

Yes, that may be so. But what I meant is, the God that is generally described by theists has no 'priorities', he has an unchanging will'. If this will is described as 'all-good' I cannot see how evil would even be a logical possibility, except of course, if evil isn't really evil and is just a necessary ingredient of 'good'. But then, God would also necessarily have that ingredient, so I do not see how we could call him 'all good' without calling everybody 'all good'.



Depends what good is. If good is non-evil, then yes. But again, god could have some other reason. See above.

Yes, but if 'good' entails 'some evil' then that evil is not evil since it is a part of 'good'. That would mean evil is just an illusion, and that is , in my view, the only way for a theist to properly answer the PoE.

True. Per the possible world with only god in it.

Well, if theists say that is not a possible world, they have a serious problem.

So, the only logical conclusion is: a God that is all-good does not have to allow evil and cannot logically allow evil without having at least some evil in Him (which would contradict His all-good nature).
Therefore the PoE disproves an all-good God.

Hmm.

It's getting late here, so I suggest we sleep on it,Deleet. Who knows what tomorrow will bring?

Good night


Walter

[Robin Z]

Quick question: what is the distinction between the "logical problem of evil" and the "evidentiary problem of evil", anyway?

[A Stable Flux]

Quick question: what is the distinction between the "logical problem of evil" and the "evidentiary problem of evil", anyway?

The logical problem of evil is the argument that it is logically impossible for an all powerful, all knowing and all benevolent God to exist if evil exists.

The evidentiary or gratuitous problem of evil is the argument that so much evil exists that an all powerful, all knowing and all benevolent God cannot exist.

They are not neatly divided and discussions of the logical problem of evil can easily merge into arguments in the evidentiary problem of evil. As I think of it, the problem of evil should always be concerned with the actual evil which has happened in the world. But the logical problem of evil still merits some discussion as it is a very strong argument, even though the subject matter is abstract.

[Deleet]

Quick question: what is the distinction between the "logical problem of evil" and the "evidentiary problem of evil", anyway?

Logical problem of evil sets out to prove that it is necessary true that no god exists, while the evidential only leads to a low probability of god.

[Deleet]

Hello Walter



Yes, that may be so. But what I meant is, the God that is generally described by theists has no 'priorities', he has an unchanging will'. If this will is described as 'all-good' I cannot see how evil would even be a logical possibility, except of course, if evil isn't really evil and is just a necessary ingredient of 'good'. But then, God would also necessarily have that ingredient, so I do not see how we could call him 'all good' without calling everybody 'all good'.

Unfortunately, the LAfE (Logical Argument from Evil) only rests on an omnipotent, omniscient, all-good deity, not a static-mind deity. However, it is of course a problem for the theists who believe in that also.

I don't know what having no priorities means. I would think that god wanting to remove evil sets that as a priority of his. The question is if there is a higher priority.

Necessary ingredient of good? Do you mean a necessary opposite, which I call relative opposites?



Yes, but if 'good' entails 'some evil' then that evil is not evil since it is a part of 'good'. That would mean evil is just an illusion, and that is , in my view, the only way for a theist to properly answer the PoE.


This is not valid. If A entails B, it does not follow that not-B or that B is part of A. Please elaborate.



It's getting late here, so I suggest we sleep on it,Deleet. Who knows what tomorrow will bring?

His noodly appendage, of course! He has no problem with evil. :notworthy:

[HelpingHand]

Hello Walter



Yes, that may be so. But what I meant is, the God that is generally described by theists has no 'priorities', he has an unchanging will'. If this will is described as 'all-good' I cannot see how evil would even be a logical possibility, except of course, if evil isn't really evil and is just a necessary ingredient of 'good'. But then, God would also necessarily have that ingredient, so I do not see how we could call him 'all good' without calling everybody 'all good'.

Unfortunately, the LAfE (Logical Argument from Evil) only rests on an omnipotent, omniscient, all-good deity, not a static-mind deity. However, it is of course a problem for the theists who believe in that also.

I see this 'static mind' idea as a direct consequence of omniscience. God doesn't get to know everything, He knows everything without having to consider anything. If He has to consider something, that would mena that there is a 'moment' when He doesn't know something, followed by a 'moment' when He does. That clearly contradicts omniscience.


I don't know what having no priorities means. I would think that god wanting to remove evil sets that as a priority of his. The question is if there is a higher priority.

It means that everything is equally important to you.
And BTW, it's not a question of wanting to remove evil, it a question of ceating or allowing evil for some unknown purpose.

Necessary ingredient of good? Do you mean a necessary opposite, which I call relative opposites?

No, I mean really an ingredient. All-good would necessarily contain something we perceive as evil. e.g. In a totally good world there would still have to be an amount of suffering, but suffering really is no evil, it's just one 'ingredient' of good that we perceive as unpleasant.

I don't believe that is really the case, of course.


This is not valid. If A entails B, it does not follow that not-B or that B is part of A. Please elaborate.

That's correct; I should have said 'contains' instead of 'entails' (see what I explained above)



Greetings

walter

[Deleet]

Hey Walter



I see this 'static mind' idea as a direct consequence of omniscience. God doesn't get to know everything, He knows everything without having to consider anything. If He has to consider something, that would mena that there is a 'moment' when He doesn't know something, followed by a 'moment' when He does. That clearly contradicts omniscience.

Depending on how omniscience is defined. It doesn't follow from god's knowledge does not increase to god's mind is static.

It means that everything is equally important to you.
And BTW, it's not a question of wanting to remove evil, it a question of ceating or allowing evil for some unknown purpose.

What would happen if two intentions contradict each other and each are equally important? No action?

No, I mean really an ingredient. All-good would necessarily contain something we perceive as evil. e.g. In a totally good world there would still have to be an amount of suffering, but suffering really is no evil, it's just one 'ingredient' of good that we perceive as unpleasant.

This made no sense to me.

Yes, but if 'good' contains 'some evil' then that evil is not evil since it is a part of 'good'. That would mean evil is just an illusion, and that is , in my view, the only way for a theist to properly answer the PoE.

I don't know what it means to say that good contains evil. Aren't they supposed to be opposites? Something cannot be both opposites at the same time. God could not be good and evil at the same time, because that's logically impossible.

[HelpingHand]

Depending on how omniscience is defined. It doesn't follow from god's knowledge does not increase to god's mind is static.

I think it does. If 'omniscient' really means 'knowing everything', then God has always known (from eternity) everything, including which decisions He is going to make etc. That way he has a 'static mind'.
For the record, I don't think 'omniscience' is a coherent concept anyway.


What would happen if two intentions contradict each other and each are equally important? No action?

That would be the only logical consequence, yes.

No, I mean really an ingredient. All-good would necessarily contain something we perceive as evil. e.g. In a totally good world there would still have to be an amount of suffering, but suffering really is no evil, it's just one 'ingredient' of good that we perceive as unpleasant.
This made no sense to me.

It doesn't make sense to me either, but it would be the logical consequence of saying that evil is necessary for good to exist.

Yes, but if 'good' contains 'some evil' then that evil is not evil since it is a part of 'good'. That would mean evil is just an illusion, and that is , in my view, the only way for a theist to properly answer the PoE.

I don't know what it means to say that good contains evil. Aren't they supposed to be opposites? Something cannot be both opposites at the same time. God could not be good and evil at the same time, because that's logically impossible.

God could logically be partially good and partially evil, but of course he cannot be all-good and all-evil at the same time. Evil and good being necessarily existing opposites would mean that God has to be good and evil.
A theist who still wishes to maintain that God is all-good must necessarily see evil as a part of good, which would only be possible if evil is in fact an illusion. Therefore, the only way out of the PoE is to deny the existence of evil.


Greetings

walter

[Tuffa Nuff]

The way I see it is: "If a god created everything which exists, and if any particular thing is absolutely necessary, then that god is not omnipotent." If an omnipotent god created everything which exists, then any things which are necessary, are only necessary in this universe, and presumably because the hypothetical god wanted it to be that way. Such a god could however, if omnipotent, have it any way that (s)he chose.

One cannot apply the logic of this universe to a hypothetical universe which an omnipotent and omniscient god could have created, because that god could also have logic however (s)he wanted it. In such a universe, good could exist without evil. I have read comments in which it is pointed out that heaven is all good, and without evil or suffering or pain. Thus in theology, in the heavenly afterlife, good without evil, suffering or pain is possible.

[WVIncagold]

I am suprised neither has come out with the paradox that omni anything provides. But neither side to me is defining things well enough at this point IMHO.

[dr lazer blast]

I'd say that wiploc needs to give a better definition of evil. In any case I still have difficulties understanding how the existance of evil and an all good God can't exist. Maybe someone can fill me in on the non theist perception of it.

[Dante Alighieri]

As a utilitarian, I can agree that there are possible worlds where rape is good---because there are possible worlds where rape makes everybody happy.

Well, that was unexpected.

[gregfl]

As a utilitarian, I can agree that there are possible worlds where rape is good---because there are possible worlds where rape makes everybody happy.

Well, that was unexpected.

Meaning only that there are possible worlds where this result doesn't cause a contradiction. But are there? The definition of rape is unwanted forced sex, and I believe it is a contradiction to say there exists a world where unwanted sex caused happiness, especially for 'everybody'. It is kind of like claiming murder is justified when the definition of murder is unjustified killing.

Back to the topic...I think Wiploc's consession was warranted and puts the debate back on topic. However, I still believe claiming that evil is necessary makes god not omnipotent unless and until it can be demonstrated a world without evil causes a contradiction.

I would like to see a definition of good and evil coming from Adonael and an explanation as to why evil is necessary.

[gregfl]

"If “unhappiness or suffering” means “evil”, then “Child molestation is evil” logically entails “child molestation is unhappiness or suffering”. (E→□(C→U))
“Child molestation is evil but child molestation is not unhappiness or suffering” is consistent. ◊(C&~U)
Therefore, “unhappiness or suffering” does not mean "evil". ~E ""


the second point is unagreeable.

child molestation is evil for the very reason that it causes unhappiness or suffering. This can be demonstrated by a laundry lists of suffering and unhappiness that this action causes to not only the direct victims but to the indirect people that care for and love the child. Uniformed consent in and of itself is not "evil". If I look at you, for example without informed consent I have not caused you pain or suffering. Therefore it is easily demonstrated that this premise is flawed.

If it could be demonstrated effectively that child molestation did not cause suffering and/or unhappiness, it would no longer be "evil" but rather desirable or neutral.

[Deleet]

I'm just writing this as I read the debate.


Wiploc's third post
Wiploc:
Let me drop, for the time being, my claim that the PoE works with any definition of "evil" so long as it is the opposite of good. I define "evil" as, "human suffering or unhappiness, or the causes thereof."

I'm happy.

Wiploc:
If god is good, he is, by definition, a cause of human happiness. If god is benevolent, he, by definition, wants us to be happy.
I'm having problems with this. There are different meanings of saying that someone is good. It could be that he caused good thing or that he wants to cause good things. Wiploc seems to have both in the definition. I'd probably stick to the second. But, small detail.

Wiploc:
Adonael still doesn't believe this. He keeps asking how god's benevolence entails him wanting people to be happy. But god's benevolence is his desire for people to be happy.

He could play a definition game. Arguing over the definition of the word. I see this as pointless.

Wiploc:
Clearly there are possible worlds without unhappiness.
A little rhetoric here. It's up to Adonael to argue a necessary evil.

---
Adonael's third post

Adonael:
As you can probably tell, the implications of wiploc’s argument are absurd.
More rhetoric.

Adonael:
We can say that wiploc’s implications are absurd because we know that some acts are good or evil irrespective to the psychological reactions they can create. For instance, child molestation can be evil irrespective to the suffering or unhappiness that child molestation can produce. This is because a basis for the evilness of child molestation can rest sorely in it being a sexual act without informed consent.

Hmm. Is Adonael disagreeing with the definition here? If he is using Wiploc's definitions then we can't tell "that some acts are good or evil irrespective to the psychological reactions they can create."

Adonael:
# If “unhappiness or suffering” means “evil”, then “Child molestation is evil” logically entails “child molestation is unhappiness or suffering”. (E→□(C→U))

Actually. This is only the one part of the definition. Did he forget about the second part?

Adonael:
I asked for wiploc’s reason why perfect goodness would compel God to eliminate all evil. Wiploc replied (in his first response) that it is within God’s nature as a perfectly good being. In other words, wiploc stated that necessarily, perfect goodness would entail God eliminate all evil because necessarily, perfect goodness entails that God would eliminate all evil. Yet, this is circular reasoning.

No. It's a definition, not an argument.

Adonael:
I raised scepticism that God’s benevolence entails God ridding all evil.
This is unclear. Does he mean, wanting to rid all evil?

Adonael:
For wiploc, it’s true by definition. If you ask wiploc to defend his definition, then you’ll get a repeat of the definition

So. It seems like Adonael's problem lies with the definitions. But could he not grant that the argument works with Wiploc's definitions? Wiploc asked him to do so. This is why I never use the words good and evil. They only give an invitation to discuss some fruitless debate about definitions. I like to take Dawkins' stance on definitions.


Adonael:
How can it be said to “bullet proof” when wiploc has repeatedly failed to get the assumptions of his PoE off the ground?

It's bulletproof with his definitions--obviously. The only problem you raised with the definition was a straw man. Your second post was great, the third was not.

Conclusion

Wiploc's case started out pretty casual, with some ambiguities and a flawed definition (in my opinion). Adonael's first post lacked some clarity but it's biggest problem was the lack of structure.
Wiploc's second post was somewhat confused, perhaps because of the problems mentioned before in Adonael's first post. Adonael's second post was great to point in flaws in Wiploc's argument.
Wiploc's third post fixes the flawed definition and restates his case. Adonael's third reply was a straw man and a non-agreement to Wiploc's definition. Adonael did not let us know if he thinks the PoE is sound with Wiploc's definitions.

[hinduwoman]

Isn't perfection subjective?

[Moridin]

Isn't perfection subjective?

No, but a relational attribute. Perfect compared to?

I do wish wiploc would argue the immorality of theodicies instead of having his case distorted. Oh well.

[Deleet]

Isn't perfection subjective?

No, but a relational attribute. Perfect compared to?

I do wish wiploc would argue the immorality of theodicies instead of having his case distorted. Oh well.

It can be both relational and absolute. The absolute form is 'without flaws'.

[Adonael]

Isn't perfection subjective?

No, but a relational attribute. Perfect compared to?

I do wish wiploc would argue the immorality of theodicies instead of having his case distorted. Oh well.

i did not offer a theodicy.

[Will Sjorensen]

1. (E→□(C→U))
2. ◊(C&~U)
3. Assumption: E
4. □(C→U) (MP 1,3)
5. W: (C&~U) (from 2)
6. W: C (simp, 5)
7. W: ~U (simp, 5)
8. W: C→U (from 4)
9. W: U (from 6 and 8)
10. W:~E (from 3; 7 contradicts 9)



This argument doesn't demonstrate ~E; the only thing that can be derived from 10 is ◊~E -- it is possible that it is not the case that evil = suffering. ◊~E entails ~□E, but it does not entail ~E. Wiploc's position is E, not □E; he readily conceded that ◊~E.



To my reckoning, the whole exchange went like this:


Wiploc: Two plus three is five.

Adonel: You haven't shown that the first number is two.

Wiploc: Uh, I've assigned it that value for the sake of argument.

Adonel: It's possible that the first number is something other than two.

Wiploc: Like what?

Adonel: It's your job, not mine, to give a satisfactory value to the first number.

Wiploc: What would you consider satisfactory?

Adonel: Something other than two.

Wiploc: Look, once you concede that two plus three is five, which is my argument, I'd be happy to talk with you about another argument, one with a different value for the first number.

Adonel: Sure two plus three is five, but once again, you haven't shown that the first number is two; therefore, you lose.

Wiploc: But that's exactly what I--

Adonel: I said you LOSE!


Adonel himself conceded that the PoE as presented by wiploc is sound. He nevertheless maintained that the PoE itself failed to challenge theism. But what did Adonel mean by the PoE? How did he define that term? He could not have meant Wiploc's PoE, because he clearly rejected the definitions in that argument. But he did not offer any alternative definitions. Therefore, the key term in Adonel's assertion remains undefined. "Theism is unchallenged by the PoE" thus becomes the semantic equivalent of "Theism is unchallenged by the gurgleschnortz." A meaningless statement like that cannot have a truth value; nor even could "Wiploc has failed to show that the gurgleschnortz challenges theism." That may well be true, but we can't know it to be true unless "gurgleschnortz" is defined.

Wiploc, meanwhile, proved exactly what he set out to prove, and Adonel himself conceded as much. Wiploc is the clear victor in this debate. However, for the sake of more constructive discussions in the future, I would suggest to Wiploc that he replace the word "evil" with the word "suffering" when making his argument; that would make it more clear that the problem has practical relevance to Christian theism.

[George Hathaway]

1. (E→□(C→U))
2. ◊(C&~U)
3. Assumption: E
4. □(C→U) (MP 1,3)
5. W: (C&~U) (from 2)
6. W: C (simp, 5)
7. W: ~U (simp, 5)
8. W: C→U (from 4)
9. W: U (from 6 and 8)
10. W:~E (from 3; 7 contradicts 9)

I know I am just moderating, but the debate itself is over, so... I, too, was going to take that "logic" apart and try to make sense of it.

1. (E→□(C→U))
E implies that it is necessary that Child-molesting implies Unhappiness.
2. ◊(C&~U)
This is presented as an axiom w/o proof: It is possible to have both (Child-molesting and No Unhappiness.)
3. Assumption: E
Another axiom.
4. □(C→U) (MP 1,3)
Logically true if you accept the axioms.
5. W: (C&~U) (from 2)
Well, no, (2) [the possibility of Child-molesting and No Unhappiness] does not imply the truth of [child-molesting and No Unhappiness] In general the possibility of X does not imply X.
6. W: C (simp, 5)
Yes, if (5) were established [remember, though, that it is not]
7. W: ~U (simp, 5)
...
8. W: C→U (from 4)
Well, no, the necessity that Child-molesting implies unhappiness does not imply that there exists Child-molesting that does cause Unhappiness. The necessity that being tossed into the Sun extinguishes human life does not imply that someone has done so.
9. W: U (from 6 and 8)
If there were child molesting (6) and that implied Unhappiness, there would be, yep.
10. W:~E (from 3; 7 contradicts 9)
Wait, from 3 we get E, not (~E).
(7) does contradict (9), but so what? (7) was derived from the axiom that Child-molesting and no Unhappiness is possible.

[Adonael]

1. (E→□(C→U))
2. ◊(C&~U)
3. Assumption: E
4. □(C→U) (MP 1,3)
5. W: (C&~U) (from 2)
6. W: C (simp, 5)
7. W: ~U (simp, 5)
8. W: C→U (from 4)
9. W: U (from 6 and 8)
10. W:~E (from 3; 7 contradicts 9)



This argument doesn't demonstrate ~E; the only thing that can be derived from 10 is ◊~E -- it is possible that it is not the case that evil = suffering. ◊~E entails ~□E, but it does not entail ~E. Wiploc's position is E, not □E; he readily conceded that ◊~E.



To my reckoning, the whole exchange went like this:


Wiploc: Two plus three is five.

Adonel: You haven't shown that the first number is two.

Wiploc: Uh, I've assigned it that value for the sake of argument.

Adonel: It's possible that the first number is something other than two.

Wiploc: Like what?

Adonel: It's your job, not mine, to give a satisfactory value to the first number.

Wiploc: What would you consider satisfactory?

Adonel: Something other than two.

Wiploc: Look, once you concede that two plus three is five, which is my argument, I'd be happy to talk with you about another argument, one with a different value for the first number.

Adonel: Sure two plus three is five, but once again, you haven't shown that the first number is two; therefore, you lose.

Wiploc: But that's exactly what I--

Adonel: I said you LOSE!


Adonel himself conceded that the PoE as presented by wiploc is sound. He nevertheless maintained that the PoE itself failed to challenge theism. But what did Adonel mean by the PoE? How did he define that term? He could not have meant Wiploc's PoE, because he clearly rejected the definitions in that argument. But he did not offer any alternative definitions. Therefore, the key term in Adonel's assertion remains undefined. "Theism is unchallenged by the PoE" thus becomes the semantic equivalent of "Theism is unchallenged by the gurgleschnortz." A meaningless statement like that cannot have a truth value; nor even could "Wiploc has failed to show that the gurgleschnortz challenges theism." That may well be true, but we can't know it to be true unless "gurgleschnortz" is defined.

Wiploc, meanwhile, proved exactly what he set out to prove, and Adonel himself conceded as much. Wiploc is the clear victor in this debate. However, for the sake of more constructive discussions in the future, I would suggest to Wiploc that he replace the word "evil" with the word "suffering" when making his argument; that would make it more clear that the problem has practical relevance to Christian theism.


The argument is valid. the assumption leads to contradictions. thus, we can that it is not the case that E is true. This does not mean that E is not true in some other possible world, but that it is not true in this world. moreover, i did not concede the argument was sound at all. if you disagree, then i encourage you to quote me.

[Will Sjorensen]

The argument is valid. the assumption leads to contradictions. thus, we can that it is not the case that E is true.

The argument is valid, yes, but it doesn't establish the conclusion you wish to establish -- it establishes ◊~E, not ~E.


This does not mean that E is not true in some other possible world, but that it is not true in this world.

You can't derive ~E from ◊~E prima facie.



moreover, i did not concede the argument was sound at all. if you disagree, then i encourage you to quote me.


It is true that did not refute the PoE...

[Adonael]

2. ◊(C&~U)
This is presented as an axiom w/o proof: It is possible to have both (Child-molesting and No Unhappiness.

It's not an axiom, George.


3. Assumption: E
Another axiom.


neither is this.




5. W: (C&~U) (from 2)
[COLOR="DarkGreen"]Well, no, (2) [the possibility of Child-molesting and No Unhappiness] does not imply the truth of [child-molesting and No Unhappiness] In general the possibility of X does not imply X. Notice that I put the "W" before the (C&~U)? The "W" stands for possible world "W" and not the actual world. Thus, you are misunderstanding.





Well, no, the necessity that Child-molesting implies unhappiness does not imply that there exists Child-molesting that does cause Unhappiness. The necessity that being tossed into the Sun extinguishes human life does not imply that someone has done so.

I'm not sure what youre saying here, but all i said was that from [](C&U), one can infer W: <>(C&U). This is entirely legit. Again, the "W" stands for just some possible world "W".

9. W: U (from 6 and 8)
If there were child molesting (6) and that implied Unhappiness, there would be, yep.
10. W:~E (from 3; 7 contradicts 9)
Wait, from 3 we get E, not (~E).
(7) does contradict (9), but so what? (7) was derived from the axiom that Child-molesting and no Unhappiness is possible. [/QUOTE]


when your assumptions lead to contradictions, (U and ~U), then you can negate the assumption. Thus W: not E. Tell me, what did you think the "W" meant, george?

[Adonael]

Ohhhhh, I got confused. hhaha. look, we're saying the same thing but you made it sound as if we were not.

my conclusion does say <>~E. The "W" before the conclusion stands for possible world "W". Thus, you actually agree with me and my argument is valid.

[Will Sjorensen]

This does not mean that E is not true in some other possible world, but that it is not true in this world.



The "W" stands for possible world and not the actual world.

(...)

Again, the "W" stands for just some possible world.


:)

[George Hathaway]

2. ◊(C&~U)
This is presented as an axiom w/o proof: It is possible to have both (Child-molesting and No Unhappiness.

It's not an axiom, George.


Just one at a time.

Please show me how (2) is derived?

It is asserted it seems to me.

It is certainly not derivable from (1) E-->(C-->U).

[Will Sjorensen]

You cannot claim my argument valid and then state that it did not produce the conclusion that i said it does.


I just did. And look: I'm about to do it again!

Your argument produces the conclusion ◊~E. The conclusion that you say it produces is ~E. Thus, your argument does not produce the conclusion that you say it does.





I showed george why his interpretation of my argument was incorrect.


George's interpretation is not my interpretation.



moreover, stating that i did not refute the PoE does not concede that it is sound. When someone states that such and such is sound, then they are stating that it is true. However, just because you did not refute something does not mean that you believe it were true.


True, but if someone makes a prima facie case for an argument -- which Wiploc did -- and if that argument stands unrefuted -- which, in your debate, it did -- then that argument must assumed to be sound, and believing it to be false nonetheless makes you irrational.



as i said, i did not refute it but i challenged it. Do you understand what i mean by this?

I think so, but as I said, if a prima facie argument stands unrefuted it must be assumed sound.

[Adonael]

It's not an axiom, George.


Just one at a time.

Please show me how (2) is derived?

It is asserted it seems to me.

It is certainly not derivable from (1) E-->(C-->U).

2 is a premise. it is not derived.

[Adonael]

Your argument produces the conclusion ◊~E. The conclusion that you say it produces is ~E. Thus, your argument does not produce the conclusion that you say it does.


The argument, as i had it in the debate, is valid. it was only when you guys stated that i was saying that it was actual that i got confused. im not really paying too much attention, sorries! :D



True, but if someone makes a prima facie case for an argument -- which Wiploc did -- and if that argument stands unrefuted -- which, in your debate, it did -- then that argument must assumed to be sound, and believing it to be false nonetheless makes you irrational.


I see no prima facie case. He defined his terms, but did not support them. what good is that?



I think so, but as I said, if a prima facie argument stands unrefuted it must be assumed sound.[/QUOTE] granted. however, i see no reason to believe it was a prima facie case. :huh:

[George Hathaway]

Just one at a time.

Please show me how (2) is derived?

It is asserted it seems to me.

It is certainly not derivable from (1) E-->(C-->U).

2 is a premise. it is not derived.

A premise is identical to axiom.

Please justify the claim that it is possible to have the conjunction (Child-molesting and No Unhappiness).

Absent underlying foundation this premise or axiom is unjustified.

What it boils down to is that if you assume the possibility that both child-molesting and No Unhappiness can coexist there is no 'problem' of evil.

Justify your axiom (premise) please.

[Adonael]

1. (E→□(C→U))
2. ◊(C&~U)
3. Assumption: E
4. □(C→U) (MP 1,3)
5. W: (C&~U) (from 2)
6. W: C (simp, 5)
7. W: ~U (simp, 5)
8. W: C→U (from 4)
9. W: U (from 6 and 8)
10. ~E (from 3; 7 contradicts 9)

Btw, this is above argument is valid. The ~E could be actual. This is because 7 and 9 produce a contradiction in world W.

[Adonael]

2 is a premise. it is not derived.

A premise is identical to axiom.

Please justify the claim that it is possible to have the conjunction (Child-molesting and No Unhappiness).

Absent underlying foundation this premise or axiom is unjustified.

What it boils down to is that if you assume the possibility that both child-molesting and No Unhappiness can coexist there is no 'problem' of evil.

Justify your axiom (premise) please.


Sure. unhappiness is a psychological response, not a logically necessary response. in other words, it is a contingency. And, sorry about the axiom thing. I thought you meant axiom in another sense.

[George Hathaway]

A premise is identical to axiom.

Please justify the claim that it is possible to have the conjunction (Child-molesting and No Unhappiness).

Absent underlying foundation this premise or axiom is unjustified.

What it boils down to is that if you assume the possibility that both child-molesting and No Unhappiness can coexist there is no 'problem' of evil.

Justify your axiom (premise) please.




Sure. unhappiness is a psychological response, not a logically necessary response. in other words, it is a contingency.

So it is possible (in some imaginary world) that all children who are molested are happy?

That premise is unjustified, in my opinion. It is the pedophile's dream world, of course.

It is possible that there is a world in which by coincidence alone a particular magic spell (crossing fingers in a particular way) always works as the magician intends. Speculation about the abstractly possible in some other world is vaguely interesting. Novels are fun to read.

But we are talking about the Problem of Evil in a very particular set of possible worlds. Any world that has within it a tri-omni God. Let us restrict our possible worlds to those in which there is a tri-omni God.

Further, the world in which there is a tri-omni God is claimed to be this very world. Not some possible other one!

In this world Evils such as child molesting are incompatible with the simultaneous existence of a tri-omni God.

[Adonael]

Wiploc: Two plus three is five.

Adonel: You haven't shown that the first number is two.

I'm not too sure what you're trying to say here. Is it that wiploc's definitions and conceptions are as certain or necessary as "two plus three is five"? If so, I see no reason to believe that at all and it is rather absurd to compare them, without argument, to mathematical trues.

The rest of your post seems to be misunderstandings of my approach. You see, when i show that it is possible that wiploc's definitions and conceptions are not necessary truths, then my job is done. I don't need to say anything further because his definitions and conceptions no longer extend themselves to all possible worlds and hence there is no prima facie reason to think that God and evil cannot possibly coexist in any world. From there, I'd win and he'd lose.

[Adonael]

So it is possible (in some imaginary world) that all children who are molested are happy? There is no contradiction in this.

That premise is unjustified, in my opinion. It is the pedophile's dream world, of course. Recall that,for wiploc, it is possible if it can be said without contradiction.

But we are talking about the Problem of Evil in a very particular set of possible worlds. Any world that has within it a tri-omni God. Let us restrict our possible worlds to those in which there is a tri-omni God.

Which are any worlds that are logically possible.



In this world Evils such as child molesting are incompatible with the simultaneous existence of a tri-omni God. That may (epistemically) be but I'm not sure what that has to do with whether or not God and evil cannot logically co-exist in some possible world or whether wiploc's conception of evil is a necessary truth.

Moreover, my point was not that child molestion is not evil. My point was that child molestation can be evil without there being unhappiness or suffering.

[George Hathaway]

In this world Evils such as child molesting are incompatible with the simultaneous existence of a tri-omni God. That may (epistemically) be but I'm not sure what that has to do with whether or not God and evil cannot logically co-exist in some possible world or whether wiploc's conception of evil is a necessary truth.

Moreover, my point was not that child molestion is not evil. My point was that child molestation can be evil without there being unhappiness or suffering.

Ah, so you think that what we call evil (child molestation) because it causes unhappiness might be off the mark.

The definition of evil is actually fairly easy. First, though, one must recognize that there are individual living entities about. At least one is the Cartesian given. So let us classify those events that are experienced by a given living entity. A given event might impact a given particular individual life positively, in a neutral manner, or negatively. Those that are positive for that given individual are given a degree of Good. Those that are negative, evil.

The same event can be both evil and good for an entity. It may impact the experience positively in one direction and negatively in another. Ethical dilemma.

Let us define Evil as relative, then. Relative to a living entity. Although the rock may be destroyed, its destruction was not evil for anyone.

As long as any human being anywhere at any time in this world has experienced even the slightest bit of evil, then a god who wants (and, being omnipotent always get what he wants) good for all entities in this world (that can appreciate good), knows of human suffering in this world (being omniscient), and is capable of (omnipotent) relieving it in this world... cannot exist.

[Adonael]

That may (epistemically) be but I'm not sure what that has to do with whether or not God and evil cannot logically co-exist in some possible world or whether wiploc's conception of evil is a necessary truth.

Moreover, my point was not that child molestion is not evil. My point was that child molestation can be evil without there being unhappiness or suffering.

Ah, so you think that what we call evil (child molestation) because it causes unhappiness might be off the mark.

The definition of evil is actually fairly easy. First, though, one must recognize that there are individual living entities about. At least one is the Cartesian given. So let us classify those events that are experienced by a given living entity. A given event might impact a given particular individual life positively, in a neutral manner, or negatively. Those that are positive for that given individual are given a degree of Good. Those that are negative, evil.

The same event can be both evil and good for an entity. It may impact the experience positively in one direction and negatively in another. Ethical dilemma.

Let us define Evil as relative, then. Relative to a living entity. Although the rock may be destroyed, its destruction was not evil for anyone.

As long as any human being anywhere at any time in this world has experienced even the slightest bit of evil, then a god who wants (and, being omnipotent always get what he wants) good for all entities in this world (that can appreciate good), knows of human suffering in this world (being omniscient), and is capable of (omnipotent) relieving it in this world... cannot exist.

While this is an interesting proposal (but i see some holes), I am not interested in assessing other PoEs. My interest, within this thread, is to assess the debate at hand between wiploc and myself.

[Will Sjorensen]

Your argument produces the conclusion ◊~E. The conclusion that you say it produces is ~E. Thus, your argument does not produce the conclusion that you say it does.


The argument, as i had it in the debate, is valid. it was only when you guys stated that i was saying that it was actual that i got confused. im not really paying too much attention, sorries! :D


No, YOU'RE the one who was saying ~E is actual. You only demonstrated that it was possible.





I see no prima facie case. He defined his terms, but did not support them. what good is that?



I think so, but as I said, if a prima facie argument stands unrefuted it must be assumed sound. granted. however, i see no reason to believe it was a prima facie case. :huh:

Well it was, and if you want to know HOW it was a prima facie case, go back and re-read the debate. I don't know what else to tell you.

[Will Sjorensen]

Wiploc: Two plus three is five.

Adonel: You haven't shown that the first number is two.

I'm not too sure what you're trying to say here. Is it that wiploc's definitions and conceptions are as certain or necessary as "two plus three is five"? If so, I see no reason to believe that at all and it is rather absurd to compare them, without argument, to mathematical trues.


No. I'm saying that X plus 3 is 5 as long as X equals 2, and that doesn't change just because you don't think X does equal 2. There is no inconsistency in (p -> q) and ~p, and the former is all that wiploc was trying to get you to agree to.



The rest of your post seems to be misunderstandings of my approach. You see, when i show that it is possible that wiploc's definitions and conceptions are not necessary truths, then my job is done. I don't need to say anything further because his definitions and conceptions no longer extend themselves to all possible worlds and hence there is no prima facie reason to think that God and evil cannot possibly coexist in any world. From there, I'd win and he'd lose.

Wiploc's definitions may not have been the correct definition in all possible worlds, but they were the definitions that he was using. It's all well and good to say that you don't like the definitions that he proposed, but words have to have SOME definition, and since you didn't provide any, Wiploc's obtained by default. He won, you lost.

[Adonael]

No, YOU'RE the one who was saying ~E is actual. You only demonstrated that it was possible.

Again, in the debate, i did not say it as actual. you guys misunderstood what i meant by "W". I only said it was actual within this peanut gallery and that was from the confusion generated from the "W". It was not until later that i retracted my position and claimed that my debate argument actually agreed with you.

moreover, an actual ~E can validly follow from the premises because (U and ~U) are contradictions in world W. Thus, we negate the assumption, E, and we get ~E.




Well it was, and if you want to know HOW it was a prima facie case, go back and re-read the debate. I don't know what else to tell you.
i probably read the debate more times than you and i see no prima facie case. what i see is an argument from unsupported definitions and conceptions.

[Will Sjorensen]

No, YOU'RE the one who was saying ~E is actual. You only demonstrated that it was possible.

Again, in the debate, i did not say it as actual. you guys misunderstood what i meant by "W". I only said it was actual within this peanut gallery and that was from the confusion generated from the "W". It was not until later that i retracted my position and claimed that my debate argument actually agreed with you.

moreover, an actual ~E can validly follow from the premises because (U and ~U) are contradictions in world W. Thus, we negate the assumption, E, and we get ~E.


<>U and <>~U are not contradictory.







i probably read the debate more times than you and i see no prima facie case. what i see is an argument from unsupported definitions and conceptions.

I don't care if you've read the debate a thousand times -- it's there, and you either haven't seen it or aren't willing to admit it.

[Adonael]

No. I'm saying that X plus 3 is 5 as long as X equals 2, and that doesn't change just because you don't think X does equal 2. There is no inconsistency in (p -> q) and ~p, and the former is all that wiploc was trying to get you to agree to.


i was not questioning just p. I was questioning the whole implication and q. Have you even read my statements?



Wiploc's definitions may not have been the correct definition in all possible worlds, but they were the definitions that he was using.

If they are not logical trues, then they do not apply across the board. If they do not apply across the board, then there is no logical incompatibility. As i said, he'd lose and i win upon granting that.

It's all well and good to say that you don't like the definitions that he proposed, but words have to have SOME definition, and since you didn't provide any, Wiploc's obtained by default. He won, you lost.

This is absurd. Are you paying attention to what you are writing? If wiploc's definitions are observed to be non-logical truths, then there can be no claim that they produce a logical incompatibility between god and evil. After all, they're not logical truths!

You'd be basically stating that wiploc's PoE has failed to establish a logical incompatibility (and thus failed to meet the debate resolution) but wiploc still won. :huh:

Finally, I am not obligated to produce meaning for the words. My approach was simple: take out wiploc's argument. if i did this, then i'd have shown that that wiploc's PoE does not prove that God does not exist.

[Adonael]

<>U and <>~U are not contradictory.
Pay more attention, please.

1. (E→□(C→U))
2. ◊(C&~U)
3. Assumption: E
4. □(C→U) (MP 1,3)
5. W: (C&~U) (from 2)
6. W: C (simp, 5)
7. W: ~U (simp, 5)
8. W: C→U (from 4)
9. W: U (from 6 and 8)
10. ~E (from 3; 7 contradicts 9)


7 and 9 refer to the same possible world "W". If I meant some other world other than "W" and the actual world, then you'd see "WW" and so forth. The argument is valid. We can make a thread about it in the philosophy forum for clarification, if you wish.




I don't care if you've read the debate a thousand times -- it's there, and you either haven't seen it or aren't willing to admit it.

Feel free to show it to me then. :blush:

[HelpingHand]

Originally Posted by Adonael
We can say that wiploc’s implications are absurd because we know that some acts are good or evil irrespective to the psychological reactions they can create.

How can you claim that without a definition of 'good' and 'evil'?
You're obviously working from another definition of 'evil' than wiploc's, which is OK, of course. But you haven't shown wiploc's definition to be incorrect. 'We' know that some acts are good or evil irrespective to the psychological reactions they can create.
Who are 'we'? I e.g. do not 'know' that.
And since the second premise of your modal argument pivots on this, I would like to see some justification for it.

Greetings

Walter

[Will Sjorensen]

<>U and <>~U are not contradictory.
Pay more attention, please.

1. (E→□(C→U))
2. ◊(C&~U)
3. Assumption: E
4. □(C→U) (MP 1,3)
5. W: (C&~U) (from 2)
6. W: C (simp, 5)
7. W: ~U (simp, 5)
8. W: C→U (from 4)
9. W: U (from 6 and 8)
10. ~E (from 3; 7 contradicts 9)


7 and 9 refer to the same possible world "W". If I meant some other world other than "W" and the actual world, then you'd see "WW" and so forth. The argument is valid. We can make a thread about it in the philosophy forum for clarification, if you wish.


But 9 is ultimately derived from 1, which is false. E entails (C -> U), not [](C -> U). The argument is deductively valid (assuming that 10 does read ~E and not W: ~E as it did in the original version), but it is not sound.

[Adonael]

How can you claim that without a definition of 'good' and 'evil'? It's not that I do not have one, but that i did not give one within that debate. But, yes, i noticed that slip up too. Perhaps i should have proposed the premise in the form of a rhetorical question and had it work as a conditional proof.


You're obviously working from another definition of 'evil' than wiploc's, which is OK, of course. But you haven't shown wiploc's definition to be incorrect. The premise, if true, would certainly show wiploc's definition to be a failure. I have doubts that anyone would deny that child molestation is wrong irrespective to the happiness/suffering it fails to create.

'We' know that some acts are good or evil irrespective to the psychological reactions they can create.Who are 'we'? I e.g. do not 'know' that. An adult man performs oral sex on an 8 year old girl. The man enjoys it. The girl enjoys it. there is no suffering between them and both are happy. moreover, no other person finds out about this act of oral sex.

Would you say that this act is evil? I'm not asking you to state why. I just want to know whether you would.

[Will Sjorensen]

No. I'm saying that X plus 3 is 5 as long as X equals 2, and that doesn't change just because you don't think X does equal 2. There is no inconsistency in (p -> q) and ~p, and the former is all that wiploc was trying to get you to agree to.


i was not questioning just p. I was questioning the whole implication and q. Have you even read my statements?


Yes, and I stand by my assessment.



If they are not logical trues, then they do not apply across the board. If they do not apply across the board, then there is no logical incompatibility. As i said, he'd lose and i win upon granting that.


As you yourself indicated, a reductio ad absurdum need only entail a logical contradiction exist in one possible world.



It's all well and good to say that you don't like the definitions that he proposed, but words have to have SOME definition, and since you didn't provide any, Wiploc's obtained by default. He won, you lost.

This is absurd. Are you paying attention to what you are writing? If wiploc's definitions are observed to be non-logical truths, then there can be no claim that they produce a logical incompatibility between god and evil. After all, they're not logical truths!


I'm paying attention very well, thank you. See above.



You'd be basically stating that wiploc's PoE has failed to establish a logical incompatibility (and thus failed to meet the debate resolution) but wiploc still won. :huh:


Ibid.



Finally, I am not obligated to produce meaning for the words.


True, but if you leave the meaning of the words undefined, then your statements have no truth value.



My approach was simple: take out wiploc's argument. if i did this, then i'd have shown that that wiploc's PoE does not prove that God does not exist.

Since you rejected Wiploc's definitions used in the PoE and did not substitute your own, your statement that the PoE does not prove that God does not exist has the same meaning as a statement that the gurgleschnortz does not prove that God does not exist. I agree, but so what? Even if that were more than trivially true, that's not what Wiploc was talking about. You didn't even touch his argument.

[Adonael]

But 9 is ultimately derived from 1, which is false. E entails (C -> U), not [](C -> U).

1 states: (if E, then [](C -> U))
if you have E, then [](C->U) follows by MP. Do you deny this?

[Will Sjorensen]

An adult man performs oral sex on an 8 year old girl. The man enjoys it. The girl enjoys it. there is no suffering between them and both are happy. moreover, no other person finds out about this act of oral sex.

Would you say that this act is evil? I'm not asking you to state why. I just want to know whether you would.

If we were to state that that act is not, according to Wiploc's definition of the word, evil, would you have a response to that beyond calling us morally bankrupt?

[Will Sjorensen]

But 9 is ultimately derived from 1, which is false. E entails (C -> U), not [](C -> U).

1 states: (if E, then [](C -> U))
if you have E, then [](C->U) follows by MP. Do you deny this?

Nope. I completely agree that ((E -> [](C -> U)) & E) -> [](C -> U).

Also, ~(E -> [](C -> U)).

[Adonael]

As you yourself indicated, a reductio ad absurdum need only entail a logical contradiction exist in one possible world. That's all i need.



You didn't even touch his argument.

what argument? he didnt argue anything to be true. he defined some words and gave them the structure of a valid argument. :huh: I am growing tired of our conversation, friend.

[Adonael]

An adult man performs oral sex on an 8 year old girl. The man enjoys it. The girl enjoys it. there is no suffering between them and both are happy. moreover, no other person finds out about this act of oral sex.

Would you say that this act is evil? I'm not asking you to state why. I just want to know whether you would.

If we were to state that that act is not, according to Wiploc's definition of the word, evil, would you have a response to that beyond calling us morally bankrupt?


No. Even i would say it was not evil according to wiploc's definition. But, this would be also true even if wiploc defined evil as a steak dinner.

[Will Sjorensen]

As you yourself indicated, a reductio ad absurdum need only entail a logical contradiction exist in one possible world. That's all i need.
For validity, yes. Not for soundness.




You didn't even touch his argument.

what argument? he didnt argue anything to be true. he defined some words and gave them the structure of a valid argument. :huh: I am growing tired of our conversation, friend.

If your complaint is that he did not structure his argument into a standard logical premise-premise-conclusion form, then you do have a valid complaint. If you want to claim victory from that fact, then I am forced to concede that you are justified in doing so. I would only note two things -- first, the best you could do was to get God off on a technicality, and second, were you and Wiploc to have another debate I'm sure he would rectify that problem right off the bat, and you would then be up the creek.

[HelpingHand]

The premise, if true, would certainly show wiploc's definition to be a failure.

Of course, but the point is, since you haven't shown the premise is true, so you haven't shown that wiploc's definition is a failure.
You may do it now, of course, but since you didn't do it in the debate and the debate is over, wiploc can still claim victory.
Besides, even if you proved his definition was wrong (which you admit you haven't), that would only prove that wiploc's PoE works even under flawed definitions, which was wiploc's original point.



I have doubts that anyone would deny that child molestation is wrong irrespective to the happiness/suffering it fails to create.

I am not so sure about that, Adonael.

'We' know that some acts are good or evil irrespective to the psychological reactions they can create.Who are 'we'? I e.g. do not 'know' that.


An adult man performs oral sex on an 8 year old girl. The man enjoys it. The girl enjoys it. there is no suffering between them and both are happy. moreover, no other person finds out about this act of oral sex.

And both the adult and the 8 year-old have a perfectly happy life and nobody is in any way harmed by that? I think it's time for your definition of evil to tell us why this would be evil, Adonael.

Would you say that this act is evil? I'm not asking you to state why. I just want to know whether you would.[/QUOTE]

As U said above, I wouldn't know on what basis I would say that act was evil.
Of course I know that child molestation can be harmful and therefore I would not condone it if there was even the slighest chance it could harm somebody.
But if there wasn't even the slightest chance? I don't think I would say this was an evil act, no.


greetings

Walter

[Will Sjorensen]

If we were to state that that act is not, according to Wiploc's definition of the word, evil, would you have a response to that beyond calling us morally bankrupt?


No. Even i would say it was not evil according to wiploc's definition. But, this would be also true even if wiploc defined evil as a steak dinner.

Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Wiploc did define evil as a steak dinner and proceeded from there. How would you respond?

[Adonael]

No. Even i would say it was not evil according to wiploc's definition. But, this would be also true even if wiploc defined evil as a steak dinner.

Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Wiploc did define evil as a steak dinner and proceeded from there. How would you respond?

I'd ask him for the reasons he has for believing this.

[Adonael]

Of course, but the point is, since you haven't shown the premise is true, so you haven't shown that wiploc's definition is a failure....You may do it now, of course, but since you didn't do it in the debate and the debate is over, wiploc can still claim victory.


Whoa! This does not follow at all! Let us grant that wiploc can keep his definition of evil, alright? Just for arguments sake. Wiploc would still need to argue that God would eliminate all evil. I repeatedly asked wiploc to defend this claim, but he did not. He just reaffirmed his definitions and that's circular.



Besides, even if you proved his definition was wrong (which you admit you haven't), that would only prove that wiploc's PoE works even under flawed definitions, which was wiploc's original point.


I did not admit that.


And both the adult and the 8 year-old have a perfectly happy life and nobody is in any way harmed by that? I think it's time for your definition of evil to tell us why this would be evil, Adonael.

A definition of evil would not tell you why something is evil. :huh:


As U said above, I wouldn't know on what basis I would say that act was evil.
Of course I know that child molestation can be harmful and therefore I would not condone it if there was even the slighest chance it could harm somebody.
But if there wasn't even the slightest chance? I don't think I would say this was an evil act, no.

That's interesting. And, if you accept wiploc's definition of the good, then you'll also state that such an instance of child molestation is morally good. You see, part of wiploc's definition of evil was that it was the opposite of good. Good, for wiploc, is that which produces happiness. So, do you grant that such an instance of child molestation is good?

one more hypothetical situation and i'll give my answers:

there is an adult man and a 8 year old girl. The 8 year old girl is comatose. The adult man performs oral sex on this girl and because of this, he is happy. The 8 year old girl does not know of this act nor will anyone other than that man.

Is this act evil? is this act good?


I just want to check for your consistency.

[Will Sjorensen]

Look, I think I can clear this whole definitional thing up right now. Adonael:

1) Do you agree that gratuitous suffering -- meaning suffering from which no positive consequences (such as building character) whatsoever result -- is evil?

2) Do you think that there exist evil things other than instances of gratuitous suffering?


If your answer is yes to both questions, then there is no problem here.

If your answer is yes to the first question but no to the second, then there is a problem here, but it's easily rectified -- simply understand Wiploc's definition of suffering to be inclusive rather than exclusive. That is, when he says "evil is suffering," understand that to mean "evil is, among other things, suffering." Wiploc can proceed from there, since he believes that, for God, there is no such thing as non-gratuitous suffering.

If your answer is no to the first question, then there is a problem here, and I would say it's unrectifiable. You and Wiploc do not have enough common ground to have a meaningful debate.


As for the issue of you claiming victory based on Wiploc not explicitly stating a logical argument, as I've said, you are justified in claiming victory on that basis, provided you have no problem with winning on a technicality.

[HelpingHand]

Whoa! This does not follow at all! Let us grant that wiploc can keep his definition of evil, alright? Just for arguments sake. Wiploc would still need to argue that God would eliminate all evil. I repeatedly asked wiploc to defend this claim, but he did not. He just reaffirmed his definitions and that's circular.

If suffering (or unhappiness) is evil, then an all-good God could not allow for suffering to exist. That's quite simple and wiploc did say that.





I did not admit that.

Originally posted by Adonael It's not that I do not have one, but that i did not give one within that debate. But, yes, i noticed that slip up too. Perhaps i should have proposed the premise in the form of a rhetorical question and had it work as a conditional proof
You implicitly admit that you haven't proved it.

A definition of evil would not tell you why something is evil. :huh:

It could give me some basis on which to make a decision.

That's interesting. And, if you accept wiploc's definition of the good, then you'll also state that such an instance of child molestation is morally good. You see, part of wiploc's definition of evil was that it was the opposite of good. Good, for wiploc, is that which produces happiness. So, do you grant that such an instance of child molestation is good?

Under the circumstances I describes, yes, it would probably be good.

one more hypothetical situation and i'll give my answers:

there is an adult man and a 8 year old girl. The 8 year old girl is comatose. The adult man performs oral sex on this girl and because of this, he is happy. The 8 year old girl does not know of this act nor will anyone other than that man.
Is this act evil? is this act good?

If there is no chance that anybody is ever going to get hurt (which in reality is highly unlikely of course) I would see no basis for calling this act evil.


Greetings

Walter

[Adonael]

1) Do you agree that gratuitous suffering -- meaning suffering from which no positive consequences (such as building character) whatsoever result -- is evil?
Not necessarily.


2) Do you think that there exist evil things other than instances of gratuitous suffering? Yes, but heed the above comment.


If your answer is yes to both questions, then there is no problem here.

We got a problem. ;)

If your answer is yes to the first question but no to the second, then there is a problem here, but it's easily rectified -- simply understand Wiploc's definition of suffering to be inclusive rather than exclusive. That is, when he says "evil is suffering," understand that to mean "evil is, among other things, suffering." Wiploc can proceed from there, since he believes that, for God, there is no such thing as non-gratuitous suffering.

If your answer is no to the first question, then there is a problem here, and I would say it's unrectifiable. You and Wiploc do not have enough common ground to have a meaningful debate.

What if i said neither no or yes?

As for the issue of you claiming victory based on Wiploc not explicitly stating a logical argument, as I've said, you are justified in claiming victory on that basis, provided you have no problem with winning on a technicality.
Whether I am justified or not would have no dependency on whether i have a problem accepting a technical win.

[Will Sjorensen]

1) Do you agree that gratuitous suffering -- meaning suffering from which no positive consequences (such as building character) whatsoever result -- is evil?
Not necessarily.


Yes, but heed the above comment.



We got a problem. ;)


Yes, it appears we do.

Oh well. Maybe Wiploc's next debate will actually give us something to think about.

[Adonael]

If suffering (or unhappiness) is evil, then an all-good God could not allow for suffering to exist. That's quite simple and wiploc did say that. You're begging the question just like he did. I understand that wiploc said it. I wanted and asked him to argue it but he did not!


You implicitly admit that you haven't proved it. No. What happened was that you read into my posts too much.



It could give me some basis on which to make a decision.

You'd reject it. My definition of evil is ontologically dependent upon God. However, it would ultimately come down to our moral intuition for moral enquiry into what is evil and what is not. I'm a theological moral intuitionist, Helpinghand. However, i would hold that we can know evil without knowing that it is dependent upon God.



Under the circumstances I describes, yes, it would probably be good.

How interesting.

If there is no chance that anybody is ever going to get hurt (which in reality is highly unlikely of course) I would see no basis for calling this act evil.


But, would you call it morally good?
There is a difference between calling something permissible and good.

[Adonael]

Helpinghand,

Do you believe that wiploc actually argued his premises or did he just define the PoE and offered its argumentative structure?

[HelpingHand]

If suffering (or unhappiness) is evil, then an all-good God could not allow for suffering to exist. That's quite simple and wiploc did say that. You're begging the question just like he did. I understand that wiploc said it. I wanted and asked him to argue it but he did not!

If theists want to call God good, then the consequence is that evil would be logically impossible. That's implied by the definition and really doesn't need any argumentation.

No. What happened was that you read into my posts too much.

No, what happen was that you wrote more than you wanted to write, but never mind, whether you admit it or not, you havne't proved that wiploc's definition fails 'as yet)


You'd reject it. My definition of evil is ontologically dependent upon God.

Try me.


However, it would ultimately come down to our moral intuition for moral enquiry into what is evil and what is not. I'm a theological moral