Problem of Evil

[wiploc]

I'd like to discuss/debate the problem of evil too. Seems to me obvious that the PoE proves that there is no omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god, but even atheists tell me I'd be better off going with the Evidentiary PoE rather than the Logical PoE. I've read Plantinga's book; there's nothing there. I don't see any reason to give up my cold hard proof that god doesn't exist in favor of a probablistic argument that might be defeated by something like, "God works in mysterious ways."

I would love to see a meaningful refutation of the Logical PoE, even at the cost of "losing" a discussion/debate. :)

crc

[seebs]

I think I could be persuaded to take up the Logical PoE debate. I think it's slightly stronger than most Christians think it is, but I don't think it ends up being a compelling argument. It's in the category where I don't think it's irrational for someone to reject it, but I don't necessarily think it's irrational to accept it; there are enough hidden premises and untestable expectations or claims that I don't think an unambiguous answer can be easily provided.

That said, this might do just as well as an informal debate, since it's an issue where I think a lot of people have valuable insights.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by seebs
I think I could be persuaded to take up the Logical PoE debate. I think it's slightly stronger than most Christians think it is, but I don't think it ends up being a compelling argument.

I think it is absolutely compelling within its limited scope. That scope is big enough to eliminate the traditional Christian god. The only way Christians can evade the conclusion that their god doesn't exist is to downgrade him to less than omnipotent, less than omniscient, or less than omnibenevolent. Which they do, they downgrade him, but they don't like to admit it, especially to themselves.


It's in the category where I don't think it's irrational for someone to reject it, but I don't necessarily think it's irrational to accept it; there are enough hidden premises and untestable expectations or claims that I don't think an unambiguous answer can be easily provided.

I'd love to discuss this then, in order to learn about my hidden premises. I expect the nature of "goodness" to be an issue.



That said, this might do just as well as an informal debate, since it's an issue where I think a lot of people have valuable insights.

The reason I'm over here in this forum is in hopes of getting some back and forth. When I pointed out to Theophilus, for instance, the weakness of his argument, he just shut up. I don't object to having the discussion over in the MF&P area so long as we maintain some focus and keep pursuing the topic.

crc

[seebs]

Originally posted by wiploc
I think it is absolutely compelling within its limited scope. That scope is big enough to eliminate the traditional Christian god. The only way Christians can evade the conclusion that their god doesn't exist is to downgrade him to less than omnipotent, less than omniscient, or less than omnibenevolent. Which they do, they downgrade him, but they don't like to admit it, especially to themselves.

Hmm. I don't think I'd be easily convinced of this; that said, before we go too far, do you mean "logically consistent" omnipotent, or "punk" omnipotent? For instance, do you consider it a failure of omnipotence if I claim that God cannot "simultaneously self-consistently affirm both A and not-A, while remaining consistent with human understandings of logic and contradicting nothing"?


I'd love to discuss this then, in order to learn about my hidden premises. I expect the nature of "goodness" to be an issue.


It is indeed.


The reason I'm over here in this forum is in hopes of getting some back and forth. When I pointed out to Theophilus, for instance, the weakness of his argument, he just shut up. I don't object to having the discussion over in the MF&P area so long as we maintain some focus and keep pursuing the topic.


One advantage of a debate is relative protection against derailment. If we have a discussion elsewhere, all it takes is one fanatic on each side, and our posts will be lost in the noise. On the other hand, it's a bit formalized.

I'm not the best possible person for this debate, but I think it's an interesting one. I'm at least basically familiar with the terms, and I could probably do okay, but I'd want time enough to research things.

I've always gone with fairly simplistic answers and handwaving on this one. :) I think the PoE ends up being emotionally somewhat compelling, but falls short of full logical force. I do think that many mainstream interpretations of God fall down horribly on it. The God who's supposedly rewarding people with lottery wins because they fasted? He could be doing better, I think, but I don't think He's logically consistent to begin with.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by seebs
Hmm. I don't think I'd be easily convinced of this; that said, before we go too far, do you mean "logically consistent" omnipotent, or "punk" omnipotent? For instance, do you consider it a failure of omnipotence if I claim that God cannot "simultaneously self-consistently affirm both A and not-A, while remaining consistent with human understandings of logic and contradicting nothing"?

The PoE is a logical argument. Not it nor any other logic can lay a hand on the true-omnipotent god. All one can say about the true-omnipotent god is that there can't be a logical reason to believe in an illogical god. (And, of course, once we've stepped into the swamp of illogic, we can't be sure that even that statement is true.)



One advantage of a debate is relative protection against derailment. If we have a discussion elsewhere, all it takes is one fanatic on each side, and our posts will be lost in the noise. On the other hand, it's a bit formalized.

An informal discussion can still work if we remember why we're there, and keep coming back to answer each other.




I'm not the best possible person for this debate, but I think it's an interesting one. I'm at least basically familiar with the terms, and I could probably do okay, but I'd want time enough to research things.

Not a problem.

The PoE is one of the rare cases where I take the affirmative. And I agree with Plantinga: the defender against the PoE need not show that god exists, nor that he is likely, nor even that he is plausible. The PoE fails if god is merely possible.

crc

[seebs]

This sounds interesting, and perhaps like it would be a productive debate. Let's see. Length, time, format? I'm fairly flexible. I can't write 3000 words a day on the topic, but I can write a fair bit when the mood takes me.

How much research and quoting should we be putting into this? I tend to prefer research-light debates. It's arguably wasteful to cover old ground, but it makes for a more readable debate.

I think the debate ends up depending somewhat on exactly what one means by "God" and "Evil". So, we probably can't pre-agree on exact definitions - but I think a certain amount of common sense will let us at least not be talking past each other.

I'd tend to favor medium-length pieces (say, no more than 2500 words) and a reasonably leisurly pace (say, a week or so to respond). I'm not sure how many rounds to go; maybe we can go "until we feel we've covered the issue".

If the debate will be a very long one, it might be nice to be allowed to post in the peanut gallery. :) I can only sit on my hands for so long...

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hi guys,

I'd recommend looking at the debate formats (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60770) thread to get some more nifty ideas if you'd some different than the standard format.

As for participating in the peanut gallery? Sorry seebs, but we may have to stick to our guns on that rule. :( We've found that it kind of detracts and spoils the goal of a formal debate if the people on the stage engage the audience instead of each other (especially if the participants starting debating one another in the gallery instead of in the formal debate thread). You could always send peanut gallerians private messages though.

Jason

[wiploc]

Originally posted by seebs
This sounds interesting, and perhaps like it would be a productive debate. Let's see. Length, time, format? I'm fairly flexible. I can't write 3000 words a day on the topic, but I can write a fair bit when the mood takes me.

How much research and quoting should we be putting into this? I tend to prefer research-light debates. It's arguably wasteful to cover old ground, but it makes for a more readable debate.

I'm a research-light kinda guy. And this seems like a reasearch-light kind of topic. We're discussing what makes sense, not what some historical figure thought made sense. I don't know, yet, why we'd do any research for this.





"Evils" are the sources of human unhappiness. Thus, a plague of toads would be evil. Stubbing your toe is an evil. Weeds are evil.

"Goods" are things that make people happy, like ice cream cones.

I don't suppose we'll discuss sin, but for the purpose of distinguishing it from evil: "Sin" is the disobedience or mistrust of god. Thus, an ice cream cone can be good; an excessive lust for that cone can be a sin, since we are not supposed to do that; and an excessive lust for the cone can also be an evil, since it will produce unhappiness.

"God" can be a muscrat or a watermellon as long as it is all-powerful (within the limits of logic), all-good (wants nothing more than it wants our happiness, and wants that a lot), and all-knowing (including knowing the future, regardless of whether that violates the limits of logic).

I throw these definitions out because they are my understanding of the terms. I'll be happy to entertain any conflicting definitions you offer.


[B
I'd tend to favor medium-length pieces (say, no more than 2500 words) and a reasonably leisurly pace (say, a week or so to respond). I'm not sure how many rounds to go; maybe we can go "until we feel we've covered the issue".

Works for me. We can say ten rounds (because that's the max allowed) if we go that far.

I may come back a lot faster than a week, perhaps sometimes the same day; but I don't see any reason not to give ourselves plenty of leeway. I'm certainly not going to call for a penalty (what would it be? Pushups?) if you are late, but if you are going to be very late, I'd like notification of why, or, more importantly, when you do expect to post.


[B
If the debate will be a very long one, it might be nice to be allowed to post in the peanut gallery. :) I can only sit on my hands for so long... [/B]

Nightshade says no, so unless you prefer doing this in the MF&P area, that's that.

1. I'll try to keep you entertained here, so you don't need to go there.

2. We may have this resolved in four or five rounds.

3. I certainly don't object to responses here to comments there, as in, "Say, Koy make this point <insert point here> which I was wondering how you would respond to," or "I see Koy made an interesting argument <insert argument here> in the peanut gallery, but it is distinctly different from my argument, so don't let it distract you."

This is going to be fun.

crc

[seebs]

I see your point about the peanut gallery. It's frustrating, though! Ah, well. I could live.

The debate formats are indeed interesting.

[seebs]

Originally posted by wiploc

"God" can be a muscrat or a watermellon as long as it is all-powerful (within the limits of logic), all-good (wants nothing more than it wants our happiness, and wants that a lot), and all-knowing (including knowing the future, regardless of whether that violates the limits of logic).

I throw these definitions out because they are my understanding of the terms. I'll be happy to entertain any conflicting definitions you offer.


I'm not sure "wants happiness" is a good definition of benevolent, but in particular, it is useful to distinguish between short-term happiness and long-term happiness. Children don't like being medicated, but are happier for it, or so we assume.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by seebs
I'm not sure "wants happiness" is a good definition of benevolent,

What are you thinking it means? Or, perhaps in the alternative, would you have the same objection if I called god "all good" rather than "omnibenevolent?"

If you agreed with me on what omnibenevolent meant, would you still question the soundness of the PoE?

It seems to me that many defenders of the traditional Christian god respond to the PoE by undefining "good" so that it doesn't mean anything. They wind up saying, in effect, that a scorpion god who created us for the pleasure of stinging us to death could still be called all good.

Perhaps what we'll wind up discussing is something like, "For which plausible and useful definitions of 'good' is the PoE ironclad?"




but in particular, it is useful to distinguish between short-term happiness and long-term happiness. Children don't like being medicated, but are happier for it, or so we assume.

Ah, "Dental goodness." That's my own term for what a dentist does. He hurts you some now, in order to prevent a greater pain later. Of course, dentists have the excuse that they are not omnipotent. If my dentists could have given me the benefit without giving me the pain, then they would have been very bad people if they still gave me the pain.

Dental goodness is incompatible with omnipotence. Therefore I see reason to distinguish long-term from short-term happiness, do you? Couldn't an omnipotent god could give us both?


crc

[seebs]

Originally posted by wiploc
What are you thinking it means? Or, perhaps in the alternative, would you have the same objection if I called god "all good" rather than "omnibenevolent?"

If you agreed with me on what omnibenevolent meant, would you still question the soundness of the PoE?

It seems to me that many defenders of the traditional Christian god respond to the PoE by undefining "good" so that it doesn't mean anything. They wind up saying, in effect, that a scorpion god who created us for the pleasure of stinging us to death could still be called all good.

Perhaps what we'll wind up discussing is something like, "For which plausible and useful definitions of 'good' is the PoE ironclad?"

That's an interesting point!

Ah, "Dental goodness." That's my own term for what a dentist does. He hurts you some now, in order to prevent a greater pain later. Of course, dentists have the excuse that they are not omnipotent. If my dentists could have given me the benefit without giving me the pain, then they would have been very bad people if they still gave me the pain.

Dental goodness is incompatible with omnipotence. Therefore I see reason to distinguish long-term from short-term happiness, do you? Couldn't an omnipotent god could give us both?


crc

Here, we reach the point where the debate about what *exactly* is logically-consistent becomes an interesting one.

Sounds like we have material for a debate. Let's say ten rounds, with the option of quitting early. Length... Somewhere between 1500 and 2500 words, I'd guess? Certainly not book-length. Let's say a one-week turnaround time from one post becoming visible to the response being submitted. You can write faster, if you want, but this lets us make progress.

I'd say the scope should be, roughly, "what are the circumstances where the Problem Of Evil is compelling". I think that there are some definitions of, say, "omnipotent" or "good" where it is, and some where it isn't.

[wiploc]

3) Before starting a debate, participants must agree upon the following parameters -- this information must be included in the Request for Debate:

(a) The topic of the debate.

Does the Problem of Evil prove that the traditional Christian god does not exist.




(b) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue.

I'm the affirmative. Seebs is the negative. That's how we start anyway; who knows what illumination we'll experience during the discussion.




(c) The scope of the debate.

I'm unclear on how this is different from the topic.




(d) The length of the debate, in number of rounds (no more than 10 rounds per debate).

Ten rounds, then, though we may not go all the way.




(e) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first.

We'll take turns. I'll go first.




(f) The maximum length of each statement (no more than 5,000 words per statement and this includes quotations).

No more than 5000 words, then, though we'll try for a cogency that will keep us generally under 2500 words.




(g) The maximum duration between statements.

One week.




(h) The extent to which quotes from outside sources will be permitted (absolutely no copyright violation or outright plagiarism will be allowed).

I don't mind. I also have none in mind. :)




(i) The starting date of the debate.

Any time you're ready.




(j) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe (subject to moderator approval).


Nothing comes to mind.

How do these rules strike you, Seebs?

crc

[wiploc]

Originally posted by seebs
Sounds like we have material for a debate. Let's say ten rounds, with the option of quitting early. Length... Somewhere between 1500 and 2500 words, I'd guess?

That sounds fine. We don't want the bottom limit to be a hard restriction, right? I can imagine some posts, particularly towards the end, as we are tying up loose ends, coming in at a couple of hundred words or less. Do we want the 2500 word top limit to be a hard restriction? I'm happy either way.


I'd say the scope should be, roughly, "what are the circumstances where the Problem Of Evil is compelling". I think that there are some definitions of, say, "omnipotent" or "good" where it is, and some where it isn't.

Good.

crc

[seebs]

I think we'll run into some snags on what exactly is the "traditional" Christian God. I think it might be better to go with "A God compatible with Christianity". I would not be entirely surprised to come to the conclusion that at least some mainstream beliefs have a very hard time with the PoE.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by seebs
I think we'll run into some snags on what exactly is the "traditional" Christian God. I think it might be better to go with "A God compatible with Christianity". I would not be entirely surprised to come to the conclusion that at least some mainstream beliefs have a very hard time with the PoE.

The traditional Christian god is "perfect," meaning omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. I don't know what a god "compatible with Christianity would be." I met a Catholic communist once. If you told me you were a Christian Satanist, I wouldn't have standing to object. But if you tell me your god or devil or whatever is all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing, then I can prove it doesn't exist.

If you don't like the, "traditional Christian god," language, I'm happy with, "perfect," or "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibevolent," or, "all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing."

crc

[seebs]

Originally posted by wiploc
The traditional Christian god is "perfect," meaning omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. I don't know what a god "compatible with Christianity would be." I met a Catholic communist once. If you told me you were a Christian Satanist, I wouldn't have standing to object. But if you tell me your god or devil or whatever is all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing, then I can prove it doesn't exist.

If you don't like the, "traditional Christian god," language, I'm happy with, "perfect," or "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibevolent," or, "all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing."

Basically, I want to avoid being stuck trying to defend a "punk omnipotent" God, just because many many Christians believe God to be beyond any kind of logic.

So, for instance, I'm not sure that omniscience implies foreknowledge; I think it *probably* does, but I'm not sure that's logically consistent. So, the idea is, limit the necessary claims to those necessary for Christianity, not necessarily all of the baggage people have added.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by seebs
Basically, I want to avoid being stuck trying to defend a "punk omnipotent" God, just because many many Christians believe God to be beyond any kind of logic.

Either you wrote that wrong or I read it wrong. There is nothing to say about the true-omnipotent god, other than, "That doesn't make sense." It's the punk-omnipotent (not able to violate logic) god that can be discussed logically. Therefore it's the punk omnipotent god that we want to talk about, right?




So, for instance, I'm not sure that omniscience implies foreknowledge; I think it *probably* does, but I'm not sure that's logically consistent.

He's supposed to know everything, and that includes the future. The PoE doesn't apply to gods who don't know the future. A non-future-seeing god could meant well but have just guessed wrong about where to plant that apple tree.




So, the idea is, limit the necessary claims to those necessary for Christianity, not necessarily all of the baggage people have added.

The PoE works on any perfect god, Christian or otherwise.

crc

[seebs]

Originally posted by wiploc
Either you wrote that wrong or I read it wrong. There is nothing to say about the true-omnipotent god, other than, "That doesn't make sense." It's the punk-omnipotent (not able to violate logic) god that can be discussed logically. Therefore it's the punk omnipotent god that we want to talk about, right?


Actually, I was using the term the other way; punk omnipotent is the logically incoherent, "in-your-face", kind of omnipotent.


He's supposed to know everything, and that includes the future. The PoE doesn't apply to gods who don't know the future. A non-future-seeing god could meant well but have just guessed wrong about where to plant that apple tree.


There is a reasonable debate to be had on whether or not "the future" is a "thing" which can be known...



The PoE works on any perfect god, Christian or otherwise.

crc

I don't think it does, but I think it depends on how we understand "good" and "omnipotent". Worth arguing, though; I'd just like to leave the question of how we should understand those terms in the debate, since I think I can make the case for my understandings.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by seebs
Actually, I was using the term the other way; punk omnipotent is the logically incoherent, "in-your-face", kind of omnipotent.

We're cool then.



There is a reasonable debate to be had on whether or not "the future" is a "thing" which can be known...

I certainly don't think the future can be known. But the PoE is specifically directed at a god who does know the future.



I don't think it does, but I think it depends on how we understand "good" and "omnipotent". Worth arguing, though; I'd just like to leave the question of how we should understand those terms in the debate, since I think I can make the case for my understandings.

Are we ready to start?
crc

[seebs]

Originally posted by wiploc

I certainly don't think the future can be known. But the PoE is specifically directed at a god who does know the future.


I don't think it strictly requires that; I think it's sufficient for God to be able to reasonably *expect* bad outcomes for the PoE to hold together.


Are we ready to start?
crc

Sure. Worst case, we talk past each other and look like idiots.

[wiploc]

I request a debate as follows:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) The topic of the debate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Does the Problem of Evil prove that an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing god does not exist.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'm the affirmative. Seebs is the negative. That's how we start anyway; who knows what illumination we'll experience during the discussion.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) The scope of the debate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Roughly: "What are the circumstances where the Problem Of Evil is a compelling refutation of the tri-omni god."




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) The length of the debate, in number of rounds (no more than 10 rounds per debate).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ten rounds, though we may not go all the way.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(e) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



We'll take turns. I'll go first.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(f) The maximum length of each statement (no more than 5,000 words per statement and this includes quotations).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No more than 2500 words.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(g) The maximum duration between statements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



One week.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(h) The extent to which quotes from outside sources will be permitted (absolutely no copyright violation or outright plagiarism will be allowed).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Totally permitted, just not much expected. :)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) The starting date of the debate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



As soon as the thread is up.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(j) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe (subject to moderator approval).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

None.


crc

[seebs]

Sounds good to me. I suspect this'll get hung up on the question of how *exactly* we define the omni* attributes, but we'll see. I do think it looks interesting.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by seebs
Sounds good to me.

There's an official Request for Debate if I ever saw one. Moderators, please set us up.

crc

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Okay guys, sounds good. :) I'll start setting it up. This thread will now be closed.

Jason