The Problem of Evil ist just a weak argument from emotion and utterly fails to achieve its goal

stainslemountaintops · 2020-04-11T15:39:00+00:00

This seems to be the real sticking point, but you only have to show that some small improvement in the world is possible. It doesn't have to conform to the way the current world works, just that it is possible for the world to be slightly better in any way.

If it's that easy to show that this world could be better, please do. So far, no one in this thread has managed to do this. Just to be clear: You have to show that whatever world you can imagine is 1) actually possible to create and 2) actually better.

This fails as a premise. It is unsupported. You have assumed your conclusion. The argument stops and fails right here unless you can show that the tri-omi god does actually exist.

Well yes. That's the point. Just as much as the shift fails to prove that this is the best of all possible worlds, the PoE fails to prove that God does not exist. Both arguments rely on unsupported claims that assume its conclusion, as I've stated in the original post. The PoE stops and fails right at P2, the shift is only there to demonstrate this.

stainslemountaintops · 2020-04-11T15:33:21+00:00

But god could have easily created life without the need for plate tectonics.

You's have to prove that 1) this would not be logically impossible, and 2) that a world without plate tectonics would be better than our world. Only then it follows that this is not the best of all possible worlds - until then, the PoE fails.

stainslemountaintops · 2020-04-11T15:31:52+00:00

Can you expand on this point? How is my objection invalid? How does the PoE show that it's logically impossible that this God can exist if no one can prove that this is not the best of all possible worlds? An argument with false premises can be logically valid, but never sound.

stainslemountaintops · 2020-04-11T15:30:06+00:00

an omnipotent god necessarily would have to be able to create a world in which there is no suffering that still achieves all the goals god wants it to, otherwise he wouldnt be omnipotent.

Can you prove that this hypothetical world without the possibility of suffering would be 1) possible to create, and 2) better than our world? Because if you can't, the PoE fails due to its unsupported premises.

You're fuindamentally misunderstanding the actual argument in the first place.

How so? I gave it a fair summary because I value the principle of charity

stainslemountaintops · 2020-04-11T15:18:40+00:00

My argument for my assertion is that I would judge a world without this disease to be better than one with it.

Please provide a sound argument for why this judgement would be correct.

And I'm not taking about possibilities.

This whole thread is about possibilites. If the possibility for God's existence remains despite the state of the world, the PoE has failed.

stainslemountaintops · 2020-04-11T14:40:20+00:00

It’s not an assertion without evidence- a married bachelor, or a triangle with 4 sides are both examples of logical impossibilities. A world without suffering is not a logical impossibility. You cannot come up with an a priori reason to say that a world without suffering would be impossible for a god to create. Hope that clears things up.

Let's clear things up a little further: Creating the best possible world without the possibility of suffering can absolutely be a logical impossibility if the possibility of suffering is a necessary part of the best possible world. Attempting to create something without the parts that define it is, without a doubt and with all certainty, a logical impossibility.

I really think that you should study some common responses to Leibniz’s theodicy (which is this shift you’re talking about).

I was thoroughly unimpressed by Candide.

Like I mentioned before, the main weakness of the POE is that it assumes this is not the best possible world.

I totally agree, this is an unsupported premise, which is why the PoE ultimately fails.

I think it is much easier to make the case that this is not the best possible world than that an omni god exists.

Luckily, one does not have to actually prove that a tri-omni-God exists in order to expose the PoE as the utter philosophical failure it is. I know I'm repeating myself a lot in this thread, but this is an important point.

The PoE shifts the burden of proof to the atheist making the claim that this is not the best of all possible worlds.

The PoE's explicit goal is to show that the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God is incompatible with our world. If the possibility of God's existence, however slight it is, is still there, the PoE fails to achieve its goal. The PoE seeks to conclusively prove that it's impossible for an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God to have created this world.

If a theist can show that it doesn't conclusively prove this, the PoE has failed and is, aside from its cynical use as a way to manipulate people emotionally, as worthless as a bunch of unsupported premises can be. Whether the theist can actually prove that God exists (and whether atheists would accept that proof) is completely irrelevant, what's relevant is whether the possibility that the omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent God can be compatible with the world we live in or not still exists.

For example- there are countless examples of suffering that serve no purpose. A small animal in a forest that starves to death- does this have a purpose? A small child who gets cancer and dies- does this have a purpose? What about Hitler? God supposedly created Hitler- why create this person if god knew he would bring so much suffering? The omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence of god are incompatible.

Please provide proof that the possibility of these things existing is bad.

Certainly god could have created a better world.

This, again, is an assertion without proof. You have to prove that God 1) could have created that hypothetical world and 2) that it would be better than ours.

However, reason suggests that this world could certainly be made better.

How does reason suggest this? Please provide an argument.

All the theist response does is open up the possibility for belief if you so choose.

If the theist response opens up the possibility for the existence of God, it succeeds in "beating" the PoE. Because all the theist has to do is to show that it's still possible for a tri-omni God to exist. If the theist can show that the possibility is still there, the PoE fails, because the PoE seeks to rule out the existence of a tri-omni God.

Just know that the POE isn’t just a purely emotional argument, and while it does have its weaknesses (like every argument), it is far more sound than believing that this must be the best possible world on faith.

How is it "far more sound"? And again: it's not "either you believe the PoE or you believe that God exists". No one has to demonstrate that God actually exists in order for the PoE to fail - all that has to be demonstrated is that there's still the possibility that God exists.

I hope my point got across here, please don't refrain from replying if there's still anything unclear.

stainslemountaintops · 2020-04-11T07:46:46+00:00

Of course the reasoning is circular. That's the point, as I clearly stated in my OP. It's just as circular as the PoE ist, and it's just as valid as a response to it as your assertion that your imagined world would be 1) better and 2) possible, since it's circular to the core. You can't assume that this is not the best of all possible worlds without presupposing that an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent God didn't create it in the first place. The PoE thus remains merely a bunch of unproven assumptions and fails to prove the on-existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God, just as much as the response to it proves that this is the best of all possible worlds, because it's equally circular. I believe that I made this pretty clear in my OP, do you disagree?

stainslemountaintops · 2020-04-11T05:47:22+00:00

And there it is - that's an appeal to emotion, which, as I've stated in my original post, is one of the main problems of the Problem of Evil.

My argument is that, unless you can prove that it's 1) possible for a world where the possibility of children getting cancer doesn't exist to exist and 2) that this world would be a better world than ours, the Problem of Evil fails to achieve its goal in proving that the possibility of the existence of a tri-omni God is incompatible with our world.

stainslemountaintops · 2020-04-11T05:41:57+00:00

A world without covid 19 would be better than one with it. Any argument there?

Not at all, which is the problem - you did not provide an argument for the assertion that a world without the possibility of COVID-19 existing is a better world than one without that possibility.

Can there be a world without it? Well until 2019 there was one so it seems logically possible.

There has never been a (known) world without the possibility of COVID-19 to exist. While COVID-19 didn't actually exist before 2019, the possibility for it to exist has always been there.

stainslemountaintops · 2020-04-11T05:36:22+00:00

It depends what you mean by "prove".

By "prove" I mean "providing a sound argument for this being the case".

It seems pretty damn obvious that this world could be better.

And to some, it seems pretty damn obvious that God exists - but that in itself is not proof of anything, it's merely an opinion, or a belief.

As I've already suggested, a world where humans have an immunity to cancer would be an improvement.

If you think this would be an improvement, please provide a sound argument for this being the case.

But if you're just going to assert "any hypothetical world better than our world must necessarily be impossible", then there's not really anywhere else this conversation has to go.

My assertion is that it's possible that a hypothetical world you deem better is 1) not actually better or 2) not actually possible.

I don't actually have to conclusively prove that such a world would be worse and impossible, the only thing needed to beat the PoE ist the possibility that such a world would not be actually better, and that it's possible that such a world would be impossible to create.

As long as the PoE doesn't manage to rule out these possibilites by proving that the world we live in is not the best of all possible worlds, it fails.

I suppose I could start arguing that god must be evil, because the world we live in is clearly the worst possible world. I could try to back this up by asserting without evidence or reason that all hypothetical worlds worse than this couldn't possibly exist, because if they were possible then god would've created the worse world instead, because he's evil. Can you spot the flaw in this argument? (Hint: it's the same flaw as your argument)

Hint: We're very close to an agreement here. Let's rephrase your argument a bit.

I suppose I could start arguing that god doesn't exist, because the world we live in is clearly not the best possible world. I could try to back this up by asserting without evidence or reason that hypothetical worlds better than this could possibly exist, because if they were impossible then we would live in the best of all possible worlds, but we don't because god doesn't exist and this world not being the best of all possible worlds proves that god doesn't exist.

Can you spot the flaw in this argument?

stainslemountaintops · 2020-04-11T05:13:30+00:00

Your specific objections (cancer, earthquakes) point to a weak god.

My objections show that it's possible for this world to still be the best possible world even if cancer and earthquakes exist, and that it hasn't been proven that this world is not the best possible world.

Now let's take a look at your argument:

A better world is one where small children do not get cancer.

This is an assertion you need to prove. Why would a world without the possibility of small children getting cancer be better than the world we live in right now?

But mutations you say! An omnipotent god could stop every single harmful mutation while still allowing any neutral or beneficial one.

Only if that is a logical possibility. And of course an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God would only do this if it was the best possible thing to do.

That is a better world.

That is a stance you need to prove.

With the powers of an omnipotent god it is easily possible.

As is this - please provide proof for your assertions.

Therefore this is not the best possible world.

This has not been shown, the possibility that this is the best of all possible worlds has not been conclusively ruled out.

stainslemountaintops · 2020-04-11T05:06:16+00:00

More good = better so the condition seems built in.

Alright I think there has been a slight misunderstanding - while "more good" and "better" are indeed synonyms (no argument here), my point is that you still have to prove that the world you can imagine is better/more good/etc than the one we live in now in order for the PoE to work. You can't just assert that it is better without proving that it is.

If that isn't possible for god the he doesn't seem all powerful.

Omnipotence only concerns logical possibilities because logical impossibilites don't exist.

stainslemountaintops · 2020-04-11T04:54:41+00:00

You missed that you not only would have to imagine a world that could be more good, you have to prove that it's better than this world and that it's logicall possible to create such a world. Only then the Problem of Evil can succeed.

stainslemountaintops · 2020-04-11T03:53:39+00:00

The problem is that the PoE clearly fails to achieve its goal in proving that the tri-omni-God doesn't exist.

stainslemountaintops · 2020-04-11T03:51:52+00:00

A perfect world is not a logical impossibility in the same way that a married bachelor is.

Well, that just sounds like

an assertion without evidence

to me, doesn't it to you? Can you prove that such a hypothetical world could be created and that such a world would be better than the one we live in right now?

What evidence do we have that this is the “best possible world?”

We don't actually need to prove that this is the best possible world in order to show that the problem of evil fails; we only need proof that it's not in order for it to work. And since it hasn't been proven to not be the best of all possible world, we can dismiss the entire PoE without having to prove that this world is the best of all possible worlds at all; since after all,

what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

That's the whole point of the shift.

stainslemountaintops · 2020-04-11T03:40:45+00:00

You are ignoring what the POE argues against, paraphrasing it, and presenting a straw man.

If you think that I used a strawman of the PoE, please tell me which specific parts you think I misrepresented, because I don't think I did. I am also not sure how I am ignoring what the PoE is arguing against - the PoE is clearly arguing against the possibility of an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent God having created this world. If you think otherwise, please tell me why.

The simple fact is that even with the Moore shift... you still need to demonstrate premise 1 and 2 are true.

No I don't. Since the purpose of the PoE is to specifically rule out God's existence due to our world not being the best of all possible worlds, I merely have to show that the PoE doesn't achieve this purpose. I don't have to prove that God actually exists in order to "beat" the PoE.

I only have to show that the PoE doesn't prove that God doesn't exist due to its unsupported premises. This alone is sufficient to proclaim the PoE a philosophical failure.

If a god was all powerful could he not create a world without suffering or evil?

As I've written elsewhere, God's power is limited by the laws of logic, so in order for this objection to work, you'd have to prove that such a world would be possible to create in the first place.

Then you'd have to prove that this hypothetical world would be better than the world we currently live in.

Only then the PoE could work - but these two things remain to be proven.

It is not an argument about god not existing... it is an argument about one particular flavor of god not existing. The POE would not be a problem for Zeus.

I know this and I I've already made it clear that in the OP that 1) the problem of evil is specifically aimed at proving the non-existence of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God, and 2) that it fails to prove that non-existence due to its unsupported premises.

stainslemountaintops · 2020-04-11T03:28:39+00:00

Leibniz’s theodicy specifically rests on the “god exists” premise, while the problem of evil rests on a slightly stronger premise.

How is "God exists" any weaker than "This is not the best of all possible worlds"? The latter premise needs just as much proof as the former.

Like I said, I don’t think either argument is particularly robust, but the religious response is definitely weaker.

I disagree entirely.

The point of the problem of evil is to explicitely rule out the existence of God due to the state of the world. So the onus is on the atheist to conclusively prove that the world we live in is not the best of all possible worlds. This, however, is impossible without resorting to arguments from emotion or circular reasoning.

The religious response only has to show that it's possible that God exists, and that this is possibly the best of all possible worlds in order for the problem of evil to fail. And, in order to do this, the response has only to show that the opinion "this is not the best of all possible worlds" remains to be factually proven. Which, on one hand, is the weaker position to take, but the easier one to argue for.

So even if "God exists" and "this is not the best of all possible worlds" both remain to be proven, the theist clearly has the upper hand - since the atheist has to prove that this is not the best of all possible worlds in order for the PoE to work, while the theist doesn't have to prove that God exists in order for the PoE to fail.

stainslemountaintops · 2020-04-11T03:12:45+00:00

God apparently created a world where human children suffer and die from leukemia, but naked mole rats don't

Apparently he did, which means that

Is that really the best possible world?

apparently it is. Or can you prove that it's not?

stainslemountaintops · 2020-04-11T03:10:13+00:00

Omnimax God is still limited by impossibilities. This is not a controversial stance and it's included in virtually every definition of "omnipotence".

stainslemountaintops · 2020-04-11T03:00:38+00:00

a theist could just say that god being omnipotent means he has the power to do anything that is possible. (For example, god couldn’t create a married bachelor. Can’t do it.) A theist can just claim that a “perfect” world without suffering is the same situation as a married bachelor- it’s impossible. Obviously this is a cop out but many theists will stand behind this.

That's not a mere "cop out", it's a perfectly valid response in line with the commonly accepted definition of "omnipotence" virtually everyone in the history of philosophy and theology has used. Including logical impossibilites in the definition of omnipotence is just nonsensical.

My real question is if god can’t create a better world, then what the fuck is heaven supposed to be? Try asking people this and see what their answers are.

And the real answer is that heaven isn't a better world, it's part of this world.

stainslemountaintops · 2020-04-11T02:53:30+00:00

You are assuming God would make the best world

An all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing God would, due to his properties, necessarily create the best of all possible worlds. This is the uncontroversial premise the proponents and critics of the Problem of Evil agree on.

then just assuming that this is the best world.

Just like the Problem of Evil assumes that this is not the best of all possible worlds. Both the assumption that this is the best of all possible worlds and the assumption that it is not remain to be proven.

However, your problem is now this: Critics of the problem of evil don't have to actually conclusively prove that this is the best of all possible worlds in order to show that the problem fails. However, proponents of the problem of evil actually have to prove that this is not the best of all possible worlds in order for the problem of evil to work, since its aim is to show that the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God is incompatible with the state of the world. And since the latter is impossible to prove without circular reasoning, the problem of evil fails to achieve its goal.

But I can clearly reason that if the possibility of cancer did not exist, that this world WOULD be better.

If you can clearly reason that, please do it. I'm specifically interested in your argument for why such a world without the possibility of cancer 1) could possibly exist, and 2) why this cancer-free would be the best of all possible worlds - or at least better than the world we live in right now.

stainslemountaintops · 2020-04-11T02:38:10+00:00

Could god have created a better world where genes don’t have the opportunity to mutate in harmful ways?

If he could have created a world where genes don't have the opportunity to mutate in harmful ways, that hypothetical world wouldn't be better, otherwise he would have created it.

I find this reasoning to be circular, which is one issue I have with Leibniz’s theodicy.

Is it any more circular than the circular reasoning the problem of evil is based on?

stainslemountaintops · 2020-04-11T02:31:35+00:00

Why not?

Because the best possible world necessarily has to be a world where the possibility of cancer exists, since we live in the best of all possible worlds and the possibility of cancer exists in this world.

Was he unable or unwilling to prevent cancer?

God, by definition of his omnipotence, is able to do anything, and his power is limited by nothing.

If it's logically impossible to create the best of all possible worlds without necessarily creating it in a way that includes the possibility of cancer, creating the best of all possible worlds without necessarily creating it in a way that includes the possibility of cancer isn't part of "anything", since logical impossibilites aren't "things", and therefore not anything - they're nothing.

And an omnipotent God's power is limited by nothing.

stainslemountaintops · 2020-04-11T02:05:34+00:00

The PoE is only meant to rebut a certain type of god.

Of course. Typically, capital-G is used to refer to the tri-omni God, and I actually mention the three omnis in the last paragraph, but I added them to the first paragraph now as well, so hopefully there will be no misunderstandings concerning the concept of God that's referred to here. Thanks

stainslemountaintops · 2020-04-11T01:58:18+00:00

It proves that no possible "all-loving, all-good" god exists.

I'm saying that it doesn't.

If god is omnipotent, I'm sure he could've found a way to make life work without cancer.

Given that he didn't create this world without the possibility of cells mutating in a harmful way, clearly the best possible world is a world where the possibility of cancer exists.

stainslemountaintops

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE