The Problem of Evil and how it provides evidence for the existence of God.

a reply to: luthier

Or God can give mankind free will and allow individuals to make a choice for themselves, yes total freedom, as a parent allowing their child to experience the fullness of life
God being sovereign enough to allow us sovereignty over our own lives (to a undefined point)
True love is not controlling, it's defined in the, we'll have a guess
1 Corinthians 13 4-7, so God has set His own rule for love

It's not hard to understand if you have a base belief system

I never suggested my argument was valid to anybody, as I said, christianity is about clinging to faith despite logic

a reply to: Raggedyman

Sure I didn't mean to say you were argueing that position just saying the problem with evil is generally seen as a problem of logic for theology that requires explanation if your presenting an arguement like the op.

He or she did briefly adress the issue.

If God is all knowing coupled with all powerful and all "good" in terms of good and evil then a problem arises that requires an explanation if you are choosing to make an arguement or claim directed at an opposing viewpoint.

All knowing creates a free will issue.

Omniscient could very well mean God has no free will of his own for instance. If he has no free will he is not a personal being etc.

These are old arguements and rebuttles so you were correct saying I didn't add anything new to the conversation. Outside of debating and questions which explanations ring true to you there is no yes or no answer here.

I was saying the interesting debates to me are in the cracks of these arguements and rebuttles on both sides. I would think it's similar to a theologian otherwise it's just another evangelical proposition and dishonest to debating in general. You can try and convert an atheist with a logical debate or rebuttle, using your faith and examples from within the faith in my experience just doesn't work in debating non believers or inter faith debates.

Now if you just believe without creating an arguement to the opposite viewpoint none of that matters. Its your personal beliefs and that requires no explanation to anyone for any reason.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Still crickets? Gosh.

Makes me wonder why the thread's still going on.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Yes your comments have been, as you repeatedly (in these threads) post dubious source materials.

originally posted by: luthier

If God is all knowing coupled with all powerful and all "good" in terms of good and evil then a problem arises that requires an explanation if you are choosing to make an argument or claim directed at an opposing viewpoint.

It is an individual understanding as we are created as individuals with a free will, I am not a Calvinist though I cant deny all of Calvinistic teachings
God asks Christians to call Him Father, that is a sermon in its own right.
A father is not a God, not a mad scientist, a father teaches his children to be the best they can be, then the father allows his children autonomy, to choose
Indicating a surrender of sovereignty for a time
It cant be anything else or we would be a computer program

To be anything else would not explain the roots of 1 Corinthians 13 4-7

originally posted by: luthierAll knowing creates a free will issue.
Omniscient could very well mean God has no free will of his own for instance. If he has no free will he is not a personal being etc.

We are created in Gods image, that should indicate how we relate to the Father, the image not being physical.
If God can ask christians to follow 1 Corinthians 13 4-7, then He must be bound by that love as well.
Yes its circular reasoning, the nature of this beast

originally posted by: luthier
These are old arguements and rebuttles so you were correct saying I didn't add anything new to the conversation. Outside of debating and questions which explanations ring true to you there is no yes or no answer here.

originally posted by: luthier
I was saying the interesting debates to me are in the cracks of these arguements and rebuttles on both sides. I would think it's similar to a theologian otherwise it's just another evangelical proposition and dishonest to debating in general. You can try and convert an atheist with a logical debate or rebuttle, using your faith and examples from within the faith in my experience just doesn't work in debating non believers or inter faith debates.

I dont dee the point in arguing the toss really, just would like to make the average atheist to accept that their is no solid ground to stand on.
In so much as to say they have no right to moralise God, no right to moralise christians and recognise their beliefs have gaping holes in them as well.
Also like to point out that atheism has a death toll as well. No better than christianitys.
We all have faults.

originally posted by: luthier
Now if you just believe without creating an arguement to the opposite viewpoint none of that matters. Its your personal beliefs and that requires no explanation to anyone for any reason.

Maybe no explanation but all christians must be apologists never the less

Easier to say than understand and live by
1 Corinthians 13:4-7English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK)

4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;[a] 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

There is a Gods love in that message

I’m surprised there aren’t more threads on this topic, it’s quite rich. However, I think this discussion has become mired in details not relevant to the OP’s argument. Perhaps we can get things back on track?

Two issues in particular have apparently bogged down the discussion:
The relation between God’s omniscience and free will, and
the possibility of an objective moral standard.

Foregoing possible alternatives is (usually) considered a necessary condition for a free decision.
So, if a person does some act under conditions in which they could not have done anything else, then the act was not free. It may appear as though God’s omniscience precludes this; if God knows that a person will do some act, then they can’t avoid it (that would mean God was wrong, which is impossible for an omniscient being). However, knowing what someone will do is different from preventing them from doing otherwise. Or, as Augustine put it: “Fore-knowledge is not fore-ordination.” There is no inconsistency in claiming that “Person A knows that person B does action X” and “Person B does action X freely.” That is, merely knowing what someone does in no way removes the possibility of them doing something else. [we could demonstrate this more formally later if need be…]

The problem of evil does not depend on an objective moral standard. What is alleged in expressing the “problem” is that God’s existence is inconsistent with the existence of evil. As the OP suggests, theists (almost) always believe that evil exists. Regardless of how they define evil, it’s the fact that God doesn’t want it and is able to eliminate it that creates the problem.

Regarding the OP’s first argument:
1.) If God does not exists, then Evil does not exists.
2.) Evil does exists.
3.) Therefore, God exists.
While this is a valid argument, there’s an unstated premise at work (which is misapplied by the argument). The unstated premise is that a property can only exist if its opposite exists also. Based on such a principle, there can be no red without non-red, no up without down, no good without evil. The principle is misapplied, though, because the argument claims that God and evil are opposites rather than good and evil. Assuming the truth of this (unstated) principle, the argument should proceed as follows:
1.) If good does not exist, then evil does not exist.
2.) Evil exists.
3.) Therefore, good exists.
But, of course, this is an argument for the existence of good, it’s not an argument for the existence of God.

Regarding the OP’s second argument:
1.)God exists.
2.)God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
3.)An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
4.)An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
5.)An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6.)A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7.)If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
8.)Evil exists.

All the constituent components of the problem of evil are well stated. However, it is worth noting that the problem of evil is, at its core, an atheistic argument (allegedly demonstrating that God does not exist). But here, it is portrayed instead as an argument for the existence of evil (intended to bolster the OP’s first argument). As such, it does not work. This is evident by noting that 1, 2 and 7 actually lead to the opposite of 8. These statements alone constitute a valid argument:
(7) If God exists (an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being), then no evil exists.
(1) God exists.
-----------------------
Therefore, (not 8) no evil exists. [Modus Ponens]

To summarize, the existence of evil is alleged to demonstrate that good exists also. To complete the intended theistic argument, it would also have to be demonstrated that
- a property can only exist if its opposite exists also, and
- God and “good” are identical (that is, they are both opposites of “evil”).

If these could be demonstrated, though, then the problem of evil would certainly come into play because it will have been alleged that both God and evil exist. If their mutual existence is logically impossible, then it’s back to square one…

Lastly, then, a more detailed account of the problem of evil seems to be in order.
Here’s a decent one:
- There is a possible world P such that P has less evil in it than the actual world A but at least as much good as A.
- God created A rather than P.
1. If God could have created P (but chose not to), then God is not all good.
2. If God could not have created P, then either God is not all powerful or God is not all knowing.
3. Either God could have created P or God could not have created P.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Therefore either God is not all good or God is not all powerful or God is not all knowing.

BOP

a reply to: birdxofxprey

It wasn't the op that made the second arguement is was I.

I also have been saying all these very same things.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: birdxofxprey

It wasn't the op that made the second arguement is was I.

I also have been saying all these very same things.

Pardon me, I don't see that.

The second argument (the one with 8 statements) is in the original post for this thread, from ServantoftheLamb.

Also, you've said at least twice in this thread that "if God is omniscient there is no free will."
I was clearly arguing the opposite... (so, we're not saying the same things).

While it's not germane to the argument, I might also point out that your account of Kant's categorical imperative is incorrect. You've said that
"Emanuel [sic] Kant for instance came up with the categorical imperative it does not require God.
It just says before you act think about if everybody did what your about to do. Would your action be destructive or constructive to society and the world if everybody were to do it."
and
"The categorical imparitive. [sic] If you act you think what would the consequences become if this was universal action. If everyone did it."

First, Kant's deontology does not allow for the consideration of the consequences of actions regarding morality. He's quite explicit about this.

Second, the categorical imperative does not require that an *act* be universalizable. One must be able to will that the *principle* ("maxim") upon which one's action is founded be a universal law.

Third, in Kant's 2nd critique he clearly articulates the necessity of God's existence in making sense of moral duty (insofar as it alone makes the highest good possible). We can't know that God exists, but it is most rational to believe it (according to him). While the Grounding doesn't venture into that territory, the 2nd Critique places his moral theory squarely in a religious context.

a reply to: birdxofxprey

Hmm very strange your right. It must have been one of his other threads.

Anyhow we do in fact disagree about omniscient god. I don't buy the middle knowledge arguement and I think the the four classic arguements do enough damage to have to alter the definition of God be omniscient.

As far as the categorical imparitive it is not necessary to use it within Kants overlying Deontology as I think it stands as a concept of action in its own.

Are you argueing that god is required to use the categorical imparitive as deontological morality? Or just explaining Kant's overlying Deontology? Not sure what you are getting at.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: birdxofxprey

As far as the categorical imparitive it is not necessary to use it within Kants overlying Deontology as I think it stands as a concept of action in its own.

Are you argueing that god is required to use the categorical imparitive as deontological morality? Or just explaining Kant's overlying Deontology? Not sure what you are getting at.

Kant's argument in the Critique of Practical Reason is often referred to as the "moral argument for God's existence."
Kant is not actually arguing that God exists, though, he's arguing that it is most rational to believe that God exists.
[Generally, in the second Critique, he's trying to outline what sorts of things we cannot know but are rationally justified in believing anyways]
So, perfectly conforming one's will to the moral law is what makes a person worthy of happiness.
But, while we might be worthy of happiness, we cannot deliberately act so as to produce it,
because we lack the necessary knowledge and ability to do so.
At the same time, no rational being will bother making themselves worthy of something they know they cannot achieve.
Therefore, the conjunction of happiness with worthiness to be happy (the Summum Bonum, highest good) must at least be possible.
And, since the deliberate production of happiness (in proportion to worthiness to be happy) could only be accomplished by an omniscient omnipotent omnibenevolent being, it is rational to believe that such exists.

If it should turn out that God does not exist, then the moral law commands rational beings to do irrational things (namely, make ourselves worthy of something we can't achieve). So, for Kant, if there's no God, then everything is basically meaningless and absurd - the most rational belief would fail to be true and the moral law would be pointless.

a reply to: birdxofxprey

Do you believe the categorical imparitive requires god? Or does it make sense just within the social contract alone?

I understand Kant's perspective. However even in his perspective this is not necessarily a Christian or biblical God. He often depicts a kind of panenthiesm.
I have a copy myself. I was a philosophy major 25 years ago, and am on a cell recovering from shoulder surgery so I may be a little casual here.

Personally I have similar feelings as Kant though am more a pandeist but that isn't what I am getting at.

The main premise of my overlying arguement on lambs threads is that morality could simply be a result of psychological evolution as we develop the social contract.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: birdxofxprey

Do you believe the categorical imparitive requires god? Or does it make sense just within the social contract alone?

I understand Kant's perspective. However even in his perspective this is not necessarily a Christian or biblical God. He often depicts a kind of panenthiesm.
I have a copy myself. I was a philosophy major 25 years ago, and am on a cell recovering from shoulder surgery so I may be a little casual here.

Personally I have similar feelings as Kant though am more a pandeist but that isn't what I am getting at.

The main premise of my overlying arguement on lambs threads is that morality could simply be a result of psychological evolution as we develop the social contract.

Kant's theology certainly ends up very different from what most people would call "traditional." I think he believed God was necessary to make sense of the moral law. But some social contract theorists (Rawls especially) have adopted a Kantian framework without the religious implications.

What did you end up doing with your phil major? Just curious...

And best wishes for a speedy recovery!

a reply to: birdxofxprey

I ended up being a carpenter. Ha !

That was from having a child in my mid twenties though. I also studied music and film as another degree. Didn't finish that one.

Now I make guitars, play music, and do some sound engineering.

However the education I received when I studied philosophy I greatly value as a critical thinking tool and consider one of the most important things I very did regardless of the money.

It made me think through the problems I created or came against in my life. I was also a wrestler and Judoka in college and after and the combinations of thought and work ethic have stuck with me and allowed me to never give up when things seemed impossible.

I ended up flipping houses and eventually working for myself. I credit that to the philosophy. I stayed able to have meaningful conversations with people creating business relationships and could examine falacy being thrown at me.

I am thinking about going back to school though and trying to get a PhD so I can teach. My wife is a prof herself.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: birdxofxprey


I am thinking about going back to school though and trying to get a PhD so I can teach. My wife is a prof herself.

Good luck - the job market is dismal, especially in the liberal arts.

Making guitars way more fun

a reply to: birdxofxprey

Yeah it's sad because I think your basic philosophy 101 should be required in highschool or younger Especially if we are taking away theistic morality which is fine but then ethics need to be discussed somehow.

As well as critical thought.

Are you a PhD? Man that bums me out to hear I loved studying philosophy.

a reply to: luthier

Yes indeed. Studying is great, making a living is more of a challenge.