The ‘problem of evil’ is a perpetual thorn in the side of the omnitheist — that is, someone who believes in an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God. For if God is perfectly good and all-powerful, why does he allow so much evil in the world? He’s powerful enough to eradicate it; and if he’s perfectly good, he should want to eradicate it. So why doesn’t he?
One response, known as the ‘Free Will Defense’, comes from Alvin Plantinga:
A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren’t significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can’t give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God’s omnipotence nor against his goodness: for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.
Plantinga’s position has multiple problems and shortcomings, which we’ll no doubt end up discussing in the comment thread, but for now I want to present an argument against the Free Will Defense that is similar to an argument I’ve been making in the purpose of theistic evolution thread.
Let’s assume for the purposes of this OP that libertarian free will exists and that humans possess it. (It’s actually incoherent and therefore impossible, but that’s a separate topic.)
Here’s how I presented the argument back in 2012, in a comment addressed to Mung:
You haven’t thought this through. An omniscient and omnipotent God could prevent rapes from happening, and he could even prevent the desire to rape from happening, all without controlling anyone’s thoughts and desires.
Here’s how it would work. Suppose God creates each person with free will, so that everything he or she does during life is freely chosen. If God is omniscient, he knows what all of those choices will be before the person is even created. If God simply chooses not to create the people who will go on to commit rape (or even experience the desire to commit rape), then he has prevented those things from happening without depriving anyone of their free will.
If you object that selective creation would deprive the uncreated people of their free will, then you run into a big problem: There are already zillions of uncreated people for every person who is actually born. If leaving a person uncreated violates his or her free will, then God is already massively guilty of denying free will to zillions of uncreated people. The objection thus undermines the assumption that free will is important to God, which is the basis for the whole argument in the first place!
fifthmonarchyman:
Woodbine:
fifth:
Woodbine:
Maybe God will reveal the joke to him.
fifth:
It’s been done. Didn’t you read the OP?
If you disagree, let’s hear your defeater of my defeater of Plantinga’s defeater.
Erik,
Would God include atheists bitching about a lack of choices in his ‘perfectly good world’?
You’re conflating ‘pointing out an inconsistency’ with ‘blaming God’.
The problem of evil really scares theists. It’s easier to claim that atheists ‘blame God’ than it is to defend your God, who is (supposedly) perfectly good.
If I answer no, it means your argument doesn’t work, because ‘perfectly good world’ wouldn’t permit atheists be born, given that there’s nothing good in atheists bitching about lack of choices.
So I answer yes, graciously allowing some room for your argument.
So nobody’s to blame for the inconsistency? You have no quibble about it?
Erik,
You might want to rethink that.
If you answer “no”, you’re admitting that your claim was bogus:
Second, it means that my argument actually does work, because as the argument in the OP demonstrates, God could create a world in which everyone freely believes in him and everyone freely refrains from complaining about a lack of choices. They’d be free to disbelieve and to complain, but they’d freely choose otherwise.
That world doesn’t exist, so neither does the postulated God.
It’s the theists’ mistake, obviously. Can’t blame it on a nonexistent God.
If you want your argument to work, then my claim was not bogus. If you don’t want your argument to work, fine.
No, it doesn’t demonstrate. You are showing no logical reason or necessity why evil people should not be born. Besides, you don’t consider that bitching about God can be considered evil, so atheists would not be born according to your argument, so if your argument were granted, you would not exist, and we would not be having this discussion. But mercifully for you, here we are.
Anyway, long story short, your argument has roughly the same inconsistencies that it seeks to tackle. I see nothing compelling in it.
Erik:
My argument does not depend in any way on atheists complaining about a lack of choices in a perfectly good world. Your claim is bogus…
…and my argument stands.
Erik,
Sure I am. I’m showing how God could create a world in which moral evil never occurs, without depriving anyone of their free will.
Come on, Erik. You can do better than this. You’re making embarrassing mistakes in basic logic.
My argument does not depend on the existence of a world without evil. Quite the opposite. It argues from the existence of unnecessary evil in the world to the nonexistence of a God who is perfectly capable of preventing it without compromising anyone’s free will.
To me it does, because if a world is perfectly good, there should be nothing to complain about.
If you claim that complaining about, well, anything, is okay in a perfectly good world, then I must ask you to define “perfect” and “good” so that it would convince me that complaining is compatible with them. Until this happens, this is one of the inconsistencies in your argument which makes it uncompelling. Bogus argument, in other words.
Oh, in that case your argument is worse than I thought. Namely, you have given no evidence or proof or examples of unnecessary evil.* From theist perspective, evil is, summa summarum, quite well contained and held back in the present world, even though God has no obligation to do it.
* Unless you think the word rape can easily bear that burden.
Erik,
You’re making the same basic logic mistake again.
My argument doesn’t depend on whether atheists would or wouldn’t exist in a perfectly good world, nor does it depend on whether they would complain in such a world.
If you can’t see that, then you don’t understand my argument.
You are right, I don’t understand your argument. I never understood how arguments from evil were supposed to disprove God.
Anyway, if you think that your argument argues from unnecessary evil, then no, it doesn’t. “Unnecessary evil” does not appear in the OP. Only “rape” does. How is that supposed to be unnecessary evil?
ETA: For me, free will is roughly proportionate to evil, necessarily logically so. To you it apparently isn’t, but your argument does not even try to demonstrate how free will is possible in a perfectly good world. It simply asserts that it works without solving the problem.
Erik,
You think every instance of rape is a necessary evil? How so?
Yes, rape counts as evil. Unnecessary evil? No, if we are to permit free will. And since evil is not unnecessary, I don’t see why it should be curtailed in the current world more than it already is and why God should have been obligated to create a more perfect world to your arbitrary satisfaction.
I can grant this point, but it remains to be seen how you demonstrate there is unnecessary evil.
Erik,
So you think God does not possess free will?
Sure it does:
As I explained above, it also works for any other sin.
God possesses absolute free will. Humans possess relative free will – not nearly enough for libertarians to have their fill.
Point 1: Your argument prevents people be born if it’s foreknown they make evil choices. Thus their free will is prevented from operation. To prevent someone to be born is the ultimate block on their free will, but you try to portray it as unproblematic. Which is quite problematic. As if abortion were inconsequential non-evil or something.
ETA: Another logical problem is as follows. In your argument, first, God foreknows an unborn person’s choices. Second, God prevents the person be born for the evil choices he would make. Thus the foreknowledge was wrong – the evil choices will not happen and it ends up that God was not omniscient after all.
These are some of the issues that make the argument uncompelling and unserious for me.
Point 2: You still have not shown any unnecessary evil.
Erik:
You just told us that was impossible:
Erik:
I addressed that in the OP:
Erik:
I've shown that evil is unnecessary for free will, contrary to your claim. I've also shown, as a bonus, that God doesn't have free will according to your criterion.
This thread is not going very well for you and the other theists.
You mean, if there’s logical necessity, then there’s no free will? ETA: This is an honest question. Looks like you are saying that.
Thus the logical conundrums in your argument make it implode. I find it baffling how you can say preventing a person to be born means he still has free will. Or some such that you seem to be saying.
Regardless if we are talking about this world or about the world in your argument, the same logical laws apply, and the same paradoxes operate. More so in your possible world than in the actual world, because given the conundrums, your world isn’t even possible.
Erik,
Didn’t you read this?
Yes, I read it many times, and in response to this:
I’d say it’s not going very well for you either. Nobody understands your argument or finds it compelling. It’s awesome only in your own mind.
Let’s see again if you see the problem here.
You are right about one thing: This is precisely my objection. But you are not doing away with the objection.
You say, “There are already zillions of uncreated people for every person who is actually born.” Let’s suppose so. The issue is, no matter how many uncreated people there are, if they were meant to be created, they will be eventually, and they will get to exercise their free will at the opportunity assigned for them.
In contrast, you suggest that they should never be born, and that it would be okay, no free will infringed. Well, no, it’s not okay. Free will is obviously infringed, so your suggestion leaves the objection standing.
I would also quibble about a little nuance. There are not “zillions” of uncreated people. There is only the number that are meant to be created, but have not been created yet. That number will be created in the future and they will have their free will. As simple as that.
No, those are not the only alternatives. Wouldn’t one thing be larger than another whether or not God existed? I’m no Bible expert, but I believe, right at the get-go, after the heavens and earth gets created, God looks around at what he’s done and notes “and it was good.” If that was just up to him, it would have been a pretty easy gig, no? Would the same word he made have been bad if he thought so?
The whole idea is just confused, sorry.
More utter nonsense. You guys should just join a church group, make cookies, and smile benignly at each other.
You’re right about the logic. But his claim that this is such a world is question-begging. In keiths’ OP and elsewhere, he tries to cast doubt on claims that this can reasonably be held to be such a world. I really have no idea myself. How could we know that? We’re specks. In my speckish view, keiths has no more idea whether this is the best of all possible worlds than Plantinga has.
It would be nice if theists could explain why worlds just like this one but without this or that horror in it are impossible. But in the end, if they can’t, that doesn’t change the logic of the situation. It’s just one more instance where theists have large, comforting ideas they can’t really defend, but would love to be true. Those ideas can’t be refuted, admittedly, but so what.
Strange. They’re extremely simple.
What a load. Nice to raise yourself out of speckdom by your bootstraps. The length of first sentence in this post is “proportionate” to the sense you’ve been making on this thread.
Oh, for Christ’s sake, keiths. Aren’t his arguments are bad enough that it’s unncessary to resort to that sort of remark?
Your post should be guanoed, and you should grow up.
You’re right that it’s not completely compelling, but at least it’s coherent. You should consider following that lead.
And, as nonsensical!
FMM said: If God chose not to create anyone inclined to do evil no one other than God would ever exist.
Keiths said: Says fifth, while completely failing to back up his assertion.
quote:
Rom 3:10-18
(10) as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;
(11) no one understands; no one seeks for God.
(12) All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”
(13) “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.”
(14) “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
(15) “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
(16) in their paths are ruin and misery,
(17) and the way of peace they have not known.”
(18) “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
end quote:
Before you get upset at the use of the Bible let me break it down for you as simply as I can.
Righteousness is a divine quality and you are not God.
Righteousness is simply to desire what God desires. If you always wanted exactly what God wanted you would not be you you would be him.
peace
That is not his claim. Again he is offering a logical defeater not a theodicy.
There is no way for a finite human to know if God’s reasons for allowing evil are sufficient. All we can say is that it’s logically possible that his reasons are sufficient. That is all that is necessary to defeat the logical problem of evil
It would be nice if we knew everything about everything but we don’t. We can’t by definition
If we did we would not be creatures but the creator.
peace
“No one does good” What an awful sentiment, and one I’m sure you don’t believe yourself most of the time. Anyhow, if I were you I’d concentrate on this portion of 11:
No one understands….
with particular attention to its application to the theists’ posts on this thread.
This makes absolutely no sense to me.
The “cannot” suggests a logical entailment and I’m not even sure what it’s supposed to be.
Is the idea something like, “if one does not believe in God, then moral judgments are only expressions of subjective preference”?
What’s the argument for that?
You do have an argument, right?
I agree with that, except for the last line. There’s no problem with the LOGIC of Plantinga’s defense. Nor is there anything new about it. It’s in Leibniz.
keiths’ examples are intended to cast doubt on the reasonability of the claim that actual world is the best of all possible worlds. You say, Who cares what I think? What can mere mortals know about this?
As a consequentialist, I agree. We can’t calculate those kinds of utilities. But keiths is a bit like you in occasionally demonstrating a messianic complex.
I would agree. The theists don’t have any more claim to absolute knowledge than the nontheists
none of us understands everything and understanding everything is exactly what would be necessary to make a determination on whether God has sufficient reason to allow the evil he does.
What we can do is know that God is good and trust him.
peace
What we can do is shut the hell up sometimes and not suggest we have some deep knowledge of the matter.
Again with the best of all possible worlds talk. I know you think it’s helpful but it’s not.
This could very well not be the best of all possible worlds and God still have good reason for creating it.
All we can say is that it’s a good world. That is enough
peace
The only knowledge we have (or can have) is what has been revealed to us. Some of us have more revelation than others there is nothing wrong with sharing it.
peace
Actually I completely and wholeheartedly embrace that statement. If we do good it is solely because God by his grace is working through and not by our own volition.
peace
No.
You came to understand this point the last time we discussed it, but apparently have forgotten your insight. You should go back and follow the same steps. I’m not going to go into this again except to say that it’s a simple logical point which you eventually grokked last time.
Again, it’s all in Leibniz.
keiths,
keiths,
Forget about morality for a second, let’s talk practicality. You are the one who wants a world where nothing bad can happen, not me, I am not complaining about this one. So I want to know how your world with nothing bad will work. So you fall, but it won’t hurt. Can you jump in front of a speeding car then, since that also won’t hurt. Jump off a tall building? Can you be hungry in your evil-less world?
You started a thread about how to justify evil in a world with an omnipotent God, so we have to see how you can do better. Can anything bad ever happen in keith world?
Go read #11 again.
No what happened is that I allowed you to equivocate on the meaning of “world” so that it included even things that we can’t know about even in principle and even God himself.
I suppose that sort of gross oversimplification is acceptable if you qualify that what you mean by “world” is not what the rest of us mean.
You did not do that in this instance
peace
How is human free will supposed to bail god out for his own decisions? Even if one grants that free will is needed for good (and evil is thus necessary) the argument is about what god does, or can, or should do. This is FFM’s “sick babies chose to sin” all over again. There’s no reason why god would need to allow the suffering and death of the innocent to preserve free will.
1) There is no way you can possibly know that
2) there is no one who is innocent
peace
I did nolt equivocate. I always meant every freaking thing. You just can’t consistently get your speckish head around that concept. Give it another shot, and don’t stray once you get it.
So if you found a baby who is just about to die in horrible pain, and you could save him with the flick of a switch, would it be morally wrong to not do it?
Jesus. Nothing could be simpler than the idea that if there’s an omni God this must be the best of all possible worlds. What CAN y’all understand?
Indeed. But how exactly isn’t it?
I make no claims about that. Beyond my ken.