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!
Yeah, we atheists DO have silly views.
IS part.
Just responding to your response about the discovery of penicillin.
Why then did you go off topic with your understanding about the discovery of penicillin, how was that germane to the discussion?
Second, different understandings of the nature of God provide different reasons that God allows evil to flourish, for instance whether free will exists and is justification for the existence of evil which is the topic. Some understandings merely wave aside the need for logic,
More than likely I would say on my part.I am a bit surprised that you feel that way.
The problem of evil stems from the nature of the deity being examined, whether the proposed qualities of the deity are in conflict with what we see in the world. That is the way of reason.
Sorry if I distracted you from the topic ,
peace
I did not bring up penicillin. It was someone on your side who suggested that God should have revealed penicillin earlier to prevent some deaths.
What is important is whether it’s logically possible that God has a reason to allow evil not what the actual reason is. In fact there is no way of knowing what the reason is unless he has revealed that to us.
I would say the “problem of evil” is about whether God’s existence is logically possible if evil exists. God is assumed to be all good and all powerful for the sake of the argument.
We are not talking about the existence of Thor or Zeus
You did not distract me. I was just pointing out that my “version” of God was not the topic here.
I’d be happy to discuss my “version” of God at another time if you like.
peace
Just grossly unformed when it comes to what Christians actually believe
peace
We all believe in your Christian God (whether we admit it or not), and yet we’re not Christians, on your view. In fact, you often refer to us as atheists. When you’re accused of contradiction, you hide behind the trinity. You’ve got God being us, not us, and, for all I know 114 things in between. Sometimes you rely on the Bible, sometimes the non Bible-wielding St. Teresa.
You’re kind of all over the place, frankly. But there’s always a convenient response. Revelation. Smooth.
No, you idiot, that’s not what I suggested. You can’t call dibs for god on every human discovery. Fleming did it. Period. Or maybe you’re willing to argue that god also revealed the nazis that it would be a great idea to use gas chambers to kill jews more efficiently? That actually would make more sense given the genocidal track record of your vindictive sky daddy
There is a huge difference between knowing God exists and knowing that he is the Christian God.
It’s not hiding God is a Trinity. It’s a core doctrine of Christianity.
No God is not us but he does work trough and dwell in Christians. Again this is a core doctrine of Christianity.
You will need to elaborate on the 114 things in between. If I have portrayed God as being something other than he has revealed in Scripture I was wrong and I apologize.
I will have to admit my choice of Teresa was a bad one. I was going to link to this song
https://www.google.com/search?q=portrade&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=let+me+be+your+hands+and+feet
But I thought the poem might be shorter and more to the point.
I think the reason you think I’m all over the place for the most part is because you are unfamiliar with and hostile to what orthodox Christianity believes.
The rest of it boils down to my poor communication skills and sinful lack of submission to God’s revelation.
peace
Why not? If you want to claim that humans can discover stuff on their own with out God you need to explain how they can know stuff with out him.
God did reveal to mankind the effects of asphyxiant gas a long time before the nazis came around.
They decided to do terribly evil things with that knowledge.
Leave it to us sinful humans to use neutral information for nefarious purposes.
It’s sort of what we do.
peace
OK, FMM, let me ask you this. You’re a logic supporter, I know. Now, you recently said that there’s no reason why someone (dazz or newton, I forget) should deny that God is a tennis player (or bikes with a sore knee sometimes).
Is God a better tennis player than I am? A worse tennis player? About the same? All three? Or is it silly, because a kind of category mistake to suggest that God plays tennis? I don’t know of any other alternatives, do you?
You say it makes sense to suggest that God plays tennis because, well, He is one of us. He is us. Something along those lines. OK, well then I infer from that that, being just like me, God must play tennis at about my level, or He’d be different in that respect–and you’ll have none of that.
Now, clearly, Roger Federer is a better tennis player than I am. If God plays tennis at about my (pathetic) level, Federer must be a much better tennis player than God is, right? But, assuming with you that it’s sensible to suggest that God plays tennis, then God can’t be omniscient and omnipotent, because, obviously, nobody can beat something that is both omniscient and omnipotent at tennis. And, Of course, if God plays at about Federer’s level, then He doesn’t play at my level after all. He must play at all the (114) levels. But nothing is both F and not-F at the same time and in the same respect.
I conclude from this that you were wrong to suggest it makes sense to say that God could be a tennis player.
Indeed where would we look to determine how good a tennis player God is? Matthew? St. Catherine of Sienna? One of your own special incorrigible revelations?
In a word, is there any hope that you will cast off your shackles, become a mensch, and realize that, being a speck like the rest of us, you can actually know almost nothing about the universe, and absolutely nothing about God, if there is a God? Or will you live in your comfortable, fear-killing, childish la-la land forever?
Haha, that’s funny.
The worlds good and evil looks exactly like one would expect a randomless, unguided process too create. Yea right..
And, humans looks exactly like you would expect such an unguided process to create as well coincidentally enough! It all fits.
Why does that seem crazy to you? There are lots of studies about the survival value of cooperation, etc. Is Donald Trump what you’d expect from a guided process?
Making claims about Him is not a good way to accomplished that.
better
None I can think of
No I’d say that he could play tennis because the Son took on a human nature in the incarnation.
No, I would say that Christ (who is God) must play Tennis at about our level only better because he is with out sin and the physical consequences that go along with that.
No Federer is like you hampered by sin and and the physical consequences thereof. So Christ (who is God) would be a better tennis player than you or Federer if he was inclined to play.
You forget that in the person of Christ you have two natures one human and one divine. The human nature is not omniscient and omnipotent but the divine nature is. These two natures make up one person the God-man Christ.
Again all of this is basic Christian Doctrine that has been taught for 2 thousand years by folks with much better chops in the logic department than you or I.
If you think the hypostatic union is illogical you need to interact with it and demonstrate what these folks were missing that you see. Good luck
I don’t think you understand it’s precisely because I realize that I am a speck that I trust God more than my own intellectual fumblings in these matters.
Is there any chance that you will do the same and realize that it’s possible you don’t have grounds to make the kinds of universal pronouncements you do based on nothing but your own subjective opinions?
I do like you walto, and as you note we have a lot in common I just think you are a little too sure of yourself with out any justification for that conviction.
I know you think the same of me despite my repeated claims that if I know anything it is the result of revelation and not talent or effort on my part.
Perhaps on this one we will just have to agree to disagree. I’m cool with that as long as you don’t act as if your subjective opinion is any more than that.
peace
I’m not sure I understand you.
Are you saying that I should not respond when asked about this stuff?
Dazz made the false claim that humans can discover things on their own. What is wrong about calling him on it and asking for support for his claims?
peace
I’m ignorant of the apostasy rates for differing strains of Christianity but the Reformed tradition, and specifically the presuppositional apologetic to which FMM subscribes, makes a concerted effort to ‘block the exits’.
By insisting that logic and reason (the very tools of argumentation) are synonymous with God, the believer is thereby caught in an intellectual trap. Using logic and reason to argue against the truth of Christianity is thus compared to climbing upon on God’s knee in order to slap him in the face.
I’d be interested to learn the reasons given by former Reformed Christians as to why they abandoned the faith and compare them to those given by ex Catholics or Evangelicals. Do particular denominations tend towards emotional, social or intellectual reasons for apostasy?
All opinions are ‘subjective.’ That’s basically what the term means. Some are correct, some aren’t. I think mine are correct, you think yours are correct. The term ‘subjective’ before ‘opinion’ is basically an expletive.
God’s opinions are not subjective they are objective truth. What we should do is try and make ours correspond to his
peace
According to Reformed (I like the term Calvinistic better) Christianity it is impossible for a true Christian to leave the faith. It’s called preservation of the saints and it’s the P in our Tulip acrostic.
peace
PS
I’m a Calvinist but also an Evangelical and a Baptist. These things are not mutually exclusive
That you believe that his claim is false does not make it false. Some of us simply don’t think that revelation is necessary or sufficient for knowledge. The fact that you have not succeeded in convincing any of us of this self-evident (to you) “truth” should engender a moment’s reflection.
If that is the case tell my how you know stuff?
you know the drill
peace
You don’t understand. My entire argument is conditioned on the fact that I will not be able to convince you of anything that leads you closer to the truth.
If I could convince you it would prove that I am wrong. That I can’t supports the contention that I’m right.
That should engender a moment’s reflection
peace
fifth:
This is what Woodbine means by “blocking the exits”.
How does that Kool-Aid taste, fifth?
Do you think that mockery and smart alecky comments are arguments?
peace
Catch 22.
fifth,
No, though they can be.
Do you understand why the following amounts to “blocking the exits”?
Mockery often arrives in the form of reductio absurdum. Maybe explicitly, maybe by implication.
Sometimes my opinions are objectively true. Sometimes yours are. But not every time you think they are. My own guess is that you have probably the highest number of false posts on this site. (not the highest proportion–others have you beat there.) 🙂
You know I love you fifth, but nobody here is more off the wall than you are. But what the hell. As I said elsewhere, we all do what we can. You’re too old and settled to be kidnapped and reprogrammed, but it’s kind of what you needed to have happen to you–a loooong time ago.
C’est la vie.
Nothing as far as I am concerned. But those who shall remain nameless feel otherwise ” It’s likely that all of us are mistaken about what God is like in some ways. That has little do with the logical problem of evil or Plantinga’s defense”
So just saying you might want to check the settings on your revelatory powers, you seem to have a continuity issue.
Mea culpa for once again drifting off topic.
Sounds like the plot of The Hangover IV.
It’s your knees that bother me the most. Atheists have the most bizarre knees.
That’s evil.
They’re evil.
LoL.
walto, to fifth:
You can’t teach an old ‘bot new programs?
I just want people who think God approves of rape to define their terms so that I can word-lawyer whatever they come up with. 🙂
For what it’s worth, I don’t. We’re talking about moral choices, right?
He could insist that had they been created, they would have no free will, and that’s a good thing.
Or that God, in His ability to see in advance the evil things these people would do, would create them anyways, but without free will, such that they never actually did those things.
The dancing version, or the tennis playing version?
You seem to be talking about the Jewish God or the Islamic God.
And how does that passage define rape, which was the question you were supposed to be answering?
I could envision a God in a tuxedo with a cane or as Serena Williams.
🙂
Ask your friendly Christian if they think they will be spared from the flames.
I personally subscribe to the “Many Heavens” interpretation of quantum-busting immaterial non-mechanics.
Maybe it is time to leave topic of rape before we have another spill on aisle three
I always thought it was theists from all the kneeling
I choose:
3. Heaven co-exists with this world and its virtues are actual as a counterbalance of all the vices of this world.
But now I guess I have to defend that, lol.
Heaven is a spiritual reality and this world is not. Channeling Alan Fox, I can’t conceive of heaven as a counterbalance because that would require an interface, and I can’t conceive of an interface between the spiritual and the material.
I so fail.
At least we don’t have to ask “Where did we go wrong?” any longer.
It has been revealed.
fifth, to walto:
Fixed that for ya.
Erik.
No, he’s leaving those people uncreated who would go on to commit the evil. His choice not to create them prevents the evil from happening, just as spraying for mosquitoes prevents the malaria that would otherwise occur.
A person has to exist before he or she has free will. Uncreated people can’t choose. You can’t kill someone who isn’t alive, and you can’t steal free will from someone who doesn’t have it.
By the same reasoning – evildoings have to exist before they can be prevented. Since uncreated people cannot choose, they cannot choose neither good or evil, and leaving them uncreated means nothing is prevented.
Therefore your conclusion, “[God] has prevented those [evil] things from happening…” does not follow.
Therefore I say that you are making an equivocation in the premises. Non-creation either has consequences or it doesn’t. Which way is it? When it comes to free will, you say it is not being deprived by leaving people uncreated. When it comes to evildoings, you are saying they are being prevented by leaving people uncreated.
I hope I’m being specific enough. English sucks. Not just my English. English as such. Any other language would be better.
I think its comes from all those years spent kneeling reading scripture that they hate.