BE solves the problem of evil

[mighty_duck]

In his show a couple of months ago ("Atheist Admits Assumptions About Evil"), Bob harps on these two lines:
1. Love cannot be forced
2. Some love is worth enduring much evil

And claims that this disqualifies the problem of evil from disproving the Existence Of God. I think most people would agree with those two statements( I certainly do), I just don't see how this disqualifies anything.

For the problem of evil, these are the two statements that are needed:
1a. Acts of Hate can be prevented by an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God.
2a. An omnipotent, omnibenevolent God would be able to allow that same love without enduring any evil.

They are not in conflict with the original two statements, and are not identical to them either.

It seems like Bob is trying to rephrase the problem, replace it with straw, and proceed to tear it down.
Am I missing anything here?

 

[Vaquero45]

Greg Bahnsen puts the problem of evil this way:

1. God is all good.
2. God is all powerful.
3. Evil exists.

The critic argues that if God is all good, and all powerful, evil should not exist.

The critic overlooks a perfectly reasonable way to assent to all three of these propositions:

4. God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil that exists.

(this is a presupposition a believer must evaluate everything through, since the Bible tells us God is good)

Bob's statements "Love cannot be forced" and "Some love is worth enduring much evil" are a way of explaining #4 from Bahnsen.

I'm not at all good at presuppositional apologetics, but I can at least share that much.
I'm also aware that Bahnsen is a Calvinist, and I like his book, but disagree with some of his beliefs.

(Anyone who's read "Always Ready" by Greg Bahnsen would recognize some of the wording I used above. I'm giving him credit here)

 

[Toast]

Mighty_duck, what about God giving us a free will do you not understand? God did not make us robots, and God has no desire to force us into loving Him. It just isnt that difficult to understand.

 

[mighty_duck]

Mighty_duck, what about God giving us a free will do you not understand? God did not make us robots, and God has no desire to force us into loving Him. It just isnt that difficult to understand.

I said I agreed with BE's initial 2 statements.
I don't think God wants to force us to love him, and that if he would it would violate our free will.
Preventing us from being harmed by evil is within His power, and would not violate our freewill.

 

[mighty_duck]

Greg Bahnsen puts the problem of evil this way:

1. God is all good.
2. God is all powerful.
3. Evil exists.

The critic argues that if God is all good, and all powerful, evil should not exist.

The critic overlooks a perfectly reasonable way to assent to all three of these propositions:

4. God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil that exists.

(this is a presupposition a believer must evaluate everything through, since the Bible tells us God is good)

Bob's statements "Love cannot be forced" and "Some love is worth enduring much evil" are a way of explaining #4 from Bahnsen.

I'm not at all good at presuppositional apologetics, but I can at least share that much.
I'm also aware that Bahnsen is a Calvinist, and I like his book, but disagree with some of his beliefs.

(Anyone who's read "Always Ready" by Greg Bahnsen would recognize some of the wording I used above. I'm giving him credit here)

Being good in presuppositional apologetics means to play little logic fallacies with the uninitiated. It's logic is twisted, and is nothing more than a cheap parlor trick meant only to inconvenience those (mainly atheists) who have not seen the folly of this puzzle. It is a philosophical joke.

As for this specific argument (God has a morally sufficient reason), it is akin to saying "God works in mysterious ways" or "I don't know". It is a non-answer which can (not-)answer any question on theology.

God, being omnipotent, could have caused the same effect to happen sans-suffering. If he couldn't, then he isn't omnipotent.

 

[Toast]

Mighty_duck, sure, God could put bubble wrap around us and prevent us from affecting each other, but that would be an unreasonable way to live, dont you think? And seriously, would you want God micromanaging everything that goes on all the time? God doesnt want that. He wants us to learn responsibility and He wants us to learn how to love one another freely without His coercion.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I said I agreed with BE's initial 2 statements.
I don't think God wants to force us to love him, and that if he would it would violate our free will.
Preventing us from being harmed by evil is within His power, and would not violate our freewill.

So what is your objection??

Am I missing something?

 

[mighty_duck]

Mighty_duck, sure, God could put bubble wrap around us and prevent us from affecting each other, but that would be an unreasonable way to live, dont you think? And seriously, would you want God micromanaging everything that goes on all the time? God doesnt want that. He wants us to learn responsibility and He wants us to learn how to love one another freely.

I didn't say we shouldn't be allowed to affect each other or love each other. Just not cause evil to each other.
God already put a bubble wrap on us - our free will isn't unconditional free will. It is limited by a huge host of natural causes. I may will to transfer gold from Fort Knox directly to my personal safe, or to start levitating around my cubicle, but that doesn't seem to be happening. God just constrained my free will. And yet we all find that a reasonable way to live.

 

[mighty_duck]

So what is your objection??

Am I missing something?

Please explain how using Bob's two statements solves the problem of evil.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I didn't say we shouldn't be allowed to affect each other or love each other. Just not cause evil to each other.

You mean like prison???

You want God to keep us in prison?

In prison we still have freewill, and we could still love others but we are not free to hurt anyone else.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Please explain how using Bob's two statements solves the problem of evil.

You already did.

 

[Toast]

Duck, your bias is preventing you from thinking clearly on this issue. I suggest you meditate on the bubble wrap analogy for awhile. As Knight just pointed out, prison is the only way God could make us not be able to hurt one another.

 

[Vaquero45]

Being good in presuppositional apologetics means to play little logic fallacies with the uninitiated. It's logic is twisted, and is nothing more than a cheap parlor trick meant only to inconvenience those (mainly atheists) who have not seen the folly of this puzzle. It is a philosophical joke.

As for this specific argument (God has a morally sufficient reason), it is akin to saying "God works in mysterious ways" or "I don't know". It is a non-answer which can (not-)answer any question on theology.

God, being omnipotent, could have caused the same effect to happen sans-suffering. If he couldn't, then he isn't omnipotent.

Of course you cannot account for your moral revulsion and condemnation of evil in the first place as an unbeliever. Actually it is evidence that you know of God in your heart of hearts but you deny Him.

I'm going to have to quickly start furiously reading Bahnsen if we go much further.

 

[mighty_duck]

You mean like prison???

You want God to keep us in prison?

In prison we still have freewill, and we could still love others but we are not free to hurt anyone else.

What is prison? A limit on what actions we can do, even if we willed otherwise.
This world is already a prison of sorts. I can't do everything I will to.

Now if the inmates of our prison kept hurting each other, you would probably conclude that the warden:
1. Didn't have the power to stop the violence.
2. Didn't care if violence happened in his prison.

Would you worship such a warden?

 

[SUTG]

In his show a couple of months ago ("Atheist Admits Assumptions About Evil")...

Does anyone know where I can listen to this show? The link to the mp3 in the TOL thread for this show gives an HTML 404 Error.

Am I missing anything here?

Yes, a statement of your version of the argument from evil. I think it requires omniscience in addition to strong omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

 

[mighty_duck]

Of course you cannot account for your moral revulsion and condemnation of evil in the first place as an unbeliever. Actually it is evidence that you know of God in your heart of hearts but you deny Him.

I'm going to have to quickly start furiously reading Bahnsen if we go much further.

It is evidence I have a conscience. There are other explanations for my conscience than godidit.

If you are going down the presuppositional path, I suggest we open a new thread. Us atheists have had some fun in the past debating presuppositionalists (lke Hilston or Clete), but it tends to completely derail the original idea - just see Hilston's BR.

 

[mighty_duck]

Does anyone know where I can listen to this show? The link to the mp3 in the TOL thread for this show gives an HTML 404 Error.



Yes, a statement of your version of the argument from evil. I think it requires omniscience in addition to strong omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

http://kgovarchives.com/bel/2006/20060615-BEL119.mp3

Start at minute 38.

 

[Vaquero45]

Well the presuppositional method has to start with showing the illogic of the unbelievers world view in the first place. That hurdle must be passed before the topic at hand can be discussed by both parties logically. The presuppositionalist refuses to take a nuetral stance and allow the unbeliever to borrow his tools.

I'm definitely not ready for a debate on it yet, but I do find it very interesting. This is as far as I plan to go with it for now. I know just enough of it to get myself in trouble so far.

 

[mighty_duck]

Well the presuppositional method has to start with showing the illogic of the unbelievers world view in the first place. That hurdle must be passed before the topic at hand can be discussed by both parties logically. The presuppositionalist refuses to take a nuetral stance and allow the unbeliever to borrow his tools.

I'm definitely not ready for a debate on it yet, but I do find it very interesting. This is as far as I plan to go with it for now. I know just enough of it to get myself in trouble so far.

That's true. But in so doing, it completely derails the original thread.
It can be used for anything and everything, even though it is an excercise in circular logic.
For example, on the important topic of "Paper or Plastic?" The presuppositionalist will say "To even begin to use the tools of logic and decide between paper and plastic, you must agree to (my interpertation of) the Christian Worldview. Like I said, it is a parlor trick.

If you really have some time to kill, feel free to read up on it until you're comfortable with it, we can shred it to bits together later.

 

[Vaquero45]

I do know Bahnsen addresses the circular logic aspect of it, and instead of looking it up real quick and answering I'll just say that is part of it I don't have down yet. Maybe I'll take you up on the offer someday though.