BE solves the problem of evil

[mighty_duck]

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

Good point. It has been so thoroughly hashed and rehashed, I'm not sure I have much to add. As I see it:

1. If God is all good, he would not want people to suffer (some would add unnecessarily)
2. If God is all powerful, he would be able to bring about a situation in which there was little or no suffering.
3. Suffering exists.

So either God isn't all good, all powerful, or suffering doesn't really exist..

The theist solution is usually to imply some sort of necessary suffering.
I'm not sure how Bob's two statements, which he was so happy he managed to get the atheist to agree on, solve this problem.

 

[mighty_duck]

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.

One could tell you are not intimately familiar with Bahnsen. If you were, you would have said:

I have already answered that question. :hammer:
or
It is isn't circular because of the Impossibility of the Contrary. :hammer: :hammer:

When you're ready,open a thread and shoot me a pm. It is a fun little excercise, as long as you don't hang most of your reasons to believe on it. Then it becomes an emotional business.

P.S.
Those catch phrases only help in meaningless internet debates. It didn't work with my wife when I tried: "It is your turn to do the dishes because of the impossiblity of the contrary" :chuckle:

 

[Vaquero45]

One could tell you are not intimately familiar with Bahnsen. If you were, you would have said:

I have already answered that question. :hammer:
or
It is isn't circular because of the Impossibility of the Contrary. :hammer: :hammer:

When you're ready,open a thread and shoot me a pm. It is a fun little excercise, as long as you don't hang most of your reasons to believe on it. Then it becomes an emotional business.

P.S.
Those catch phrases only help in meaningless internet debates. It didn't work with my wife when I tried: "It is your turn to do the dishes because of the impossiblity of the contrary" :chuckle:

I do plan to study it more. One of many topics I want to get a better grip on.

Disappointing to hear it didnt work on your wife. I was hoping to gain some Jedi logic skills to use on mine.

 

[SUTG]

The theist solution is usually to imply some sort of necessary suffering.

YEah, I've heard that one before. But, if omnipotence is the ability to do anything that is logically possible then I think we could do without the suffering. Suffering is not logically necessary. :chuckle:

I'm not sure how Bob's two statements, which he was so happy he managed to get the atheist to agree on, solve this problem.

Me neither. I wish he would have spelled it out a bit more...

 

[SUTG]

I do plan to study it more. One of many topics I want to get a better grip on.

Vincent Cheung is bettter than Bahnsen, I think. You can download all of his books here for free. He basically uses the same apologetic as Bahnsen, but uses more scripture to claim that it is all included in the Bible. And, he is funnier, and more confrontational towards non-presuppositionalists than Bahnsen.

For Bahnsen freebies, you can Google the Great Debate and read that. Most of the stuff in the Bahnsen Reader is just elaboration on what was covered in the debate.

 

[Vaquero45]

Interesting, thanks for the link SUTG, I'll check it out.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

YEah, I've heard that one before. But, if omnipotence is the ability to do anything that is logically possible then I think we could do without the suffering. Suffering is not logically necessary. :chuckle:

God chose to create us with a will of our own.

To accomplish that He risked giving us the freedom to hurt one another in return for our individual freedom.

 

[mighty_duck]

God chose to create us with a will of our own.

To accomplish that He risked giving us the freedom to hurt one another in return for our individual freedom.

But couldn't an omnipotent God be able to create a world where we had free will, but not be able to hurt one another? Isn't that what heaven is like?
As an example, you have free will, but can't fly up at will.

 

[aharvey]

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.

I do believe that was the intent!

 

[aharvey]

But couldn't an omnipotent God be able to create a world where we had free will, but not be able to hurt one another? Isn't that what heaven is like?
As an example, you have free will, but can't fly up at will.

Maybe "The Fall" has more connotations than we realize! After all, Genesis doesn't actually say, as far as I know, that Adam and Eve couldn't fly in those halcyon pre-Fall days!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

As an example, you have free will, but can't fly up at will.

Our abilities are limited, no doubt about that.

Other than that, you haven't made a point.

 

[mighty_duck]

Our abilities are limited, no doubt about that.

Other than that, you haven't made a point.

The point is this:
Limiting our ability to hurt one another does not mean we will lose our free will.

Or for that matter, God could prevent natural disasters without effecting our free will AT ALL.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The point is this:
Limiting our ability to hurt one another does not mean we will lose our free will.

Yes and no.

One thing is for sure... limiting our ability to hurt one another would clearly limit our freedom.

Assuming someone or something has prevented me from hurting you, one of two things has been taken away from me....

A. My will.
B. My freedom.

Do you disagree? Are there other options?

 

[mighty_duck]

Yes and no.

One thing is for sure... limiting our ability to hurt one another would clearly limit our freedom.

Assuming someone or something has prevented me from hurting you, one of two things has been taken away from me....

A. My will.
B. My freedom.

Do you disagree? Are there other options?

So far so good.
I'll argue that it is your freedom that has been taken away. You could still have the will to hurt others.
Just like I've got a strong urge to fly (but I have nowhere to fly to, fly to, fly to), but lack the freedom to do so.

 

[fool]

We can fly.
Orvil and Wibur hooked us up with that.
You guys should get out more often.

 

[mighty_duck]

We can fly.
Orvil and Wibur hooked us up with that.
You guys should get out more often.

Next you'll suggest a horseless carriage. That's crazy talk. We're conservatives here.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

So far so good.
I'll argue that it is your freedom that has been taken away. You could still have the will to hurt others.

That depends on how restricted my freedom is.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

We can fly.
Orvil and Wibur hooked us up with that.
You guys should get out more often.

Har de har har.

 

[sentientsynth]

But couldn't an omnipotent God be able to create a world where we had free will, but not be able to hurt one another? Isn't that what heaven is like?

This is a good point, mighty_duck. Yes. In heaven, we will still have free will, but not the ability to sin, i.e. hurt one another, or disobey God in any way, shape, form, or fashion. For the Open Theist to claim that possessing free will logically demands the ability to hurt others is fallacious even by a cursory inspection.

As an example, you have free will, but can't fly up at will.

Good example.

Or for that matter, God could prevent natural disasters without effecting our free will AT ALL.

Again, good point.

But, on the other hand, I don't agree that the scriptures present God as "omnibenevolent." It presents Him as a terror Who is to be feared, One who acts with impunity.

Here is how righteous Job, who according to Jehovah spoke rightly concerning Him, says...

Job 9: 22-23 It is all one; therefore I said, He destroyeth the perfect and the wicked. If the scourge kill suddenly, He mocketh at the trial of the innocent.The earth is given over into the hand of a lawless One; He covereth the faces of its judges. If not, who then is it?

What do you say to this?

 

[mighty_duck]

This is a good point, mighty_duck. Yes. In heaven, we will still have free will, but not the ability to sin, i.e. hurt one another, or disobey God in any way, shape, form, or fashion. For the Open Theist to claim that possessing free will logically demands the ability to hurt others is fallacious even by a cursory inspection.

Open Theists have a much harder time solving this conundrum. Nothing a few Post-Hoc explanations won't solve..

But, on the other hand, I don't agree that the scriptures present God as "omnibenevolent." It presents Him as a terror Who is to be feared, One who acts with impunity.

What do you say to this?

I fully agree.
God not being omni-benevolent is a perfectly good solution for the problem of evil. And there are enough instances in scripture to support a God who is not all good.

Is this really your view?
Most theists I've seen will play the God-is-Good card quite often as a reason to worship. Very few will admit they worship out of fear, at least in the modern world..