News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Problem of evil is weak

Started by SNP1, December 30, 2014, 07:03:13 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

SNP1

The problem of evil is used a lot as an argument against god. I find this surprising. The argument is weak because it requires specific points to be true.

Problem of evil formulated:
A: God X is real
P1) God X says that Y is evil
P2) God X is All-Powerful
P3) God X is All-Knowing
P4) God X is All-Loving
P5) Y exists
C1) P1-P5 entails a contradiction
C2) A is false

Replace God X with any specific god where P1-P5 remains true about that god, then that god cannot exist.

It does not work on the majority of possible gods. Too many points have to be true about the god you are talking about in order for the argument to work. It does nothing against a god that is not all loving. Nothing against a god that is not all knowing. Nothing against a god that is not all powerful. Nothing against a god that does not find anything evil.

It is, overall, a weak argument.
"My only agenda, if one can call it that, is the pursuit of truth" ~AoSS

_Xenu_

I think this argument is intended to target the Xtian god rather than the Greek ones. You're right that it doesn't work well against the latter, but it wasn't meant to.
Click this link once a day to feed shelter animals. Its free.

http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/clickToGive/ars/home

PickelledEggs

It depends on where you are going with the argument. If you are debating on if the bible should be a source or reference for morals or a similar arguent, then bringing up how malicious the xtian god is, is a pretty good tactic.


It doesn't necessarily debunk anything though.... the continuity errors and observable evidence that contradict what is claimed by bible thumpers do that

dtq123

It has it's uses, not logically but persuasively it's fine  :eyes:
A dark cloud looms over.
Festive cheer does not help much.
What is this, "Justice?"

Sal1981

I think it's a good argument, yes.

The fact that there even exist parasites and natural disasters is good argument against at least the benevolence/competence of a creator god. If a believer submits to the Problem of Evil, they've pretty much amputated much of the reasons for even believing in a god.

SGOS

#5
I think it's thought provoking, and it presents a question that needs to be asked.  I have been perplexed by the question since I was a child, but I had the following counter arguments drilled into my psyche:  1.  We cannot understand God's motives.  2. We should not question God.  3. God works in mysterious ways.

I don't think the argument from evil is all that good.  It's irrelevant to the more important issue, which is to prove the existence of God.  Theists must provide this proof or their belief is unfounded.  It is their burden of proof.  We should just leave it there. 

We should not allow them to shove the burden of proof on us.  This is what happens with the problem of evil.  We assume the burden of proof and offer evidence that "God does not exist" using the problem of evil argument.  There is no point in me having to defend a position "God does not exist" when it's not even a position I hold.  My position is, and has been since I was ten years old, that there is no evidence or reason to believe in God; Nothing more.  I don't need to prove he doesn't exist.  I'm simply waiting for proof that he does.

Still, the problem of evil is a good question.  But you will never get a logical answer to the question from a theist.  They simply launch themselves into spur of the moment apologetics and illogical descriptions of the nature of their god.

Solomon Zorn

#6
I have found that the problem of evil does not disprove the generic "god," but it disproves quite reasonably the Christian "God." I use it in various forms all the time in my poetry, to disprove the notion of divine intervention.
If God Exists, Why Does He Pretend Not to Exist?
Poetry and Proverbs of the Uneducated Hick

http://www.solomonzorn.com

Unbeliever

I think this particular argument is meant to debunk a theistic type of god, which is usually considered to have certain attributes. If a god doesn't have all of those attributes then it is not a theistic god, but can be some other type of lesser deity.
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Solitary

#8
It's a bad argument because it assumes God exists, which assumes the premise is true for the argument.  A good argument requires the premises to be true by both parties. Any argument for God, or not is bad, and why it is foolish to debate Gods existence, or not, because right off the bat His existence is assumed without any reliable evidence to support it.   Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Atheon

The fact that Christians have had to form an entire field (called "theodicy") to counter the argument, and yet have failed to counter it, shows it's a strong argument, at least where Biblegod is concerned.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca

Solitary

QuoteA good argument requires the premises to be true by both parties.

Considering the above quote is true in formal logic, how can it be a good argument? Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

SGOS

Quote from: Solitary on February 13, 2015, 10:32:00 AM
It's a bad argument because it assumes God exists, which assumes the premise is true for the argument.  A good argument requires the premises to be true by both parties. Any argument for God, or not is bad, and why it is foolish to debate Gods existence, or not, because right off the bat His existence is assumed without any reliable evidence to support it.   Solitary

This is one of those things that has been nagging at me, but I haven't been able to articulate it as well as you did.  There's something unsettling about assuming a god, and then attempting to go about disproving it.  Why assume such a thing?  Sounds like something a bored philosophy major would do, just to create a mental problem to masturbate over.

And if you are going to go out of your way to make unfounded assumptions to disprove, then why not assume there is a god, and additionally assume that evil serves god's purpose in ways we cannot fathom?

To me the problem of evil doesn't disprove god.  It only questions why god allows evil or makes me wonder why god lacks the wherewithal to stop it.  And those questions themselves beg the existence of god.

Sometimes in an effort to communicate with Christians, we make flights from reality to have something to discuss around.  But this approaches what seems to resemble nonsense.  I get an uncomfortable feeling that logic is being compromised when we allow for nonsense assumptions, but I could be missing something. 

Solitary

No  you're not, you just haven't open your mind so far your brain fell out. Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Solomon Zorn

#13
Some Christians I know, cite "miracles" in their own lives as a reason they believe. They think God intervenes in the world. I find that senseless tragedies, especially what I call anti-miracles, demonstrate pretty well that he does not.

I think this poem makes the point well, albeit sarcastically:

"Impotent Omnipotent"
http://www.solomonzorn.com/impotent-omnipotent.html
If God Exists, Why Does He Pretend Not to Exist?
Poetry and Proverbs of the Uneducated Hick

http://www.solomonzorn.com

aitm

Evil to us is just another human construct. The world " should it have a conscience" would consider each human death, no matter the veracity of the method, a very good thing.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust