Forget free will. A benevolent God wouldn’t create flood zones - or earthquakes or tsunamis. There isn’t a place on earth safe from every possible natural disaster. So this defense of an omni-benevolent god fails.
But there are plenty of gods who could exist just fine in conjunction with this kind of disaster. Call Zeus or Odin benevolent and he’d laugh in your face.
Then he’s not omnibenevolent, which is one of the conditions for omnimaximality.
How do you know? Why does that follow?
God could magic happy land on us but that would preclude free will. Perhaps God wants free will.
In that case “evil” may be necessary to the equation. You cannot have black without white, hot without cold or good without evil.
Does omnibenevolence demand that god make happy land for us?
The operative word being “emotional”, and by definition, irrelevant for questions of existence.
Because an omnibenevolent God, by definition, cannot allow an unnecessary evil, and for an omipotent God, all evil is unnecessary.
The free will defense fails for multiple reasons. Firstly, the whole concept of free will is, in itself, logically incoherent and impossible, but even accepting it for the sake of argument, an omnimax God does not have to create anyone he knows will choose evil. He is perfectly free to only create people who he knows will choose good. It is logically impossible for any evil to be necessary orallowed by an omnimax God without violating at least one of his omni-characteristics.
By definition, yes.
Incorrect, because you’re talking about hypothetical entities whose effect on those emotions is built into their definiton. If an omnimax God existed, suffering could not logically exist. It’s not a rebuttal to say that suffering is subjective, because we have already defined the entity in terms of how it influences that subjectivity.
I forgot to point out that the free will defense also ignores “natural evil” (i.e. earthquakes, childhood leukemia, etc), as I see that Voyager has already pointed out.
The premise is false therefore any conclusion is logically valid and impossible to support or refute it.
It’s the same logical trap people fall in all the time. They assume a god exists as a hypothesis and then try to use logical arguments to support or refute some conclusion about the behavior or quality of the god or try to predict the god’s behavior, which is absurd and pointless.
I would also point out that every believer in an omnimax God I’ve ever encountered also believes in an afterlife, in which some (or even all) people will live forever in a state of perfect bliss. For a believer in the omnimax God who also believes in Heaven (which is probably 99% of believers in the omnimax God), the questions arise, Do the people in Heaven (who are perfectly happy, pretty much by definition) have free will? If the answer is “No”, why wouldn’t God go ahead and deprive us of our free will from the start, so we can all experience perfect and eternal happiness? (Since lacking free will is evidently not a bad thing.) If (as seems more likely) it is replied that people in Heaven do have free will, then an all-powerful and all-wise God clearly has the ability to render people perfectly and eternall happy (and apparently without destroying their free will); and if he is all-good, he should have done so, without all this rigmarole about the Fall of Man and “this vale of tears” and the endless parade of horrible natural disasters and human evil.
That elision you put in my quote is dishonest and against board rules.
I said “if an OMNIMAX God exists.” An omimax God has a specificly defined set of properties which can be tested logically. I am taking a particular definition of God at face value in order to test it logically. That’s how it works.
First, if that’s true for you, you’re doing it wrong, for a helluva lot of values of “it.”
Second, if that’s true, it’s because God made you that way. God could just as easily have made you such that nothing feels as good as giving alms to the poor, or creating a beautiful work of art, or completing your eight-hour workday productively. What kind of asshole gives you an indirect motive to hit yourself in the head?
Only if you made her that way. If you had omnipotence, you could just as easily make her an awesome, interesting person without having to experience stupid random pain like the pain of teething. (Note that I didn’t say I’d get rid of pain entirely: sometimes it’s useful feedback from your body that you’re doing it wrong, for various values of “it”. Just the stupid pain, like the pain of teething).
And you know why it’s arguments and struggles that make you feel alive? Because that’s how God made you. Again, it’s a real asshole move on the part of a creator to make someone who delights in struggle and conflict. An omnipotent God could make you so that you delighted in sharing and snuggles, so that the most interesting thing in the world to you, the richest experience, was baking cupcakes for your neighbors. The fact that God made you so you delight in conflict doesn’t point to a benevolent God.
(I’m sure it goes without saying that everywhere in the post I talked about how God made you, I’m speaking tongue-in-cheek).
I’m not sure if we’re talking about the same thing here.
A nonexistent thing doesn’t have any properties. The omission of “omnimax” was to emphasize that qualifying things that don’t exist doesn’t change their quality of not being.
But the omission wasn’t an important point. I’ll edit quotes less intensely from now on.
Of course they can. If we saw a horse tomorrow with a horn coming out of its nose like a narwhal we’d know it’s a unicorn, even though unicorns don’t exist. We’d know it was a unicorn because we know what properties a unicorn has.
Similarly, it is logically sound to prove that an entity does not exist by assuming properties that would be true if it did exist and showing that they create a contradiction, such as an Omnimax God vis a vis Omnibelevolence.
We won’t.
If we saw a unicorn then my aunt Ophelia would be an airplane. That’s a logically valid statement too, because the premise is false.
If you start with a false premise you can’t expect the conclusion to have any relation to reality.
Sure you can. In a proof by contradiction, you assume that which you are trying to disprove.
In Algebra, yes, with define and discrete steps of equivalence from one statement to the next.
In questions of existence it’s absurd to assign specific anthropomorphic qualities to a supernatural entity and use them to show how that entity may behave or what its intentions are. If you do, you’re stepping out of the context of reality to assume the existence of a non-real being, and then stepping back into reality to try and figure out what that being would do. It’s pointless.
Of course it is. I didn’t say I enjoyed doing it. You said that it is impossible to speculate on the theoretical aspects of an entity thought of as nonexistent. It’s not.
If one wishes to understand how Christians (and other theists) reconcile the Problem of Evil (or Suffering), the place to look is not a debate on the Straight Dope. Threads here seem mainly to attract atheists, who of course tend to see the problem as intractible. For defenses, one should look to books and the internet. Wikipedia, for example, has a surprisingly even-handed discussion. There are many others. Suffice it to say the problem is well known and presents little difficulty to those of an apologetic persuasion.
FWIW, I’m an atheist and, as a former Christian, consider the Problem of Suffering a serious one. But I recognize believers have thought about the issue and come to what seem to them reasonable answers. Indeed, for many (if not most), belief in God appeals precisely because it offers the hope (real or illusory) of a solution to the problem.
I didn’t say it’s impossible to speculate about the qualities of non-existent beings.
I said it’s irrational to use that speculation as logical support for their existence or non-existence.
All the answers theologists have been able to come up with since Epikouros (~ 300 BCE) are versions of one of the following two responses:
1 - Human beings are incapable of comprehending an answer to such a question.
2 - The god caused the evil to show to the believer how powerful the god is. The believer then reinforces their allegiance to the god by elevating themselves on a more deserving status with the god, since it was not them that the god destroyed.
You call that reasonable. I call it a mental disorder.