The Problem of Evil: FWD and the "Parent Analogy"

Newbie First Class Joined: Mar 16, 2006 Posts: 47

I'm debating a theist and would love it if someone would look over my shoulder. I can give the address but I don't want to appear to be trolling.

Specifically, it is the PoE and the FWD. Theist has claimed that God allows evil for a greater good. To teach us a lesson (even though we may never get the message).

I know it's insane and I've been building to the lack of FW - original sin transmission is by law of god, we are not neutral at birth. (oh, we are arguing in the Xian framework).

Anyhow, Theist offers "god the parent" analogy: allows us to "scrape or knee" to learn a greater lesson. Despite this sounding crazy (Hitler was a lesson?!) I am trying to think of a good, sound argument why it fails.

Note: this guy is absolutley dyed-in-the-wool Xian Fundi (he's even an ID'ist!), so I don't care about him (as in expecting to 'win him over') but I always see this as an opportunity to teach people who are reading along.

BTW, i have been reading many of the Drange and Twombly stuff and they pass over it quite quickly since it is absurd, but when I check Xian sites, they use it as a central defense against the PoE.

Any comments? (And is anyone interested in monitoring my nascent attempts at building arguments?)

Newbie First Class Joined: Mar 16, 2006 Posts: 47

Oh, here is his argument.

Quote:

1. God was interested in creating beings with some of his characteristics. He is not evil and avoids doing evil.
2. One characteristic is the ability to love and be loved.
3. Love requires choice.
4. Choice requires free will.
5. Free will implies the ability to choose to hate and the ability to do evil. The ability to do something does not mean every being will act on that ability. God for example does not act on the ability to do evil.
6. God could prevent evil deeds or the consequences of evil deeds but would necessarily intervene in free will to do so.
7. God allows the created choose their own actions and face consequences for a time to build character and understanding of the dangers of doing wrong. Some people take longer to learn this lesson than others.
8. By virtue of free will, evil was introduced into the world by beings other than God.

As I understand, this is the traditional FW theodicy argument.

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:23 am

You're talking about several different things here. My guess is it's because THEY talk about several different things at once. These absurdities are not hard to deconstruct, but you have to force the other side to stay on track with the argument.

God-as-parent fails for its reasons. The freewill argument fails for its reasons. The goodness of evil fails for its reasons. When you (when they) start to mix and match, the only result can be a confused muddle.

One of the reasons that christians can be so easily fooled by these arguments is that they fail to separate them out themselves. It should be fairly easy for you to work this out yourself as long as you do not allow muddled diversions.

A great line is: "you just changed the subject!" Follow up by reverting to the issue at hand.

I might enjoy looking in. Email or PM me a link if you want.

Newbie First Class Joined: Mar 16, 2006 Posts: 47

Thanks. He's hinging the whole thing on this:

God may allow evil for some future benefit - until you disprove this, the PoE fails. I read this kind of thing on so many Xian websites. It seems to be a non-sequiter, because it explains nothing., but then, does it need to? Are Theists really happy enough living with Faith and just assuming God is good and all the evil in the world is part of a divine plan?

That seems insanity bordering on depravity!

Newbie First Class Joined: Mar 16, 2006 Posts: 47

ok, I responded to this claim (I'm trouble finding the name for it - the "future benefit" argument for evil).

1. Evil exists because of FW.

2a. God accepts evil as an outcome of FW because he has a "greater plan" and the evil he allows will result in some good.

2b. He does not accept gratuitus evil, since it does not lead to his "greater plan".

3. Since he intervenes for some evils (gratuitous evil) and not others (evil that conforms to his larger plan), we do not have true free will.

5. Therefore, there is no reason for evil to exist.

6. Evil exists. We have the Problem of Evil.

I could probably word this better, and also distinguish between "part-of-the-plan evil" and "not-part-of-the-plan evil"; perhaps Allowed evil (AE), and gratuitous evil (GE).

I don't feel great about this yet. I need to bounce it off you guys.

2b might not be sound. Hell, the whole thing might not be sound.

Newbie First Class Joined: Mar 16, 2006 Posts: 47

OK, an update. I reworded it a little. I don't think it's groundbreaking, but I'm new to this, so it feel good.

Quote:

1. Evil exists because of FW.
2. God prefers FW over the absence of evil.
3a. God allows evil for a "greater plan/good" (allowable evil=AE).
3b. God does not allow gratuitous evil (or, evil that doesn't conform to his "greater plan/good") (GE)
4. God intervenes and interupts GE, and thus, interupts FW. (God's interuptions of FW are documented in the Bible)
5. FW does not exist.
6. There is no reason for Evil, AE or GE.

If God does not interupt GE, then he uses evil for a purpose. All things exist by the will or god, and "the greater good/plan" is assumed to exist in the future (since God is ominpotent). Therefore, whatever FW he would have considered before Creation, would have included the "greater plan/good" in which we all play a part.

How is playing a part in his "greater plan/good" FW? If you do evil, it is part of his plan, if you don't it's part of the plan - and his plan WILL be achieved (since God's Will cannot be denied). And so there is some guidance. (In fact, you often charge evolution is guided. Guided by what? Does this affect our FW?)

Since Hell exists, evil exists. Yet, FW does not.

You said evil exists because of FW, but FW does not exist.

So, why does evil exist?

We are back at the beginning: The Problem of Evil.

(after all, if left to our own devices, according to Christianity, we are destined to be sinners for all generations. Unless Gods plan is to fill the Universe with evil, I don't see how he can't intervene in some way to lead to his "greater plan" (or "greater good": this mysterious thing you've imagined).

You are in a circular argument, and one that is based on and Argument from Ignorance.

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 2:41 am

architecto wrote:

Thanks. He's hinging the whole thing on this:

God may allow evil for some future benefit - until you disprove this, the PoE fails. I read this kind of thing on so many Xian websites. It seems to be a non-sequiter, because it explains nothing., but then, does it need to? Are Theists really happy enough living with Faith and just assuming God is good and all the evil in the world is part of a divine plan?

That seems insanity bordering on depravity!

It is depraved! Just to see their reaction, I would shoot back:

The gist of what you say is that evil is good. Based on this, I assert that your religion says there is no such thing as evil...since evil is good. A consequence of this is that there is no good either...since you cna't tell good from evil. Your religion is completely amoral!

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 2:48 am

architecto wrote:

OK, an update. I reworded it a little. I don't think it's groundbreaking, but I'm new to this, so it feel good.

Quote:

1. Evil exists because of FW.
2. God prefers FW over the absence of evil.
3a. God allows evil for a "greater plan/good" (allowable evil=AE).
3b. God does not allow gratuitous evil (or, evil that doesn't conform to his "greater plan/good") (GE)
4. God intervenes and interupts GE, and thus, interupts FW. (God's interuptions of FW are documented in the Bible)
5. FW does not exist.
6. There is no reason for Evil, AE or GE.

If God does not interupt GE, then he uses evil for a purpose. All things exist by the will or god, and "the greater good/plan" is assumed to exist in the future (since God is ominpotent). Therefore, whatever FW he would have considered before Creation, would have included the "greater plan/good" in which we all play a part.

How is playing a part in his "greater plan/good" FW? If you do evil, it is part of his plan, if you don't it's part of the plan - and his plan WILL be achieved (since God's Will cannot be denied). And so there is some guidance. (In fact, you often charge evolution is guided. Guided by what? Does this affect our FW?)

Since Hell exists, evil exists. Yet, FW does not.

You said evil exists because of FW, but FW does not exist.

So, why does evil exist?

We are back at the beginning: The Problem of Evil.

(after all, if left to our own devices, according to Christianity, we are destined to be sinners for all generations. Unless Gods plan is to fill the Universe with evil, I don't see how he can't intervene in some way to lead to his "greater plan" (or "greater good": this mysterious thing you've imagined).

You are in a circular argument, and one that is based on and Argument from Ignorance.

Pointing out that the nature of god rules out free will is always a good tactic. Believers equivocate this point ad nauseum. They get hung up on the idea that god is all powerful, so he can make free will if he wants to. But omnipotence and omniscience conflict too, since god cannot have the power to change what he already knows will happen. If he does have this power, then he doesn't know what will happen and is therefore not omniscient, etc...

Newbie First Class Joined: Mar 16, 2006 Posts: 47

Intersting point. i like it. I just got done reading some more Francois Tremblay and used the simplified version. One guy freaked and started with the ad hom's! Laughing

I'm just having fun finding all the arguments against Theodicy. At first I was floored and thought it impossible to get around - how do you prove a negative, but luckily, Xian's have created a system built for contradiction! Laughing

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 11:39 pm

I enjoy these theological deconstructions as well, as purely an exercize. The only real pleasure I get out if it is having demonstrated to myself that something so many people believe in is patently ridiculous.

The universal negative thing is often used but, as you point out, does not argue FOR anything.

But also there is no reason to fear so-called universal negatives. Universal negatives are just a certain way of stating a universal positive. In both cases a truth is asserted. So there is nothing wrong with universal negatives by themselves. The only question is whether you can defend the assertion.

There is no god. There are no unicorns. If I am wrong, it's not because I haven't searched everywhere. It may just depend on what a god or a unicorn is (on what we AGREE IN ADVANCE they are).

Newbie First Class Joined: Mar 16, 2006 Posts: 47

I just came across something. The Xian claims that the FWD explains evil. THat despite the evil that results by FW, God holds FW as more important.

Except, it seems, for some. A Pharoah.

Quote:

Exodus 7
1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. 2 You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country. 3 But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt, 4 he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites. 5 And the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it."

Now, I understand that FW exists for the command to Moses and Moses had the FW to not do as commanded, but that would be absurd since Moses had shown himself to do the Lord's bidding.

But, specifically, God intervened in the FW of the Pharoah - and negativily!

He could have softened the Pharoah's heart and created a peace and understanding. Instead he hardened his heart so that he wouldn't testify to God's signs.

Unless I am mistaken this is a clear, concise and objective repudiation of Xian doctrine of FW for the explanation of evil based on none other than Xian scripture.

This re-opens the PoE and asks why doesn't god intervene to soften everyones hearts to see his signs, etc.

Am I wrong here?

edit: A novice, such as myself, won't find anything new. I searched for the apologetics on this and though they are so mind-blowingly weak (it's just poetic language! Rolling Eyes

), the Xians hae addressed it to their comfort level.

Wow!

Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:41 am

That is a good old warhorse. Pharaoh could not let the Israelites go because god wouldn't let him. This being the case, why would god punish Pharaoh for not doing something he couldn't do?

If Adam and Eve were perfect when god made them (ignorant, obedient, naked), and they were punished for being disobedient and gaining knowledge (eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge), then god actually DOES want mindless robots.

But god is a sicko, remember. Apparently he gave us free will so that we could, of our own free will, give up our free will and become mindless followers like Adam and Eve. But if what god really wants is for us to give up our free will, why did he give it to us in the first place?

Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:01 pm

architecto wrote:

2a. God accepts evil as an outcome of FW because he has a "greater plan" and the evil he allows will result in some good.

If this god is omnipotent, it could just as easily create the resulting "good" without using "evil" as a tool to get to the “good”. Couldn’t all-powerful god create his idealistic good without torturing the beings he supposedly loves with evil? One should also wonder if, as most Christians believe, God created everything then from whence does evil come?

Graduate Thinker Joined: Jan 11, 2006 Posts: 713

This God concept is meaningless runaway musings applying traits to a personally concocted imaginary friend. This is what makes discussing it quite inane.

Even as a parent figure, if it were that I were a parent able to birth a child any way I chose, what reason wouldn't I have to give all my children a-priori knowledge of future dangers, even a-priori ability to never experience ANY future dangers? What kind of asinine parent would allow the children to kill eachother off for any reason? A parent who doesn't prevent dangerous situations a child may come across, when it is within the clear ability for the parent to deter all harm on the child, is a negligent sociopath. To teach a child a lesson on the dangers of alligators, would you allow said child to meander into an alligator pool? Of course not! Even so, what reason is there to consider such a fantasy "parent" figure? Considering all possible alternative options one can imagine, going with such an insane parent concept is not only dishonest, but also depreciating upon personal human character.

Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 4:07 am

architecto wrote:

I'm debating a theist and would love it if someone would look over my shoulder. I can give the address but I don't want to appear to be trolling.

Specifically, it is the PoE and the FWD. Theist has claimed that God allows evil for a greater good. To teach us a lesson (even though we may never get the message).

I know it's insane and I've been building to the lack of FW - original sin transmission is by law of god, we are not neutral at birth. (oh, we are arguing in the Xian framework).

Anyhow, Theist offers "god the parent" analogy: allows us to "scrape or knee" to learn a greater lesson. Despite this sounding crazy (Hitler was a lesson?!) I am trying to think of a good, sound argument why it fails.

Note: this guy is absolutley dyed-in-the-wool Xian Fundi (he's even an ID'ist!), so I don't care about him (as in expecting to 'win him over') but I always see this as an opportunity to teach people who are reading along.

BTW, i have been reading many of the Drange and Twombly stuff and they pass over it quite quickly since it is absurd, but when I check Xian sites, they use it as a central defense against the PoE.

Any comments? (And is anyone interested in monitoring my nascent attempts at building arguments?)

God is all powerful, right? God can change the laws of physics and the universe at will, right? If god is all powerful, then the only NEED for evil is whatever he decides. Therefore, evil only exists because he WANTS evil to exist. Therefore, god is malvolent.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore