If I’m “coming up with imaginary logical contradictions to get God off the hook” then please have the courtesy to identify one or more of them.
The situation is that I say if God existed he would create a world without evil.
You say no he wouldn’t because he would be prevented from doing so because logic doesn’t allow it.
I say these preventions are imaginary.
I’ll leave it to you to identify them and argue why they are not imaginary.
Stephen
I’ve already done that. If we remove logical restrictions from omnipotence then God can do anything at all regardless of whether it is logically impossible.
But I’m not doing that. I’m saying there are no logical restrictions to God creating a world without evil and you are saying there are.
I reject that there are and say these are just theists inventions to overcome the problem of evil.
The specific inventions are free will and that some evil produces some greater good that couldn’t be gained any other way.
If I’m “coming up with imaginary logical contradictions to get God off the hook” then please have the courtesy to identify one or more of them.
The situation is that I say if God existed he would create a world without evil.
You say no he wouldn’t because he would be prevented from doing so because logic doesn’t allow it.
I say these preventions are imaginary.
I’ll leave it to you to identify them and argue why they are not imaginary.
Stephen
I’ve already done that. If we remove logical restrictions from omnipotence then God can do anything at all regardless of whether it is logically impossible.
But I’m not doing that. I’m saying there are no logical restrictions to God creating a world without evil and you are saying there are.
You’re mistaken all the way across.
1) If God can do anything at all regardless of logical restrictions then god can make the present world free of evil (as it is). If you complain that this world is not free of evil because it has evil in it then you’re putting a logical restriction on god despite your insistence to the contrary.
2) See #1
3) I’m not saying that God can’t create a world entirely free of evil. I gave an example of how God could do that earlier in the thread (big shiny marble). The issue is how to create not just a world without evil but how to create the best possible world. If that world contains beings with a free moral will then the possibility of evil is necessary (as I’ve already argued in the past posts of this thread).
I reject that there are and say these are just theists inventions to overcome the problem of evil.
You can’t do it consistently. You end up contradicting yourself.
The specific inventions are free will and that some evil produces some greater good that couldn’t be gained any other way.
How are those inventions? Aren’t they clearly possibilities that a deductive argument from evil must somehow account for? Or are we that game to beg the question?
A deductive argument from evil isn’t allowed to ignore possibilities.
1) If God can do anything at all regardless of logical restrictions then god can make the present world free of evil (as it is). If you complain that this world is not free of evil because it has evil in it then you’re putting a logical restriction on god despite your insistence to the contrary.
Nobody is saying God can do anything logically impossible, so this is just not in the picture.
The issue is how to create not just a world without evil but how to create the best possible world.
There is only a problem if this is logically impossible. But it isn’t.
Theists say “oh yes it is” and invent the contradictions, which are just fiction to overcome the problem rather than real logical contradictions.
If I’m “coming up with imaginary logical contradictions to get God off the hook” then please have the courtesy to identify one or more of them.
The situation is that I say if God existed he would create a world without evil.
You say no he wouldn’t because he would be prevented from doing so because logic doesn’t allow it.
I say these preventions are imaginary.
I’ll leave it to you to identify them and argue why they are not imaginary.
Stephen
I’ve already done that. If we remove logical restrictions from omnipotence then God can do anything at all regardless of whether it is logically impossible. Obviously that includes existing despite the existence of evil. Or refraining from making a universe free of evil, to put it more precisely in line with your objection.
It isn’t up to me to show that god must produce a universe free of evil. It’s up to you. Best of luck.
Yeah, and while you’re at it, Stephen, prove that the Easter Bunny doesn’t lay jelly beans. It’s up to you. (Bryan, OTOH, can assert whatever he wishes, without proof.)
Apparently TimB failed to note that I replied to Stephen with a deductive argument in the form of modus ponens. The same form of argument Stephen used. So whose proof is better, Tim? And why?
Using philosophical terms that are obsure to a layperson do not make your argument any better.
If God is omnipotent, then It can do the logically impossible. or If the Easter Bunny exists, it can lay jelly beans.
If God is omnipotent, then It can do the logically impossible. or If the Easter Bunny exists, it can lay jelly beans.
Both assertions are equally silly, IMO.
Yes Tim, Brian is trying to say that 1) our definition of omnipotent is the silly version, but of course it isn’t.
We simply disbelieve that there are logical contradiction entailed in God making the world better than this, not that he could do it despite the contradictions.
Brian says we aren’t justifying our disbelief, but we see it as the theists have invented the contradictions in the first place so we don’t have much need. Brian turns our point of view on it’s head and says we are “begging the question”.
How are those inventions? Aren’t they clearly possibilities that a deductive argument from evil must somehow account for? Or are we that game to beg the question?
About as clear as the best of all possible worlds would have to include bananas.
1) If God can do anything at all regardless of logical restrictions then god can make the present world free of evil (as it is). If you complain that this world is not free of evil because it has evil in it then you’re putting a logical restriction on god despite your insistence to the contrary.
Nobody is saying God can do anything logically impossible, so this is just not in the picture.
The argument from evil can’t proceed without some definition of God’s ability to make the world free of evil. You’re on the horns of dilemma if you want to make the argument. Pretending there’s no dilemma is not an option.
The issue is how to create not just a world without evil but how to create the best possible world.
There is only a problem if this is logically impossible. But it isn’t.
Why would it be a problem if it’s logically impossible? Because of the imaginary boundaries you place on God?
Theists say “oh yes it is” and invent the contradictions, which are just fiction to overcome the problem rather than real logical contradictions.
Stephen
Enough talk, Stephen. Make your argument from evil without either assuming that God’s power is somehow logically limited or assuming that God can do everything including the logically impossible.
Using philosophical terms that are obsure to a layperson do not make your argument any better.
That’s not a weakness of my argument. It’s a weakness of your understanding. I can explain what I’m saying to you if you like. Or you can look it up on the Internets. Your choice.
Why would it be a problem if it’s logically impossible? Because of the imaginary boundaries you place on God?
No, because of the boundaries of what is logically possible.
Enough talk, Stephen. Make your argument from evil without either assuming that God’s power is somehow logically limited or assuming that God can do everything including the logically impossible.
The argument assumes God’s power is logically limited, so there is no problem.
It just dismisses theists invented logical limits.
If God is omnipotent, then It can do the logically impossible. or If the Easter Bunny exists, it can lay jelly beans.
Both assertions are equally silly, IMO.
Yes Tim, Brian is trying to say that 1) our definition of omnipotent is the silly version, but of course it isn’t.
Tim’s definition is silly if it’s the one he proposes to use in an argument from evil. We’ve yet to see which horn of the dilemma you will choose. Stay evasive.
We simply disbelieve that there are logical contradiction entailed in God making the world better than this, not that he could do it despite the contradictions.
If this is the best possible world despite the contradiction of it not being as good as some hypothetical world you think is better then you have no argument (based on the notion that omnipotence allows god to do absolutely anything).
So, do you want to join me in making up stuff or stick with the silly self-defeating definition? Make your choice.
Brian says we aren’t justifying our disbelief, but we see it as the theists have invented the contradictions in the first place so we don’t have much need. Brian turns our point of view on it’s head and says we are “begging the question”.
Stephen
Define the omnipotence you understand God would use in order to improve on the present world, Stephen. If it’s unlimited then this could be the best possible world even if it isn’t the best possible world. It follows from your premise. Your other choice is to agree with me that logic limits the meaning of “omnipotence. No more dancing. Make your choice.
Why would it be a problem if it’s logically impossible? Because of the imaginary boundaries you place on God?
No, because of the boundaries of what is logically possible.
So if it’s logically impossible it’s a problem because it’s logically impossible? Isn’t that going in a circle, Stephen?
Do better than that, please.
Enough talk, Stephen. Make your argument from evil without either assuming that God’s power is somehow logically limited or assuming that God can do everything including the logically impossible.
The argument assumes God’s power is logically limited, so there is no problem.
It just dismisses theists invented logical limits.
So you get to assume God’s power is logically limited but theists don’t get to assume anything like that.
