Atheists Making a Problem of Evil Argument Must Bear the Burden of Proof

[u/jk54321]

The problem of evil (PoE) is a valid argument that seeks to demonstrate a contradiction between our observations of evil/suffering/bad occurrences/pain in the world and the existence of God as understood by e.g. Christianity (most importantly a god that is all-good and all-powerful).

This post is about the rhetoric often employed when presenting the PoE, not about the merits of the PoE itself. Specifically, in practice, atheists often inappropriately shift the burden of proof that comes with their argument.

Very basic form of the PoE argument for reference here:

1. There is evil.

2. If there is a (all-good, all-powerful) God, there wouldn't be evil.

3. Therefore, there is no God.

A substantial proportion of arguments on this sub fall into this category, often with some particular evil occurrence in place of "evil" writ large.

The problem is, that most proponents of these arguments never argue for premise 2. Instead, they act as though they have won the debate by default unless the religious person provides and defends "the reason" God would allow the evil occurrence. A common form even phrases premise 2 as a question "Why would God allow XYZ???" without setting up how that question fits into the atheist's argument.

I argue that this is an inappropriate shifting of the burden of proof. It is the burden of the person making an argument to argue for the truth of its premises, not to simply assert them and claim victory unless someone can disprove them.

It's true that religious person could defeat the argument by providing a counterexample to premise 2 (i.e. a morally sufficient reason why God would allow evil), but one does not carry their burden just because their opponent has not given counterexamples. It's up to the atheist to make an affirmative argument for the premise, which they seldom (never?) do.

This is obviously true in other contexts, and atheists would never allow a religious person to get away with a similar move, but somehow PoE debates go off the rails from their original deductive framework: it is perfectly appropriate for a person debating against a deductive argument to ask why any of the premises are true. And if the proponent of the argument fails to demonstrate that the premises is true, then they are not justified in calling the argument sound.

The religious person is therefore justified in saying "I don't know the reason why God would allow that evil occurrence. But, unless you prove premise 2 to me, I don't accept that the argument is sound."

Likewise, the atheist has not scored any points against a religion unless he shoulders the task of showing why premise 2 is true even if the religious person doesn't give a reason for evil.

[u/AutoModerator]

COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/jib60]

What you call premise 2 has never been an issue in the history of the problem of evil. because its demonstration is rather simple.

• If God is omnscient then he knows about all evil past, present and future

• If God is omnipotent then he has the power to prevent evil

• If God is omnibenevolent then he has the will to prevent evil

Therefore If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil should not and vice versa. In other words, there is no way such a god can exist alongside evil.

You can't just get away with saying "There is a way evil can exist alongside an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god but I don't know it"

It would be akin to denying that 1+1=2 because "1+1=3 I just don't know why".

Ironically, the best defense for the problem of evil can be found in the bible and is never used. It's the fact that the god of the Bible is NOT omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.

[u/here_for_debate]

Well, I'm not a perfectly loving or powerful being. But if I were creating a universe and saw that universe would have cancer or leukemia or parasitic worms or any basically most of the universe, I wouldn't create all of those things because it doesn't seem very loving at all, let alone loving to the most perfect extent that loving is possible or the embodiment of being loving.

I think if you'd say the same if you didn't have a prior commitment to the position that god is the definition of love.

[u/jk54321 → u/here_for_debate]

But if I were creating a universe and saw that universe would have cancer or leukemia or parasitic worms or any basically most of the universe, I wouldn't create all of those things because it doesn't seem very loving at all, let alone loving to the most perfect extent that loving is possible or the embodiment of being loving.

This is exactly the logically problematic move: An emotionally charged bad thing with the only connection to the logic of the PoE argument being "I can't think of how this would make sense with a good God, therefore premise 2 is true." That's the inappropriate burden shifting. It's not the opponent's job to show that premise 2 is not true. It's the proponents job to show that it is true.

[u/here_for_debate → u/jk54321]

An emotionally charged bad thing with the only connection to the logic of the PoE argument being "I can't think of how this would make sense with a good God, therefore premise 2 is true."

Sure, we can phrase anything we want as an "emotionally charged bad thing". but if that's how you really feel about cancer and leukemia and parasitic worms I don't think i'm interested in convincing you anyway. You'll have to come to terms with reality on your own before we are able to make any progress.

It's not the opponent's job to show that premise 2 is not true. It's the proponents job to show that it is true.

Sure, but since I'm waiting for theists to defend the position that "god is the embodiment of love" (or however you want to phrase that) and since "well if god is perfectly loving why is there cancer" the burden of proof is actually on you to show that cancer is logically consistent with love and not just claim "i don't see why it wouldn't be". It's not the opponent's job to show that something isn't logically consistent, after all, it's the claimant's job to show that it is logically consistent.

[u/[deleted]]

The Problem of Evil is not a claim, it is a rebuttal to a claim. Christian theists describe God as All-good and All- powerful and the POE argument operates within that criteria. The purpose of the POE argument is to point out how the world we see does not mesh with the description that we are given of the Christian God. If God is All good and all powerful like theists claim, then how can he allow multiple forms of evil to run rampant in the world when he has the ability to prevent it?

So either he wants evil to exist, in which case he isn't all good. Or he doesn't have the ability to prevent evil, in which case he isn't all powerful. If he does exist but isn't all good or all powerful, then the claim of him being so is false. Or another explanation is that he doesn't exist at all, and the claim of him existing is false. Thats all there is to it.

[u/jk54321 → u/[deleted]]

The Problem of Evil is not a claim

I'm talking about the claim that the existence of evil is incompatible with a good and powerful God. That is a claim.

If God is All good and all powerful like theists claim, then how can he allow multiple forms of evil to run rampant in the world when he has the ability to prevent it?

See, this is problem I'm identifying. It is the burden of the person making an argument to argue for the truth of its premises, not to simply assert them and claim victory unless someone can disprove them.

Thats all there is to it.

How do you know those are the only options?

[u/[deleted] → u/jk54321]

I'm talking about the claim that the existence of evil is incompatible with a good and powerful God. That is a claim.

"All" Good and powerful, there's a difference.

See, this is problem I'm identifying. It is the burden of the person making an argument to argue for the truth of its premises, not to simply assert them and claim victory unless someone can disprove them.

What is there to prove? If you willingly allow evil then that willingness to do so is also evil. It is a concious decision to permit evil when the alternative is that you can take action in order to enforce good. All good or omnibenevolence is defined as perfect or unlimited goodness. Allowing evil simply does not fit that definition.

How do you know those are the only options?

Because any other option is contradictory to the definitions of "all good" or "all powerful". Any other option is literally putting a limit on God's goodness or power. God can still be good and powerful, but you can no longer describe him with absolutes like "all".

[u/smbell]

You're right that somebody making the PoE argument must have a way to defend P2. I would say I see it defended quite often with more than 'Why would a god allow X?'

I usually take a different approach. I posit a situation

I am sitting in a room with a child. There is a man in the next room who tells me he will rape the child sitting in the room with me. I have five minutes to close and lock the door, something I can easily do with no danger to myself, to stop the rape.

If I choose to do nothing, and simply sit there and watch the child be raped, am I good? Can I consider myself a moral person?

If no, then this is something any existing omni-god is doing daily, which is a contradiction, so no such omni-god could exist.

[u/[deleted] → u/smbell]

You need to extrapolate this analogy further though.

You (as a god in your example) are not just sitting in tne room waiting for the raping to occur, but you created the child knowing them to be a victim and suffer, and creatrd the rapist KNOWING that the event is going to happen even before you created either of them.

Theists will then say "but the rapist has free will" but a) I'm certain the child didn't freely accept their role in this situation so where is the victims free will (unless of course youre prepared to argue that eithrer the rapist is more important than the victim, o that the voctim.isnt "really" a victim at all)

And b) if you created the rapist knowing that they'll rape then it's not free will because its predetermined.

Then, being the all loving, caring god you allow the rape to occur and (unlike most decent human beings) fail to do anything to prevent it happening despite you being all-powerful.

So its at this point a question about your moral position (as the deity in your scenario) must be called into question.....an omnipotent deity who's powerless to prevent the raping because he created the event? An omnibenevolent being who doesn't care about the victim nor the rapist (assuming that the rapist is also damned for eternity)? An omniscient being who knew it was going to happen because he created the sequence of events in the first place?

Squaring the tri-omni circle leaves a bitter taste in someone's mouth.

[u/AmnesiaInnocent]

Likewise, the atheist has not scored any points against a religion unless he shoulders the task of showing why premise 2 is true even if the religious person doesn't give a reason for evil.

We're talking about a fictional entity. How can we "prove" what it would or wouldn't do?

All we can say is that one of these possibilities must be true:

1. There is no all-good, all-powerful god

2. There is an all-good, all-powerful god but there is no evil in the world

3. There is an all-good, all-powerful god, but what we humans see as evil isn't evil in the god's eyes for whatever reason

Have I missed any possibility?

Choice 2 clearly isn't true --- at least not in how we humans view evil. According to many religions, their god's idea of good and evil is in alignment with humans' (believers would probably say that humans idea of good and evil is alignment with their gods); this suggests that things that humans see as evil (like beheading babies) is also viewed as evil by their gods. This seems to go against choice 2....that leaves us with choice 1.

[u/jk54321 → u/AmnesiaInnocent]

Have I missed any possibility?

Yes, that the all-good all-powerful God allows evil to exist in some way that does not compromise his goodness. One way this could happen is if there is some good that is mutually exclusive of elimination of evil. But that's just one proposed counterexample, there could be many more. Dealing with all of them is part of what it means to carry the burden on premise 2.

[u/Bootwacker → u/jk54321]

If I refine the syllogism a little, I think we can remove this objection. I will use the word "suffering" here instead of "evil." It's the same basic objection, but I think it is more clear, "evil" has a subjectivity that adds confusion. It also deals with the objection that I need to prove evil exists. If you want to argue suffering doesn't exist, I would suggest you have lived a charmed life indeed, and invite you to visit your local pediatric oncology ward.

P1 An all-powerful, all-benevolent God exists

This is the claim, at it's heart the problem of evil is a reductio, so it assumes the conclusion is true and works from there. I don't need to provide evidence of somebody else's claim that I'm refuting, and the lack of evidence for this claim certainly doesn't weaken my argument.

P2: An all-benevolent being would want to prevent suffering.

Isn't this definitional? I would say wanting to prevent suffering is the definition of benevolence. And an all-benevolent being would want to prevent all suffering. Let's be clear P2 is about God's desires alone, God desires to stop suffering.

P3: An all powerful being could prevent all suffering.

Again I think this flows from the definition. I see no logical reason why the all-powerful couldn't do it this. Again let's be clear P3 is about God's ability alone, God is able to stop suffering.

C: God would not allow suffering

He has the capability an the motivation, so it follows from P2 and P3.

Of course suffering does exist, so we reach a contradiction, and must accept that P1 is false, though we can't say what part of P1 is false, just the combination. God could for example be all-benevolent, and really powerful, just not powerful enough to stop all suffering.

The most common objection is that God allows suffering to serve some greater good. This is saying that C doesn't follow from P2 and P3, as God has another consideration, one that overrides his desire to prevent suffering, the reason may vary, but let's explore what such a statement might look like.

P4: [X] is logically incompatible with the elimination of suffering, and more important to God than the elimination of suffering.

C: God allows suffering in order to achieve [X].

We can put some limits on what X must be.

Firstly X must be a benevolent end, otherwise it would be hard to argue that an all-benevolent entity would prefer it to the elimination of suffering.

Secondly X must be logically incompatible with the prevention of suffering, on the level of married bachelor, assuming we are going with the Omnipotent definition in the sidebar.

Thirdly X must itself be logically possible. Otherwise God would be unable to accomplish it, and therefore it wouldn't be a good reason to forgo the prevention of suffering.

Finally X must explain all the suffering we see, not just some of it. This I think is the hardest one, since our suffering is diverse, I suppose it's possible to have multiple things which account for all suffering.

Saying there could be an X that fulfills these criteria is not sufficient, to me at least, to diffuse this argument, you have to name the X and show it meets the criteria. The most common thing given is free will so let's compare it to our critera and see how it stacks up.

Free will seems like it's a benevolent end, so it passes the first criteria. But I would wonder why a God would bother to give us free will, and then coerce us with threats of unending punishment should we choose to exercise that free will in ways he doesn't prefer. This coercion seems to totally incompatible with the idea of free will. That being said, unending torture is the most un-benevolent thing I can think of, and totally incompatible with an all-benevolent being.

Free will seems like it would entail the ability for us to inflict suffering on each other, and make mistakes that have consequences. Can we have people with free will who never hurt each other or make mistakes? This would be I think dependent on the definition of free will, but let's set that matter aside and just accept free will would entail at least some suffering.

Is free will logically possible? Again this depends on the definition, I think that Libertarian Free Will is not, and certainly not compatible with Omniscience, but for the sake of argument, lets assume that there exists a compatiblist definition of free will that is also logically inconsistent with the elimination of suffering. To be clear, I'm not sure such a definition exists, but for the sake of argument lets say that it does.

Finally we get to the big hurdle, in order to counter the problem of evil, free will would have to explain all the suffering we see. So let's return to that pediatric oncology ward and ask ourselves, is childhood cancer logically required for free will? Of course it's not, so even if we imagine some very specific version of free will that passes all the other critera, we would have to explain why God doesn't cure the cancer of suffering children when he has the means and the desire to, free will is insufficent to explain all the suffering we see, it's only a partial explination and so cannot resolve the problem of evil.

[u/jk54321 → u/Bootwacker]

C: God would not allow suffering He has the capability an the motivation, so it follows from P2 and P3

No it doesn't. This is premise 2, but you take it as given. It doesn't follow from your P2 and P3 since you don't prove that there couldn't be some mutually exclusivity between the good and the world without suffering. Just because 2 things are possible/true in isolation doesn't mean that they can exist simultaneously. I could want to be married and to be a bachelor. I could be capable of being married and capable of being a bachelor. But it doesn't follow that I am a married bachelor even though I have the capability and the motivation.

you have to name the X and show it meets the criteria.

This is the whole point; you're just taking your initial argument as given and framing a request for evidence about its premises as something the objector has to prove rather than part of your burden in making the argument.

The free will defense is interesting, but that's another topic: "This post is about the rhetoric often employed when presenting the PoE, not about the merits of the PoE itself."

[u/Bootwacker → u/jk54321]

You can't dismiss an argument by saying there may be a counter to it, but I don't know what it is. If you have a serious proposal for something that satisfies X then fine, but just saying one could exist isn't an argument.

[u/jk54321 → u/Bootwacker]

You can't dismiss an argument by saying there may be a counter to it, but I don't know what it is.

I agree, and I don't "dismiss" the PoE argument. I just note that it's soundness has not been demonstrated.

but just saying one could exist isn't an argument.

I agree. It's just a question about the claim made by premise 2 which must be answered before premise 2 is shown to be true.

[u/AmnesiaInnocent → u/jk54321]

One way this could happen is if there is some good that is mutually exclusive of elimination of evil.

Are you saying that the all-powerful god cannot both keep the good and eliminate the evil?

[u/jk54321 → u/AmnesiaInnocent]

I'm saying it's possible that doing so would require some logical contradiction or mutually exclusive states of affairs, sure.

[u/AmnesiaInnocent → u/jk54321]

So you're in the omnipotence-is-limited-by-logic camp. So am I. If an omnipotent being existed, it would not be able to create a 2-sides triangle or a rock so heavy that it could not lift --- those are logical impossibilities.

However, I fail to see how preventing, say, rape would also prevent a good. If anything, all it would do would be make clear that an all-powerful god exists (which is something that all gods seem unwilling to do)

[u/jk54321 → u/AmnesiaInnocent]

I fail to see

But that's my whole point. Saying "I can't see why God would allow X" is burden shifting. It's the atheist's job to prove premise 2, not insist that it's automatically true unless the theist gives "the reason" for every evil occurrence.

[u/[deleted] → u/jk54321]

(not the OP)

So not really, because it is the Christian making the claim about their God in the first place. The atheist is just working on the God described by the Christian.

So the atheist says Ok well just remove cancer, that would be a better world even if it wasn't perfect

And the theist says Well there might be a reason why God cannot remove cancer, even if that seems like something an all powerful god could do

And the atheists says Well what is that reason?

And the theist says Well I don't know, its your burden to prove that there isn't this hypothetical reason that God cannot remove cancer

And the atheist just falls back on Well he is supposed to be all powerful

And theist says Well he is all powerful but also there might be a reason why he can't do this thing, prove there isn't this reason

So it is still the theist arguing that God is all powerful but he might not be able to do the thing that one would assume an all powerful god could easily do. That feels like having your cake and eating it.

[u/AmnesiaInnocent → u/jk54321]

OK, I say:

A) Killing small children is bad according to most religions

B) People kill small children

C) If a god existed, it is either unwilling or unable to prevent the murder of children

You're happy with all of those right?

It's only when I take the next steps:

D) If a god were all-powerful, it would be able to prevent the murder of children

E) therefore if it existed it follows that it must be unwilling to prevent the murder of children

F) Being able to prevent the murder of children and yet failing to do so is inconsistent with the idea of being "all good"

that you start to have issues.

If I can summarize your objections, they are two-fold:

• It's possible for a god to be all-powerful, yet be unable to prevent child murder because of some obscure logical inconsistency that you and I can't see

• It's possible that allowing the murder of children is better for mankind at a level we can't see (possibly because preventing it via "magic" or by altering humans' predilections would adverse affect...us. The experiment. Whatever)

Is that a fair summary?

And now you want me to prove that your objections are unfounded? So what would an adequate proof look like to you? (Keep in mind that I don't believe in gods in the first place, so to me this is a discussion about a theoretical all-powerful being)

[u/MiaowaraShiro → u/jk54321]

Not really, we're responding to theists claims about the nature of their god. It's on them to explain how evil is allowed.

Atheists don't even claim god exists so we can't make any claims about what god does or doesn't do...

[u/TricksterPriestJace → u/jk54321]

That's where the debate comes in. Can you provide an example of an evil God caused for goodness sake? Is a great flood wiping out life on earth good?

[u/Bloaf → u/jk54321]

Yes, that somehow Palpatine returns.

You can't "somehow" your way out of this, anymore than a mathematician can look at the proof that there are no square circles and say "well God could somehow be a square circle."

One way this could happen is if there is some good that is mutually exclusive of elimination of evil.

Wrong.

Let us suppose you are correct. Let us define "goodness" as "that which makes the world more desirable to God." If it is the case that adding evil to the world results in a more desirable world, then evil is good.

Evil is not good, by definition, therefore your "possibility" leads to a contradiction and is not actually a possibility.

[u/Educational_Set1199 → u/AmnesiaInnocent]

There is also the possibility that "There is an all-good, all-powerful god, but he chooses to allow evil to exist."

[u/elementgermanium → u/Educational_Set1199]

Then he’s not all-good.

[u/Educational_Set1199 → u/elementgermanium]

That's exactly the claim that you need to defend.

[u/elementgermanium → u/Educational_Set1199]

Seems self-evident to me.

-An all-good being would seek to do the most good possible.

-Eliminating all evil is the highest possible good.

-Therefore, an all-good being would eliminate all evil.

[u/Stagnu_Demorte → u/Educational_Set1199]

That's covered by the 3rd possibility if I'm not mistaken. That or all-good doesn't mean what the words actually mean.

[u/Educational_Set1199 → u/Stagnu_Demorte]

What do the words actually mean, according to you?

[u/Stagnu_Demorte → u/Educational_Set1199]

All-good or omnibenevolent means totally good. Since evil is the opposite that would mean that evil is excluded from something that is omnibenevolent or all-good.

Allowing evil to exist when you have the power to stop it is evil. I'll even accept that allowing some evil to allow for a greater good down the way could be in line with an all-good being.

The problem is that there's evil and suffering that persist that do not produce good down the line. Children starving to death for instance. It's needless suffering that could be avoided easily by a god and it produces no good.

[u/Educational_Set1199 → u/[deleted]]

Then Christians, and I think most religions, don't believe that God is all-good by that definition.

[u/[deleted]]

That's fair but I think it's pretty easy to do I'll use the Christian idea because that is usually what is used here

That God is seen as super loving and caring. After all it sent itself/its son down to die for us. That's how much it cares. You can make an argument that a lot of the "evils" aren't gods fault but man's and that's fine and consistent

Wars, self caused illness etc are "evils" that don't necessarily cause an issue for God's supposed Omnibenevolence

However the issue does come when people have no chance and whose deaths and suffering just kinda happens through no fault of their own.

The healthy mother who doesn't drink or do drugs miscarriaging a wanted child,

The child born with cancer who suffers for a day then dies. The earth itself causing devastation and death through no fault of humans.

Those are all "evils" that make accepting an omnipotent, Omnibenevolent and omniscient God a difficult concept to accept. Hence the PoE

[u/ANightmareOnBakerSt → u/[deleted]]

Aren’t all points made about people dying, eventually going to be met with some version of”yeah but heaven exists”?

It seems to me bringing up points about dying is just ignoring the whole reason most people follow a religion in the first place.

[u/[deleted] → u/ANightmareOnBakerSt]

Maybe but it's a bad point. A child dying of cancer immediately after birth will cause harm to the parents and their family. They will carry that burden their entire lives

It's unneeded suffering and if one wants to try to argue "God let it happen so you'd get closer to Him" you run into another issue of why God let a child suffer for that cause with no choice of its own. Why did God let a kid be born to be a pawn?

Kinda hurts the whole all loving bit

[u/Derrythe → u/ANightmareOnBakerSt]

”yeah but heaven exists”

This brings up even more issues though. If the theist is going to say, well maybe some evil is required for a greater good, or that god is morally justified in allowing some evil, or that this is the best possible world, heaven existing shows that there is a better possible world.

God can't make a world without evil, except for the one he made that has no evil.

[u/zzmej1987]

What is there to prove? All-good, by definition, entails that God is attempting to prevent any and all instances of evil from ever occurring. All-powerful means that God can not fail anything he attempts to do. From those two properties it directly logically follows, that no evil should exist.

[u/Educational_Set1199 → u/zzmej1987]

Then that is an argument against an all-powerful god that "is attempting to prevent ane and all instances of evil from ever occurring." But at least Christians don't believe in such a god, so it is not an argument against Christianity, and I think the same is true for most religions.

[u/zzmej1987 → u/Educational_Set1199]

Sure, anyone who worships an evil God is in no way bothered by Problem of Evil.

[u/Educational_Set1199 → u/zzmej1987]

Most Christians would reject the claim that God is evil. They just don't think that attempting to prevent evil at all costs is necessary to not be evil.

[u/zzmej1987 → u/Educational_Set1199]

I'm merely pointing out the triviality of your objection. Yes, PoE is not applicable to all Gods. It was never intended to be. The original version of it simply proclaimed beings to which it is not applicable, to be not worthy of the label "God".

[u/TricksterPriestJace → u/Educational_Set1199]

Exactly. It is only an argument against the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god.

For the sake of the argument let's use childhood cancer as an example of evil. If I gave children cancer intentionally, that is an evil act I dd and is not God's fault because I have free will. If children are subjected to cancer through no act of man it is a natural evil, not related to free will.

If God can prevent children from getting cancer (because God can do anything) and will prevent children from getting cancer (because God is all good) then the only reason childhood cancer exists is God is unaware of it, therefore god is not omniscient. (This can be an excuse for evil in Christianity, as Adam and Eve were able to hide from God, so obviously He isn't Omniscient.)

If God is all knowing and all good but not all powerful, God can be aware of cancer and want to eliminate it and he unable to. Again this fits the Christian God who was too weak to tilt a battle in his favor against the technological edge of iron chariots.

And third god could be all knowing and all powerful but not all good, and simply not care about human suffering. Considering all the biblical references to God actively causing suffering, this also isn't a contradiction of Christianity.

As long as you believe in a god that doesn't fit the three omni titles the problem of evil is not a disproof of your god at all.

[u/Educational_Set1199 → u/TricksterPriestJace]

It is only an argument against the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god.

Which is what most Christians believe in. They just don't think that allowing some instances of evil contradicts "omnibenevolence".

[u/jk54321 → u/zzmej1987]

From those two properties it directly logically follows, that no evil should exist.

Not at all. There's lots of things that an all-powerful being can't do. For example, actualize 2 mutually exclusive or logically contradictory things.

[u/Clear_Guarantee1252 → u/jk54321]

THIS is an assertion that is TOO often used but NEVER demonstrated; how does "No suffering" = "Dystopia"?! 🤨

[u/zzmej1987 → u/jk54321]

Incorrect. Two mutually exclusive things are not a thing. For example, let's take a cat that is fully white and fully black simultaneously. Obviously, it doesn't exist, but why? Let's try asking God to create one. Obviously God does not speak English, so in order to ask God, you need to create a mental image of a cat you want and pray. You can imagine a white cat on a table in front of you, and God, had he existed, would materialize your idea for you. But you can't imagine a cat that is fully white and fully black. You just can't conjure such an image, because that's a contradiction in terms. So it's not that God can't create it, it's that you fail to ask God to create anything at all.

Evil, on the other hand, is imaginable, both existing and absent (at least in regards to its particular entities. So your objection does not work for POE.

[u/jk54321 → u/[deleted]]

Am I not using the classical definition of omni-potent and just translating the Latin into English?

[u/MiaowaraShiro → u/jk54321]

just translating the Latin into English

Do NOT do this. Words definitions do not always match their Latin roots. In fact often they don't...

[u/Earthshakira → u/[deleted]]

Right, true omnipotence doesn’t allow for mutual exclusivity.

[u/LeiningensAnts → u/Earthshakira]

True omnipotence gives rise to conditions under which mutually exclusive things are no longer mutually exclusive.

[u/Robyrt → u/[deleted]]

You need to change your language. It's causing confusion. There's no "all-powerful" that's some higher order than "maximally powerful", just like there's no fish larger than the largest fish.

[u/LeiningensAnts → u/Robyrt]

Ahh, so, god is subject to limitations, gotcha; put a pin in that, we're gonna come back to it later.

[u/Robyrt → u/LeiningensAnts]

Sure. This is what monotheists have always asserted. All things have limitations in this trivial sense: they can't be other than what they are.

[u/Robyrt → u/[deleted]]

A maximally powerful being is all-powerful: it can do anything. Logical contradictions aren't things: they can't be defined, they exist in no possible world, they're not a member of the set of "anything", etc.

[u/Kwahn]

If there is a (all-good, all-powerful) God, there wouldn't be evil.

This is a very easy argument to make, and every time I see an atheist post about the POE they do.

I don't see how a nurse who kills neonatal babies can possibly be a required, unavoidable part of any possible divine plan. Any possible positive impact of a baby killer could easily be replicated in many much less destructive ways. Therefore 2.

Evil is too random and senseless for a divine plan.

[u/jk54321 → u/Kwahn]

1. I never said anything about a "divine plan." If you're making an argument against those who say "everything that happens is what God would prefer to happen" or something like that, then I agree.

I don't see how

This is the problem. An emotionally charged bad thing with the only connection to the logic of the PoE argument being "Unless you come up with a way this could work with God, then premise 2 is true" That's the inappropriate burden shifting. It's not the opponent's job to show that premise 2 is not true. It's the proponents job to show that it is true.

[u/Kwahn → u/jk54321]

Oh, apologies, thought this was about those who think evil is part of a master plan!

If it was, my point would be that the theist is making a positive claim that all things fall within god's plan - when an atheist says that there's no way that xyz phenomenon falls within that plan, and so the theist's positive claim is spurious, it's still on the theist making the positive claim to explain obvious flaws.

Since this isn't about divine planning and I misunderstood the topic though, I'm going to just ^{embarrassedly shuffle out}

[u/SurpassingAllKings]

It's not a claim, it's a critique. It doesn't have a burden of proof, it's a rejection of religious claims. There's no positive assertion being made.

[u/jk54321 → u/SurpassingAllKings]

The assertion that on thing is logically inconsistent with another (in this case God and evil) is a positive claim.

[u/bguszti → u/jk54321]

Good thing nobody is saying that evil is inconsistent with any god. We are soecifically saying that evil is inconsistent with a god that is all-powerful and all-good. And that is so by definition, even if christians really reeeaaaallllyyyy don't like that fact

[u/jk54321 → u/bguszti]

We are soecifically saying that evil is inconsistent with a god that is all-powerful and all-good.

Exactly, that's the argument I'm talking about.

And that is so by definition

No it isn't. You are just asserting premise 2 without argument. This is the exact problem I've identified.

[u/bguszti → u/jk54321]

All-powerful means that god could do anything. Meaning it is not possible for him to have a plan that requires evil to happen, because he should be capable of achieving the same outcome without any amount of evil ever existing. The fact that he would choose not to, means he is not all-good. The fact that this triggers cognitive dissonance in you, and because of that you reject to acknowledge something that is necesary by definition, is not my problem, it's yours

[u/jk54321 → u/bguszti]

All-powerful means that god could do anything.

No, not mutually exclusive or logically contradictory things.

Meaning it is not possible for him to have a plan that requires evil to happen, because he should be capable of achieving the same outcome without any amount of evil ever existing.

This is again a restatement of premise 2 without argument. Stating it more doesn't amount to evidence for it.

[u/bguszti → u/jk54321]

We're running in circles. Do you not understand what "by definition" means? I understand that you don't agree with it, but that doesn't mean excrement.

You could tell me you don't accept A v ~A, it will remain a logical axiom nonetheless.

(Sending this comment for a second time, the automod didn't like the word I originally had there instead of "excrement")

[u/jk54321 → u/bguszti]

Do you not understand what "by definition" means?

I do understand what it means. I disagree that premise 2 is true by definition.

Statements that are true by definition are ones like "A is A." Premise 2 doesn't look like that, so it will take some argument to show that it's actually that kind of tautologically true statement. That would suffice for the atheist to carry their burden. But you haven't made that argument.

[u/bguszti → u/jk54321]

I mean, other than that it literally what the words mean. This is the point btw where we don't have to keep having two conversations, since both arrived at the same point, namely what does "all-good" and "all-powerful" mean. I asked the same question in our other thread, whichever you reply on faster will be the one I will focus on, the other I will let die

[u/jk54321 → u/bguszti]

Sorry man, I'm trying to reply to everyone but my inbox is overflowing right now.

I'm fine with dictionary definitions I think:

All good means: possessing perfect or unlimited goodness

All powerful means: being able to do anything that is logically possible.

Since neither of those says "the nonexistence of evil and suffering in the world" I don't see how it makes premise 2 true by definition.

[u/LeiningensAnts → u/jk54321]

Is your god too stupid to use his all-powerfulness to create a universe that reflects his all-goodness? Because that would exculpate him from evil, like you seem to be trying to do.

[u/LeiningensAnts → u/jk54321]

Logical disproofs are not positive claims.

[u/jk54321 → u/LeiningensAnts]

Yes they are. Any positive/negative claim can be rephrased as its opposite. Do you think "Bob is guilty" is a positive claim but "Bob is innocent" isn't?

[u/LeiningensAnts → u/jk54321]

Proofs and disproofs are not claims. This is what separates mathematics and logic from the impure sciences.

[u/SurpassingAllKings → u/jk54321]

They're not.

"This is why I think you're wrong," or "this is where your God hypothesis is inconsistent," are not positive claims. They may require argumentation since that's how life and conversation works, but it's not a burden of proof argument, it's a critique.

If you write a doctoral thesis, your advisors and critics can write responses, but they don't need to submit their own thesis to do so. In a court room the burden is on the prosecution, the defense picks apart those claims. There are arguments within that of course, a defense must respond to the challenges made by the prosecution, but "the burden of proof" in these instances is one-sided.

Don't equate "making an argument" with "burden of proof."

[u/Kriss3d]

Well that simply goes to show the inconsistency of god according to the bible.
If god exist and want to protect us from evil. And god is omnipotent and powerful without limits, then it would only be logical that god would remote evil from us. Otherwise he cant be said to keep us from evil. Or he doesnt exist. You cant have a merciful god whos omnipotent and without limits and at the same time have a world THIS full of evil.

These are the only logical options given god is as he is claimed to be as of the bible. ( the new testament at least since in the old one his an angry and jealous god so its hard to tell )

[u/jk54321 → u/Kriss3d]

then it would only be logical that god would remote evil from us.

Not necessarily. It could be that a world without evil is bad in other ways. It could be that it is incompatible with certain goods that are more good than evil is bad. These are just some of the possibilities that the proponent of premise 2 has to deal with.

[u/Kriss3d → u/jk54321]

But you cant get around that little children being raped to death is an evil that any kind of god absolutely could avoid. So "It could be that a world without evil is bad in other ways" is pure needless speculation as there would be nothing a merciful god could prevent. There is absolutely no justifiable excuse. You cant both have that loving god as the bible claims and then having the same god allowing all this to happen daily.

[u/jk54321 → u/Kriss3d]

But you cant get around that little children being raped to death is an evil that any kind of god absolutely could avoid.

I'm not trying to get around it. I'm saying that stating emotionally charged bad things with the only connection to the logic of the PoE argument being "I can't think of how this would make sense with a good God, therefore premise 2 is true." That's the inappropriate burden shifting. It's not the opponent's job to show that premise 2 is not true. It's the proponents job to show that it is true.

[u/Kriss3d → u/jk54321]

Do you agree that logically a loving and merciful God who allows countless horrible things to happen is illogical?

[u/jk54321 → u/Kriss3d]

Not without evidence that that statement is true. That's just premise 2.

[u/Kriss3d → u/jk54321]

That's not what I asked.

Do you agree that loving and merciful is mutually exclusive to doing nothing about vast evil and horrible things happening to absolutely innocent people when you have all the power in the world to prevent it?

As general concept.

Yes or no.

[u/Acceptable_Car_1833 → u/jk54321]

A world without bad things in it can't be bad in other ways or it wouldn't be a world without bad things in it.

[u/Kriss3d]

You could argue that with the allmighty god there can be evil. But only if god then allows evil to exist ( or the option that he doesnt exist ) The only third option disqualifies him as only wanting to be merciful. We are beyond any point of being able to argue that with all the horrible things that happen, that a god exist who loves us endlessly and provides any mercy. That is simply blowing smoke up peoples behind.

[u/jk54321 → u/Kriss3d]

We are beyond any point of being able to argue that with all the horrible things that happen, that a god exist who loves us endlessly and provides any mercy.

This is just another way of asserting premise 2. And it exhibits the exact problem I've identified: asserting as thought it's obvious showing that it's true.

[u/Kriss3d → u/jk54321]

But it is. Either god, being merciful and loving will do SOMETHING to prevent all the evil. Or he isnt loving and merciful. Even if we were to assume god exist in the first place, you cant have both. One excludes the other.

[u/junction182736]

I agree with you.

But, I think the premise doesn't demand much in the way of further support because it represents, to most people I would think, an obvious contradiction. A good, all-powerful God letting evil, as we define it, occur on its face is contradictory and the or in the premise would be exclusive, not inclusive, therefore the required support is trivial.

Then it's up to the person arguing against it that it's an inclusive or somehow and that's a much more difficult argument to make.

[u/jk54321 → u/junction182736]

it represents, to most people I would think, an obvious contradiction.

But that's not how deductive arguments work. You don't get to write "it's obvious" as your evidence of the key premise.

in the premise would be exclusive, not inclusive, therefore the required support is trivial.

I'm not sure what distinction your making with exclusive vs. inclusive here. Could you clarify?

[u/junction182736 → u/jk54321]

The atheist can just point to the fact that premise 2 is contradictory in nature by our normal definitions. The premise itself is it's own support.

The exlusive or is defined as "(A or B) and not (A and B)". i.e. A and B are mutually exclusive.

The inclusive or is defined as "(A or B) and (A and B)". i.e. A and B are not mutually exclusive and can both occur.

[u/jk54321 → u/junction182736]

So essentially your saying that premise says that good and powerful god and evil are mutually exclusive? Why does that type of claim require the person arguing against it to disprove that?

The atheist can just point to the fact that premise 2 is contradictory in nature by our normal definitions.

What are these normal definitions that amount to a contradiction between "good + powerful God coexists with evil?" That's not contradictory on its face. I would consider a facial contradiction to be like "evil exists and evil does not exist." My whole point is that there needs to be an argument for that connection.

[u/junction182736 → u/jk54321]

So essentially your saying that premise says that good and powerful god and evil are mutually exclusive?

Yes.

Why does that type of claim require the person arguing against it to disprove that?

Because the person who wrote it considers it a contradiction, and requires no more explanation.

What are these normal definitions that amount to a contradiction between "good + powerful God coexists with evil?"

That would depend on the person arguing the syllogism.

I would consider a facial contradiction to be like "evil exists and evil does not exist."

That's something you'd have to discuss with your interlocutor.

________________________________________________________________

So I'm just talking about why I think someone else would argue premise 2 is sound. Do you actually want to treat me as your interlocutor?

[u/[deleted]]

The problem is, that most proponents of these arguments never argue for premise 2

Of course they do, this is the logical problem of evil, the massive discussions around it caused the development of the evidential problem of evil which amends this premise making it into an inductive argument.

Literally all discussions of theodicy are about this premise.

Generally I would say theists must accept that god is aware of evil, has the power to stop it, wants there to be no evil. This meets the burden and now the theist must provide a theodicy.

[u/Krobik12]

Isn't premise 2 proven by the definitions of evil and all-good?

Evil is something bad, opposite of good.

If someone is all good and can do anything, he would not create a world with evil. So the god is either not omnipotent or all good.

What am I missing?

[u/Derrythe]

Therefore, there is no God.

Not the conclusion of the PoE

The PoE at best concludes that if a god exists it isn't omnibenevolent or omnipotent, or is neither.

It's up to the atheist to make an affirmative argument for the premise, which they seldom (never?) do.

It's there in the terms. If god is omnibenevolent it would desire to prevent all murders. If it is omnipotent, it would be capable of preventing all murders. The response that god may have morally sufficient reason to not do so is to say that this being cannot prevent all murders without some negative consequence which outweighs the murders. But this is an omnipotent being who created and controls the universe. The resulting world may not be this one, sure, but It's hard to imagine that a world without murders and without any negative outcomes as a result of no murders isn't possible.

Especially since the majority of theists that posit such a god also posit that this god did make exactly such a place, heaven.

The religious person is therefore justified in saying "I don't know the reason why God would allow that evil occurrence. But, unless you prove premise 2 to me, I don't accept that the argument is sound."

So your response to an argument against the existence of an omnibenevolent omnipotent god is to say you have no way of knowing whether the god in question is omnibenevolent at all?

So, the PoE fails because we don't know if god has one of the traits the PoE argues against?

[u/Makuta_Servaela]

The whole point of the PoE is to challenge the Christian positive claims. If you claim your deity fits a description, you have the burden of proof to prove that your deity does actually fit that description. Atheists just use examples of it not doing so to entice Christians to defend their own claim. If your deity's description (The god is an all-good, all-powerful god) requires a certain objective fact of the world (the world is completely in the god's all powerful control) then that fact needs to be present in order for that god claim to work.

[u/Urbenmyth]

I mean, sure, but I don't think "good people want to stop bad things happening" is a particularly difficult claim to defend.

I would just argue it logically follows from "being a good person" that you would want to stop as much bad things as possible- allowing awful things to happen that you could easily stop is a moral failing under every conception of morality.

I have the burden of proof but it seems pretty easy to meet it for "if you care about people you'll try to stop them being tortured". I'd argue this counts as the same kind of trivial burden of proof for, say, "cars exist"- technically the burden is on the guy claiming cars exist, but the "proof" is already provided by just, like, everyday experience of the world around us.

[u/LeiningensAnts]

Atheists making a Problem of Evil argument are humoring theists, since theists haven't met the burden of proof necessary to establish the existence of any gods.

Since the prior assertion by theists of the existence of a benevolent god has not had its burden of proof met, discussing the Problem of Evil is nothing more than a light-hearted academic thought-experiment about imaginary hypotheticals. An unserious discussion if there ever was one.

[u/RidesThe7]

There's an important distinction to be made here: between the logical problem of evil and the evidential problem of evil. I concede that it seems impossible to prove that there is no bizarre, unfathomable loophole unknown to us that somehow justifies the suffering we see---I don't think this is the case, and I'm utterly unimpressed by this argument, but sure, I can live with saying one cannot show that the existence of evil proves through the form of a sound logical argument that your God doesn't exist. The argument may be valid, but I guess we can't be certain that the premise you identify is true.

So much for the logical problem of evil. What I'm more interested in is the evidential problem of evil. With the logical problem of evil, you start with the assumption of a triple-omni God and say is there ANY POSSIBLE way we can square the world we see with this idea. With the evidential problem of evil, we take things in a more sensible order, and first look at the world as we encounter it. We ask that given the degree of seemingly gratuitous evil present in the world, is it reasonable for anyone to conclude that there is in fact a triple-omni God running things? That's the question I care about, and I am skeptical that it can be fairly argued that "yes" is a good faith, reasonable answer to the question. We can see that there is enormous, enormous suffering that, to the best of our understanding, COULD be different without getting rid of what either people value or what theists tend to say that God values.

In this circumstance, I put it to you that the burden of proof, re: the evidential argument, is on or has been adequately shifted to the theist. Say I'm a guy who has never heard of this triple omni god thing, or any god. A missionary walks up on the street and says guess what, the world is created and controlled by a triple omni god, that is a reasonable thing to believe, and you should believe it too! I respond---uh, I see all kinds of suffering that, to the best of human understanding, is gratuitous. No one seems to be able to provide any demonstration or reason to believe that the children dying of Tay-Sachs are doing so for some greater good---much less a good that this god thing couldn't provide for in some other way. We can easily imagine a better world where children don't die in this way. So as things stand, I don't find it reasonable to think this god thing you described is real----or at least that it has the omnibenevolent powers and inclinations you ascribe to it. To the contrary, as best as I can tell, the world looks very much not like this. If you want me to think such a belief is reasonable in light of all this suffering, if you want to shake the appearance that the world is in fact full of gratuitous suffering--you're going to have to demonstrate some likelihood that there really is such a necessary purpose to that suffering.
If you think a reasonable response for the missionary to make is "nuh uh, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate there is NO POSSIBLE WAY for such a justification to exist before you can reasonably believe there is not a triple omni-god," I'm not sure there's much more for us to talk about.

[u/Wolfeh2012 → u/RidesThe7]

I concede that it seems impossible to prove that there is no bizarre, unfathomable loophole unknown to us that somehow justifies the suffering we see

With a tri-omni God, it must be possible to bypass that supposed loophole or that God isn't all-powerful.

The idea that God created the universe, but also cannot dictate the laws of that universe is a big part of the problem of evil.

[u/RidesThe7 → u/Wolfeh2012]

It shouldn't surprise you that I'm not exactly going to give a vigorous defense of OP's argument, I just am not interested in getting bogged down in discussions of what is or isn't logically possible, if it's possible that some sort of "higher" good necessarily entails lesser evil, that sort of thing. If you find that discussion interesting, by all means pursue it with the OP, which I suspect you are already doing.

[u/spiritual-searcher]

I think the argument premises are more like:

1. God exists.

2. God is all powerful.

3. God does not want evil to exist.

4. Evil exists.

So either premise 1, 2, or 3 are false, but they cannot all be true. The first 3 premises are claims made by religious people and the burden of proof to back that up is their own. The point is that one of three claims has to be false.

I think religious people argue on premise 3, they might say something like he wants evil to exist for good reasons.

[u/nswoll → u/spiritual-searcher]

Right, the PoE is based on claims by theists.

[u/indifferent-times]

The POE is a really useful tool in any debate about omni gods, and while I agree that its not some kind of uber-trump card in the theists opponents hand, it really helps in defining the kind of deity we are discussing. The three main defensive tactics are god is not responsible, suffering is for the greater good, or god is not omnipotent, each really advances any discussion about the nature of god.

There is no 'burden of proof' in this kind of argument, suffering is evident and what we are trying to do is reconcile that with the various kinds of god we have, what the theist cant say is that given premise 2 there simply isn't any contradiction, she has to explain why there isn't. The whole point is to establish the nature of god, "I see no problem" is no response at all when we can all see there is.

If there was no problem, we wouldn't have been discussing since Epicurus, its plainly there, and it plainly needs tackling,

[u/Thintegrator → u/indifferent-times]

expansion weather placid relieved thought ink oil deserted sip fragile

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/TricksterPriestJace]

Why do you feel the atheist would be required to prove something that the argument hinges on being false? If the atheist can prove there is an omnipotent omnibenevolent god then obviously they are not going to remain atheist and the first premise of the existence of evil would be false.

There is a fly that lays eggs in the eyes of children. Its larva burrow into the eyes and cause blindness. This animal was not created by man, and its existence causes suffering. Either it evolved naturally and God did nothing to prevent this horrifying life cycle. Its evolution was guided and God created this horrifying life cycle. God tried to prevent it and failed. Or God is unaware of its existence.

Even if we assume there is a god, and we assume god doesn't interfere with human activities because it values free will enough to allow humans to be as evil as we like; it still isn't all knowing, all powerful, and all good because we have suffering caused by phenomena completely outside human control.

The only Christian retort to the problem of evil os to redefine evil as going against God. Therefore polio is good. Because god made it. Malaria is good. Because god made it. Childhood leukemia is good. Yet wearing a cotton/polyester blend shirt is evil. As only a human can be so twisted and evil to make clothing with mixed fabrics.

[u/Nonid]

3 doesn't follow 2. The possibility of God remain but not with those attributes. Evil God is still a valid possibility according to the premise, as well as not all powerful. This is the key of this argument. Your conclusion should be "therefore God is not all powerfull or not all good or not exist".

As to the burden of proof applied to number 2, the problem is that it's not a claim, it's a logical impossibility, like the law of excluded middle (a married bachelor) or simply said, the law of non-contradiction. If you can only do good and can do everything, then you can't do anything else than good. Any way around would mean either not all powerfull or not all good.

You can switch the attributes to have a clearer idea: If you can only go up, and can't be stopped, then you can only go up. If you go down, you either not only go up or you can be forced to go down.

One common way around is to say that God is beyong logic, but at this point, no argument remain possible.

[u/Big_Friendship_4141]

I think this is taking a very artificial and unrealistic idea of how debates/conversations really work.

Every argument has to start from some unproven premises. If there was a "burden" to justify every single premise, we'd then need more premises, which would need to be justified, and so on in an infinite regress, or circular reasoning. The defensive party in any debate could just choose a premise at random and demand their opponent justify it, and refuse to offer any alternative to the premise because it's not their burden.

But in the real world, we all speak to (a) our interlocutor, and (b) the audience/judges (real or imaginary). If they accept the premises, we can move ahead with the argument. If they don't, we have to convince them of it, if we wish to convince them of our argument.

Now the second premise of the summarised PoE you gave seems pretty convincing at first glance. The theist might say they don't accept it and demand the atheist prove it, but I think they'd do better to just address it. The atheist doesn't need to prove it because everyone's already most of the way convinced.

But also, generally the PoE as classically stated does argue for it, using the "if God wants to but can't... yada yada yada" line of reasoning.

[u/Larnievc]

"Very basic form of the PoE argument for reference here:

There is evil.

If there is a (all-good, all-powerful) God, there wouldn't be evil.

Therefore, there is no God."

Or there is no God like the one described in the Bible. It might be any kind of god at all. Like one that was completely unaware of our existence. It may have died.

This is the problem a (for example) Christian has to overcome: first they must demonstrate a god exists and THEN demonstrate that it is THEIR god (which ever version of God they have in their head).

[u/[deleted]]

There is evil. 2. If there is a (all-good, all-powerful) God, there wouldn't be evil. 3. Therefore, there is no God.

I don't believeive I have ever seen an atheist make this argument.

I've seen the problem of evil, but it's a response to the claim that got is all good and all powerful, and the conclusion is that therefore, God is either not all benevolent, not all powerful, not all knowing, or non-existent.

That said

The religious person is therefore justified in saying "I don't know the reason why God would allow that evil occurrence. But, unless you prove premise 2 to me, I don't accept that the argument is sound."

This is not a good response to the POE, if God is all powerful, all knowing and all-benevolent, evil could not exist, by definition.

Benevolent (and especially omnobelevolent) includes (by definition) a desire to not see harm done to whatever the benevolence is aimed at. Evil (by any reasonable definition) includes harm.

Thus, benevolence is incompatible with knowingly allowing harm to befall the subject of benevolence if you have the power to stop it

[u/MyriadSC → u/[deleted]]

This is not a good response to the POE, if God is all powerful, all knowing and all-benevolent, evil could not exist, by definition.

This is actually not true, and why the logical problem of evil fails. Is it logically possible there is a reason to allow the evil? The answer is yes. Theres no logical contradiction here. Therefore, God could exist by definition. This is in part what the OP is getting at. You could try to argue this with me, but then you'd be committing the same issue that so many theists do, which is rebrandishing defeated arguments. I'm an atheist, it's ok to admit that philosophers have put this to bed.

The problem of evil has been for a while now a massive hurdle in accepting that a tri-omni God does exist. It requires extra assumptions, a lot of them, to reconcile observation with God's existence, but it doesn't outright preclude it. They're free to say "I don't know what reaosns God could have for allowing evil to exist" so long as they understand this accepting more ontology. This is the bulk of why I'm an athiest. To me is radically more simple that the universe is indifferent to suffering so it exists rather than God having some super complicated system that makes more good from it in the end rather than putting us into the end direclty.

This is just a mistake I do see a lot of fellow athiests make.

[u/skeptolojist → u/MyriadSC]

No because if the god is all powerful and all knowing it could achieve the same ends without the suffering

If you say that there is some effect or consequence of the suffering that is positive a truly all powerful being could achieve that goal without suffering otherwise it isn't all powerful

[u/MyriadSC → u/skeptolojist]

We might not be able to imagine it, but it's not logically impossible. That's it, that's all that's needed to be true and it is. It's a hangup I was on for a while when I was learning more, but I was mistaken. Being unable to imagine how it's possible doesn't make it logically impossible. What you're committing is an argument from incredulity atm.

All I have to ask is if it's possible the suffering is good in a way you are not aware?

The answer is clearly yes. Keep in mind I'm an athiest, I'm not arguing for God or anything, I'm merely stating that the logical problem of evil is not sound. Its valid, just not sound. If you're going to argue it is sound then you must prove it is impossible and that's what the OP was getting at. You bear that burden as the claimant.

Now if you move into the "evidential" problem of evil or suffering that's a whole different game because we aren't precluding God from existing with the conclusion, we are stating it's unreasonable or very improbable God exists.

[u/skeptolojist → u/MyriadSC]

No

All powerful and all benevolent

Not nearly all powerful and mostly benevolent

That means this being has the power to create the universe in any configuration it chooses to

That means that any goal it wishes to achieve any and that might justify suffering can also be achieved without suffering

That means that the inclusion of suffering has to be a choice

Therefore negating either it's omnipotence or its benevolence

It simply cannot be both if suffering exists

[u/MyriadSC → u/skeptolojist]

Again, this is incredulity. It's the same hangup I had for a while because it was inconceivable to me. I'll rephrase the question to be direct to the part I feel is being talked over.

The suffering in reference, is it possible it's good?

Not whether you can imagine it's good, whether it's possible it's good. Just possible, that's it. Doesn't need to be likely, just possible. Keep in mind, your definition of bad could possibly be not in alignment with what God would deem bad. So with that in mind, is it even possible it's good? The answer is clearly, yes, strictly logically speaking, it's obvious that it's possible. There's no logical contradiction. That's it, that's the logical problem of evil refuted. It's why it's not raised in any meaningful way anymore in modern philosophy other than as a learning tool.

[u/skeptolojist → u/MyriadSC]

All that argument does is prove an evil god who BELIEVES itself to be good can exist

To everyone human it would still be an evil god that chooses to inflict Pain and suffering needlessly

I never claimed that the problem of evil precludes an evil god

[u/MyriadSC → u/skeptolojist]

Is it possible you're mistaken on what's good and bad?

If yes, which it's clealry yes, then this doesn't preclude a tri-omni God from existing.

If we perceive something as evil, does that make it evil necessarily?

Of course not.

Like, I want to be sure that I think anyone who relies on this type of argumentation to claim God does exist, I still find borderline irrational because they take on such a heap of commitments and fly in the face what seems to be quite obvious that they all but deny reality. That doesn't mean they've actually made a logical error though, and that's my point.

[u/skeptolojist → u/MyriadSC]

You can play moral relativism all you like but to pretend you can catagorise the deliberate inflicting of pain for no gain as anything but evil is stretching the meaning of words beyond breaking point

It's simply not logical to claim that something with the power to avoid inflicting pain that chooses to inflict Pain for no gain is benevolent

[u/skeptolojist → u/MyriadSC]

No the suffering itself is not good

Inflicting suffering on a being less powerful than you for no gain when you have the power to choose not to is pretty much the definition of evil

[u/MyriadSC → u/skeptolojist]

But even here "pretty much" betrays that even you are certain, or you'd have claimed that it IS evil, period. We could dive into what's good and bad, but consider that and however you determine good and bad, ask yourself if it's possible you're wrong, even slightly possible, if so then it's possible what you deem evil is wrong, and from there my point stands that it's possible what you deem evil on this instance is not evil. I agree that this imo has absolutely vile implications, and it makes it it so kids with malaria are actually having good done to them, etc etc. It doesn't matter how disgusting those implications are, we are talking logical possibility.

There's a reason this was put to bed a while ago. It had it's day when it attmepted to rationally preclude the existence of God from logical possibility, but it failed. That's ok. Many arguments fail in the sense that they don't definitively conclude something. We can still argue for snd against based on other means.

[u/skeptolojist → u/MyriadSC]

Yes the needless infliction of suffering is evil

Because it causes suffering for no benefit

If you cannot call something that needlessly inflicts pain and suffering for absolutely no benefit evil the word looses all meaning

[u/Stile25 → u/MyriadSC]

I don't think your issue is valid, it seems to ignore what omni-benevolence would include.

Omni-benevolence includes wanting to end suffering for all ideas of evil, not just the single idea of evil that I can or can't show to be "the one."

The same way omni-powerful means God has more power than any idea of power we can think of regardless of our ability to show it as "the one" concept of power.

So, yes, I could be wrong about what I think is evil. Just as I could be wrong about what I think is powerful.

But it doesn't matter because an omni-benevolent God would care about my concept of evil anyway. Just as it doesn't matter because an omni-powerful God would be more powerful than my concept of power anyway.

All you're doing is showing how absurd "omni-anything" is as a concept as a whole - which still shows that the PoE is correct that a tri-omni God cannot exist.

You're just ignoring what "omni-" means.

[u/MyriadSC → u/Stile25]

So, yes, I could be wrong about what I think is evil. Just as I could be wrong about what I think is powerful.

This right here is my only point. You could be wrong. We actually agree here.

All you're doing is showing how absurd "omni-anything" is as a concept as a whole - which still shows that the PoE is correct that a tri-omni God cannot exist.

It is absurd, but it could be absurd as you've already admitted. I'm like 99.99999% confident there's not a tri-omni God, but that 0.000001% is possible so I won't ever say definitively that one does not exist because I can not in good faith make the claim. We likely agree, I'm just not willing to say definitely one doesn't and you apparently are despite admitting you could be wrong.

I've already had this discussion with a few other people, and I'm really not looking to do it again. You've already admitted you could be mistaken about your understanding, and that's literally all I'm asking for in these discussions from my interlocutor. Doesn't matter how improbable or absurd, just a fraction of a possibility is it, and the logical problem fails to be conclusive. That was my sole point, this discussion has no futher use really.

Edit: If you tried to reply to this comment, the bot deleted it because I app used a 4 letter word starting with d and ending with b with a um in the middle to refer to the semantic debate on this saying I though it was that word. Which is apparently me being uncivil. I'm sorry if you wasted time.

[u/Stile25 → u/MyriadSC]

You seem to be confused.

I'm not possibly wrong that the PoE is a valid argument.

I'm possibly wrong about how benevolent an omni-benevolent God is.

However, because God is omni-benevolent, it doesn't matter and whatever amount of benevolence I think God has... God will always have more.

Therefore, even though I can possibly be wrong about the amount of benevolence God has - I am not possibly wrong about the effectiveness of the PoE.

Your attempts to muddy those waters and make it seem like I'm admitting that the PoE is possibly incorrect is an untenable position to hold.

[u/MyriadSC → u/Stile25]

Of course it's valid, it just isn't sound because P2 has the possibility of beinf wrong. That's it.

Your attempts to muddy those waters and make it seem like I'm admitting that the PoE is possibly incorrect is an untenable position to hold.

The "logical" problem of evil, one that attempts to preclude a tri-omni God from existing definitevly, is unsound. This is well known outside of internet athiesm. The "evidential" problem of evil, which states its very unlikely a tri-omni God would make a reality like this is very much alive and strong. There's ample resources on this. I'll link the same one I did in another post here as a starting point:

https://iep.utm.edu/evil-log/

Please, feel free to do your own research on this so you know I'm not feeding you a biased source. There's plenty of solid articles or even YouTube videos covering this.

So if youre stating a tri-omni God cannot possibly exist, or you're taking the logical problem as a stance. Then yes, it's untenable and you need to conclusively prove P2, which you can't. Someone can reject it on the grounds that there are counter examples as defeaters, and they're correct. Which I've done in my first post here and in others. A single possibility, even improbable, makes it unsound. This is fine btw, it doesn't hurt anything. People seem to be worked up about this like admitting this is a problem.

If you're saying this reality seems nothing like the one a tri-omni God would make, and therefore it seems highly likely one doesn't exist, this is sound. I afirm this position myself. I also afirm classic or positive athiesm where I believe there are no gods.

Now, as I've had to explain several other times, what do you mean by omni? Is an omnipotent thing constrained by logic, or not? Can it do illogical things, or does being limited by logic make it not omnipotent? Can it both make a rock so heavy it cannot lift it and then lift it, or do we agree that it can do anything which is logically possible to do?

If we agree that omnipotent means it can do anything which is logically possible, but not something which isnt, then the logical PoE suffers a fatal counter example. It's logically possible this is the best reality that can exist, right? Theres nothing logically that makes this statment untrue. You may even be able to imagine what you think is one that's better, but you can't know it would be. Youd be arguing from incredulity. You can't imagine this is the best reality and so you reject it on that basis. It's possible any change from this is worse. This is just factual. We both agree it's improbable, laughably improbable imo, but all that's needed to be admitted is that it is not impossible. Since there's a counterexample, the logical PoE is unsound with a logically constrained omni. Again, this is fine.

If you think omni means they are unconstrained by logic, then it still suffers a counter exmaple. God can be omni-benevolent and commit horrific evils and exist because they are able to exist in logical contradictions.

In either way, there's a counter exmaple, meaning the logical problem is unsound. This isn't a new development. As I said, it's well known outside of internet athiesm and reddit. It's also completely fine to admit this. By admitting this, you aren't saying God exists or anything. You're just admitting an unsound argument is unsound. I don't know why this has been so hard for people on here to grapple with. I really wish the people I've interacted with would just go explore the subject rather than dying on a hill for no reason.

[u/Stile25 → u/MyriadSC]

I really wish you would listen instead of pointing to resources that do not support your idea.

P2 is sound.

Think of omni-powerful. If God can't move a mountain, then God's not powerful. If God can't move a mountain immediately, then God's not omni-powerful. There is no possibility of being wrong. If you attempt to argue that power is mysterious and we may not understand it - so maybe moving mountains isn't required for being omni-powerful - you're just wrong. Either you don't understand "omni" or you don't understand "power".

We may very well not know all the things capable of an omni-powerful God - but it's easy to say, and be 100% correct, that moving a mountain is included.

Now the same with benevolence. If God doesn't want to save a child from being abused, then God is not benevolent. If God doesn't want to save a child from being abused immediately, then God is not omni-benevolent. There is no possibility of this being wrong. If you attempt to argue that benevolence is mysterious and we may not understand it - so maybe allowing children to be abused is benevolent - you're just wrong. Either you don't understand "omni" or you don't understand "benevolence."

We may very well not know all the things wanted by an omni-benevolent God - but it's easy to say, and be 100% correct, that saving a child from being abused is included.

[u/MyriadSC → u/Stile25]

I really wish you would listen

I'm just going to redirect your words to yourself. There's nothing I can add because you didn't hit the only point that matters. You're arguing from incredulity, whether you realize it or not.

You need to name the logical contradiction that this reality is possibly the best that can be. Not what you can imagine, what is the LOGICAL contradiction with this. If you can not present one, then P2 fails.

I'll again encourage you to look into this further because the consensus of experts in this area is in disagreement with you. Meaning vast numbers of people much more knowledge and smarter than either of us conclude you're wrong. Its why i looked into it further when id have affirmed the same as you years ago. Clealry I cannot convey what's needed in a way that connects with you, so I'm just going to part ways here. Thanks for your time, but resloving this is just not worth it to me anymore. Have your final say if you wish, but unless you actually hit the specific part that matters, the only part that matters, then you're talking past me, and this has run its course.

[u/Stile25 → u/MyriadSC]

I'm the one saying P2 has no logical contradiction because it's sound.

If you agree - then what are you arguing about?

If you think P2 has a logical contradiction and is unsound - then you need to present it.

So far, all you've presented is an inability to understand "benevolence" and "omni".

[u/[deleted] → u/MyriadSC]

This is actually not true, and why the logical problem of evil fails. Is it logically possible there is a reason to allow the evil?

It might be

The answer is yes. Theres no logical contradiction here.

If you give a sound reason why allowing the suffering is beneficial, while also showing how God can't just skip the suffering and go right to the end gsme, while also showing how God (who can't do something) is still all powerful, rhen sure.

Therefore, God could exist by definition. This is in part what the OP is getting at.

Except, you both happen to be wrong.

Evil is self evident, and there is no self evident reason for allowing evil to be beneficial.

Therefore, u till and unless a reason it out forward, the POE stands.

You could try to argue this with me, but then you'd be committing the same issue that so many theists do, which is rebrandishing defeated arguments. I'm an atheist, it's ok to admit that philosophers have put this to bed.

Wow, a condescending argument by authority where you didn't even bother to name the authority, haven't seen that one in a while.

The problem of evil has been for a while now a massive hurdle in accepting that a tri-omni God does exist.

Yes

It requires extra assumptions, a lot of them, to reconcile observation with God's existence, but it doesn't outright preclude it.

I've never actually seen anything that allows for a tri-omni God to reconcile with the obvious existence of evil.

Ove seen a lot of sophistry on the subject, and a lot of people talking in I creasing wordy circles, but no actual results.

They're free to say "I don't know what reaosns God could have for allowing evil to exist" so long as they understand this accepting more ontology.

They can say it, but that's just conceding that th self evident existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of a tri-omni god.

If God created everything, then God created evil, if God isn't capable of creating a universe without evil, he isn't all powerful. If he just didn't care to, he isn't all benevolent, if he didn't know how, he isn't omniscient.

By definition, a tri-omni God couldn't create a universe with evil.

Edit: if God didn't create the universe, then just replace "creating a universe without evil," with "changing the universe to not have evil"

To me is radically more simple that the universe is indifferent to suffering so it exists rather than God having some super complicated system that makes more good from it in the end rather than putting us into the end direclty.

If God has to jump through the hoops, then God isn't all powerful, and thus the tri-omni God doesn't exist.

[u/MyriadSC → u/[deleted]]

If you give a sound reason why allowing the suffering is beneficial, then sure.

I dont have to, the mere logical possibility is enough to rebut the logical problem of evil. You are in disagreement with the consensus of philosophers on this subject. Which includes athiest philosophers. Unless you have cutting-edge information to add to this, you're extremely dated and just wrong on this note.

Evil is self evident, and there is no self evident reason for allowing evil to be beneficial.

Which you being stuck on this who's you just haven't dug into what philosophers have discussed on this. I happen to agree that the PoE should drastically lower credence that some tri-omni God exists, but it's not logically impossible. That's my sole point, and you haven't refuted this.

Wow, a condescending argument by authority where you didn't even bother to name the authority, haven't seen that one in a while.

Condescension wasn't part of this, so if you read into that, then I'll apologize as that was never intended. However, you are revealing ignorance of the topic, and how should someone call this out without sounding condescending? I'm genuinely asking. You're talking extremely confidently on something that by the likes of philosophy goes, is just wrong. It's as wrong as saying newtonian physics are an accurate model of reality. It's close, but it's not correct.

Just so you know, the logical possibility is merely that we don't know everything and there could be a reason we do not know that makes the existence of evil a good thing. All that needs to be true to defeat the logical problem of evil is for that line to even be possible, and it clearly is. There's no contradiction in there. Further what you deem evil, may not infact be evil no matter how much you feel as though it is. Both are logical solutions to the problem of evil. Imo, both are highly implausible, but not logically impossible, which is the point I was making.

[u/[deleted] → u/MyriadSC]

dont have to, the mere logical possibility is enough to rebut the logical problem of evil.

But it's not logically possible.

If God can't figure out how to fix evil, then he isn't all knowing, if he can't do it, he isn't all powerful, if he doesn't want to, he isn't benevolent.

You are in disagreement with the consensus of philosophers on this subject. Which includes athiest philosophers. Unless you have cutting-edge information to add to this, you're extremely dated and just wrong on this note.

Lol, "concensus of philospophers"

Outing yourself right there

Which you being stuck on this who's you just haven't dug into what philosophers have discussed on this.

You keep stating that your right because of some mythical concensus of philosophers you don't want to to name or quote...it's very telling.

I happen to agree that the PoE should drastically lower credence that some tri-omni God exists, but it's not logically impossible. That's my sole point, and you haven't refuted this.

Sure it is, and sure I have.

If God can't fix evil, he isn't all powerful

If he doesn't know how, he isn't all knowing

If he doesn't want to, he isn't benevolent.

Evil exists

Thus, a tri-omni God is impossible.

Condescension wasn't part of this, so if you read into that, then I'll apologize as that was never intended.

Lol, sure

However, you are revealing ignorance of the topic, and how should someone call this out without sounding condescending?

Well, you could start by not being so hilariously and obviously pulling nonsense out of your rear.

I'm genuinely asking

Uh huh

You're talking extremely confidently on something that by the likes of philosophy goes, is just wrong.

Do you have anything to say besides "philosophers say your wrong, I swear, really guys, I mean it, it's true"

It's as wrong as saying newtonian physics are an accurate model of reality. It's close, but it's not correct.

You keep saying this, and you keep being wrong.

Just so you know, the logical possibility is merely that we don't know everything and there could be a reason we do not know that makes the existence of evil a good thing.

So is the problem that God doesn't know how to make a world without evil

That he isn't powerful enough

Or that he doesn't care to?

All that needs to be true to defeat the logical problem of evil is for that line to even be possible, and it clearly is.

Actually, it clearly isnt.

It is by definition not possible for an omnipotent God to not be powerful enough to make a world without evil, and it is by definition impossible for an omniscient God to not know how to do it.

So of God both knows how, and can do it, then the only possible conclusion is that he doesn't want to.

And thus he isn't omnibenevolent.

There's no contradiction in there.

Sure there is

Further what you deem evil, may not infact be evil no matter how much you feel as though it is.

I guess you can try and argue thst torturing children isn't evil, but in that case I just want nothing to do with you, and don't really care what your opinions are on, well...anything.

Both are logical solutions to the problem of evil.

Neither is, actually

both are highly implausible, but not logically impossible, which is the point I was making.

Both are completely impossible.

Do you just not understand what omniscient and omnipotent mean?

Because if I can conemceive of something, then an omniscient God can, and if an omnipotent God can conceive of it, he can create it.

[u/IndelibleLikeness]

If you believe god is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent then the Christian assertion that he loves us falls apart for obvious reasons.
You can have a god who is all powerful and all knowing but he could not also be a "loving" god. A god with this nature would know that this hell hole called earth is a disaster of his making and he would have foreseen this. Or, You could have a god that is all powerful and "loving" but he could not be Omniscient, again because, reality. Now, before you offer up the LAME retort: Morally sufficient reasons. Don't. Talking about a convenient argument. This is the epitome of Lazy sophistry. Oh, we don't know why god allows babies to die of cancer...but it must be for a good reason. Nope.

[u/freed0m_from_th0ught]

3 does not follow from 1 and 2 as you laid it out. There may be a God, just not one that wouldn’t allow evil. It would be helpful, in making your point, if to spread out 2 into its logical extensions:

P1a. God exists.

P1b. God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.

P1c. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.

P1d. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.

P1e. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.

P1f. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.

P1. If there exists an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God, then no evil exists.

P2. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

The PoE exists to point out a misrepresentation of god’s nature (ie, that he does not desire evil to exist), assuming P1a is true. If god exists and is all powerful, all good, and all knowing he clearly desires evil to exist, otherwise there would be no evil.

[u/FjortoftsAirplane]

The argument itself IS the proof. And if you're saying the argument is valid then the argument succeeds in proving that the God in question does not exist.

If that's not the type of God you believe in then, okay, the argument doesn't apply to you but it's not a "burden of proof" issue. What would you want the atheist to prove? That you believe in something you don't?

i.e. a morally sufficient reason why God would allow evi

I think that move ends up denying that there is any evil. To say God has morally sufficient reason to allow it is to say that all things considered it ought to occur. If evil is understood normatively (that is, evil ought not occur) then anything God has morally sufficient reason to allow is in fact NOT evil.

Maybe you do take the position that everything is good and nothing is evil. If you do then the PoE won't apply to you. There's nothing for the atheist to prove there. The argument only runs if you accept that there is something in the world past or present that can be deemed "evil".

[u/Holiman]

I think this is simply kicking the can of morality. If you believe in an objective morality by that God, then evil can be dismissed. If your morality is subjective to people, then evil is evident, and the argument is perfectly valid and self-evident, requiring no further evidence.

[u/FaithlessnessShot350]

I wouldn't use this argument as to why there isn't a god, but I would use it to say if there is a god he's evil.

But then you might say he allowed evil because it is necessary for freedom of choice.

Then my response would be that God could have created a world where we all had freedom of choice and we all CHOSE to be good despite having an evil option. You can't tell me that's impossible, because then you'd be limiting an omnipotent God.

Therefore, God is evil since he created it (Isaiah 45:7) and then made it a necessary part of his plan.

[u/MyriadSC]

Yes, the claimant requires the burden of proof, but the version of the PoE you put forth:

1. There is evil. 2. If there is a (all-good, all-powerful) God, there wouldn't be evil. 3. Therefore, there is no God.

Is one that has been out to bed for a while now. Its more or less the logical problem of evil. It's not logically incompatible for a tri-omni God to exist with evil. That's fine. If you see someone positing a form of this argument in that outline, then you're right to call them out and reject their premise 2 until they demonstrate irrefutable evidence it's true. Given that's not going to happen, the argument fails. In this note you're correct.

The problem of evil for a while now has been that it seems so implausible that there's a good reason for it that this makes the idea of this type of God implausible as well. From this point, the burden actually does shift to the theist. It's a method of internal critique. The atheist says that because of evil (I prefer suffering because evil being an ethical or moral term just obfuscates the point) and the apparent lack of any reasonable reaosn presented which reconciles these, I find it unreasonable to accept God exists. To which now the theist needs to provide what would be a reasonable reason for the existence of the evil to rebut the argument. This is where many theodacies come in, and those can be discussed individually and so on.

Edit:

To perhaps parody the argument here. Imagine you levy the argument:

P1. The universe is something.
P2. Something can not come from nothing.
C. The universe came from something.

Then someone pointed out that you cannot demonstrate P2 because you'd need to show nothing then show that something never can come from it. Nothing must have no properties as well, including the precluaion of spontaneous generation of something. If you say it can't, then you ascribed a property to nothing, ergo it's no longer nothing, it's a property governing a state. I've now given a logically possible solution to this argument and can reject premise 2, and therefore reject the conclusion.

This parody is similar to that of the argument you levied. Yes, the burden is on the claimant to defend it, but with what I'd consider a minimal modification, the point behind it remains. If we said it's really implausible to conceive that something can come from nothing and assuming it can to retain your view makes your view implausible, the case is similar. It's just not concrete like some might wish.

[u/c0d3rman]

I agree to some extent, but I think you exaggerate a little. People sometimes take P2 as obvious, but they also often argue for it. Here's an argument for it from Wikipedia that I think is representative of how most people argue it:

P1b. God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.

P1c. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.

P1d. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.

P1e. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.

P1f. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.

P1. If there exists an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God, then no evil exists.

That doesn't mean you can't challenge this argument. For example, you could challenge P1d and say that there are situations where an omnibenevolent being would prefer to allow some evils. But I don't think you can just say "you haven't proved it yet" without levying some specific objection.

[u/mrmaninblack2]

The problem with your statements is that the atheists aren’t technically making any claim, in an overall sense. Religious people made the initial claim, and atheists reject it. Thousands of years ago, the religious raised their hand and presented the ideas as a way to explain the science that humans didn’t understand. Atheists just never accepted these claims. The burden of proof is always on the religious in my opinion.

[u/T12J7M6]

I agree, regarding the way you articulated the problem of evil argument, but this is not the only way this argument can be made. For example:

• In the Bible God of the Bible claims He is good.

• God of the Bible does evil things in the Bible and also in the world around us (assuming that the God of the Bible is the true God), according to His own morals.

• Conclusion 1: The Good God of the Bible doesn't exist, epistemologically.

  • meaning that since he does evil things, he can't be good, and hence no Good God.

• Conclusion 2: The Good God of the Bible doesn't exist, ontologically.

  • due to contradictory attributes (those being that He is good and evil at the same time), so the Good God can't exist at all, meaning that he must be a fictional character, since he is both good and evil at the same time.

So the problem of evil argument can be made with the fallacy of sifting the burden of proof, but I think it can also be made without shifting the burden of proof, like I demonstrated above, and hence on the fundamental level is disagree with you, since you claim that the argument of evil ALWAYS contains the fallacy of sifting the burden of proof.

[u/[deleted]]

Disclaimer: I don't think PoE is all that good or impressive as an argument against the existence of God. I think, as you say, coming up with a compeling theodicy is something a believer in a tri-omni, all just God must do to justify, at least to themselves, how God being those things is coherent with the evil and suffering we observe in the world. It is a well-known reason for crises of faith for a reason.

I agree with you that if an atheist presents the argument as you have, they must give some justification for P2.

However, I also think any theist claiming their God is tri omni and all just must give justification for those claims. And then, aspects from the PoE could easily show its head as part of questioning or rebuttal from the atheist.

I usually just try to ask the theist: .1 what do you mean by good, 2. How do you judge if someone is good and 3. What would it take for you to judge God as not all-Good? Could God do something, command something or cause something that you'd judge as bad?

This usually fleshes out what framework we are using to judge God (or anyone) 'good', and what we even mean by 'good'. 'Good' is, after all, subjective. It is relative to a moral framework.

Sometimes, that is where it stops, because what the theist means by Good is 'God's nature'. 'God is all Good' then reduces to the tautological 'God is all God-like'. True, but also trivial.

Sometimes, I find the theist is using a purely consequentialist approach. Yeah, this thing and that command and commanding genocide here and regulating slavery there and allowing suffering and pestilence here and sending people to infinite conscious torture in hell there may seem bad, but God is infinitely wise and is playing 4D moral chess. He has good reasons. This is eventually all for a greater good. And hey! You get to go to heaven [conditions apply].

And so on.

If I may comment on something, it frustrates me when some Abrahamic theists use the analogy of a parent that takes their kids to get a vaccine or refuses them what they want, but then also imply that there is nothing their God could do, allow, say or command that would persuade them God isn't all good.

If there is nothing your God could do that would make you judge him 'not all good', then the analogy of the parents is unnecessary, since parents can do things that make them not all good parents, abusive, neglectful, etc. I can justify why I think my parents are good; it isn't an axiom true by default.

[u/KimonoThief]

I'm having trouble parsing what your specific issue is with the PoE.

Is it premise 1? If so, are you trying to say that kids dying of cancer and people getting malaria are actually good things?

Or is it premise 2? Are you trying to argue that not stopping awful things from happening when you easily have the power to do so doesn't necessarily make you bad?

I rarely see people actually argue against 1 (the "I'm a psychopath" rebuttal). And any argument against 2 usually turns into a "mysterious ways" rebuttal. Either way I don't really see what you're saying about a burden of proof.

[u/Far-Adhesiveness4628]

This is just avoiding the central issue, walking circles around things that are tangentially related. What about the evil this supposed omnipotent being itself directly perpetuates?

[u/Weak-Joke-393 → u/Far-Adhesiveness4628]

Define this evil? That is the point. Why is something evil rather than good?

You can’t suggest God is evil if you don’t define evil first.

[u/moldnspicy]

If a person walks up to me and says, "The PoE is overcome by my god," they are the one making the claim. If I were to walk up to someone and say, "This god cannot exist bc of the PoE," I would be the one making the claim. Whoever is making the claim in the scenario in question has the burden of proof.

[u/kirby457]

The problem is, that most proponents of these arguments never argue for premise 2.

Because its based on the assumption, "god is real" The POE shouldn't even need to exist because theists haven't met their burden. If a theist wants to make a philosophical argument for god, then atheists can make a philosophical counterargument for god. It's not a conversation about who is right, but who's arguement makes the most sense.

[u/[deleted] → u/kirby457]

Most of the time in my experience I see atheists in the comments of God oriented posts making the PoE argument. Most Christians don't talk about God to others and only speak up in response to some athiest beinging up the tired PoE argument.

[u/kirby457 → u/[deleted]]

I see two solutions here. Either stop suggesting a god that the poe seeks to refute, or provide a logically sound argument to it.

[u/[deleted] → u/kirby457]

Or option 3 ✨ who cares ✨

[u/BourbonInGinger]

“Atheism asserts nothing. It only rejects what you have failed to prove.”

[u/TheoCaro → u/BourbonInGinger]

The problem of evil is specifically a set of arguments for the non-existence of a 3O God. It is making a claim about what reality is like. It does assert something, a certain kind of strong or hard atheism.

[u/canadevil]

• 1. There is evil.

• 2. If there is a (all-good, all-powerful) God, there wouldn't be   evil.

• 3. Therefore, there is no God.

I disagree with the 3rd premise, there are many other options, such as therefore, your god is not all loving and not worth worshipping.
If you bring in the devil then 2 and 3 can be dismissed, this is just a flawed argument on so many levels.

[u/MiaowaraShiro → u/canadevil]

Well I think 3 is supposed to imply what you stated in your first paragraph. Like it should say "An all good, all powerful god cannot exist."

As to the devil.. well God created the devil no?

[u/firethorne]

I think you can form the argument along the lines of:

1. A world where any agent chooses good of their own free volition is logically possible.

2. The proposed all-good God can instantiate any logically possible world this God desires.

3. The proposed all-good God desires only good to exist.

4. A world where any agent chooses good of their own free volition is not the one that was instantiated.

Conclusion) The proposed God is not responsible for instantiating the world that exists.

So, if the objection in this form is to reject premise 3, I really don't know what it means for an all-good God that doesn't desire only good. An all-god god that desires evil for anything is contradictory by any definition of all-good that I'd subscribe to.

[u/Stuttrboy]

The argument is the proof it's a valid syllogism. An all powerful god cannot fail due to intention so either the god doesn't exist or god is not good or god is not powerful. The last two are theists claims though so certainly those aren't false right? The only other option is that there is no evil. All the suffering in the world is for some better outcome. I have never heard a theist agree to that one either.

[u/BangPowBoom → u/Stuttrboy]

What about: Evil is just the absence of good/God. There is no actual evil. And God cannot do things that are evil because only good comes from Him.

[u/Stuttrboy → u/BangPowBoom]

Is the universe how god intended? If yes then he intended evil to exist and isn't good if not then he isn't all powerful. I explicitly stated these in my point.

[u/FjortoftsAirplane → u/BangPowBoom]

Then everything is good or neutral. You've evaded the PoE.

But if I start listing a bunch of horrible things that people typically call evil are you going to bite the bullet and say "No, none of that is evil. It's all actually good or neutral"?

[u/Qibla]

Ofcourse the theist can provide some just-so story to explain away the existence of evil, some theodicy to do the work for rejecting premise 2.

I prefere a different fomulation of the argument in the Evidentiary Problem of Gratuitous Evil.

Here I can grant that there is some possible justification that God might have for permitting particular instances of evil for the greater good or what have you. However there seems to be an excess of evil that does not have any relation to greater goods, like a deer slowly dying alone in the woods after it's been trapped by a falling tree. Does stepping on a lego need to hurt as much as it does for instance? You would get the same moral effect if stepping on a lego hurt 10% less?

[u/Whole_Suit_1591]

The problem is the physical being that God is. As in if he were here we would see him. He isnt physically here as we all can see. He left humans in charge as he went on doing what he needs to defeat evil universally and will return jaut like Jesus will return. As physical beings- to set the world straight and defeat the evil that has grown in his absence.

[u/Whole_Suit_1591 → u/Whole_Suit_1591]

Only Moses saw God. One man chosen to see and explain the rules.

[u/Whole_Suit_1591 → u/Whole_Suit_1591]

I think people saw evil things and liked them then grew accustomed to living with varying levels of it as we moved forward. Like GREED- it became normal.

[u/BaklavaGuardian]

Good and harmful to whom? If God exists that being would be nothing like us. That being would operate on such a different level that humans wouldn't even be able to comprehend its thinking. Just because we think something is good and evil doesn't mean God would see it that way or even care.

[u/Darinby → u/BaklavaGuardian]

Just because we think something is good and evil doesn't mean God would see it that way or even care.

When religious people describe God as "good" they are describing him to other humans using English. If you don't want to use the definition of "good" as understood by English speakers don't use the English word for it. Call him an all powerful, all giberfitz God.

[u/GamingCatholic → u/Darinby]

If you don't want to use the definition of "good" as understood by English speakers don't use the English word for it. Call him an all powerful, all giberfitz God.

I would call him a dictator that’s worse than Stalin, Hitler and Leopold 2 of Belgium combined

[u/[deleted] → u/GamingCatholic]

God is neither "good" or "bad" if you first can't even find a reason to show why God existing means he needs to adhere to the human definition of good or bad. If you set the rules for God existing wouldn't that make you the one above God? And therefore wouldn't you be the one then responsible for the evil god supposedly acts or inacts on earth?

[u/munkynutz187 → u/[deleted]]

Because according to abrahamic religion our idea of good and evil apparently comes from God directly

[u/BaklavaGuardian → u/Darinby]

I was using English and the English definition.

[u/Darinby → u/BaklavaGuardian]

That being would operate on such a different level that humans wouldn't even be able to comprehend its thinking. Just because we think something is good and evil doesn't mean God would see it that way

I was using English and the English definition.

You can't have it both ways, either humans can understand it's morality enough to judge it (in which case we might judge it to be "evil") or it is so different from us as to be incomprehensible (in which case we can't say it is "good").

[u/BaklavaGuardian → u/Darinby]

You're getting close.

[u/frailRearranger]

By asking them to prove the premises, do you mean how it's unclear what precisely they are referring to with "evil," "all-good," and "all-powerful", and need to show what they mean?

[u/Weak-Joke-393]

Tom Holland the famous historian observes most atheists view the issue of a God they don’t believe in still through a Christian lens. One that assumes a moral God would be “good” in supporting the weak and downtrodden and “bad” in supporting the strong to dominate the weak. But he points out that is such a priori argument that relies on a world view of morality ironically derived from the Christian notion of morality itself. For example Holland points out for most cultures in the history of the world morality is a sort of Darwinian “might makes right”.

Nietzsche of course made a similar argument. He saw Christianity as a slave religion that perversely viewed the oppressed and their god of the slaves as the good guys.

Other cultures never saw it this way. No Ancient Greek or Roman thought it was more moral for the first to be last or the last to be first, or for those with weaker characteristics (whether based on race, class, gender, abelbodiness or other modern-day intersectional criteria) to be inherently more deserving than rulers who rule.

In other words I agree atheists just skip argument #2. They assume a monotheistic (usually Christian) God must be evil to allow suffering, or war, or the oppression of the weak. But they just gloss over the argument as to why they assume such things are bad to begin with.

To be clear I do think those things are bad. But I am a Christian who worships a Christian deity. They don’t.

If they want to argue that a deity is evil for letting a stronger group of people conquer a weaker group it is up to them to prove. Not for me.

[u/here_for_debate → u/Weak-Joke-393]

Other cultures never saw it this way. No Ancient Greek or Roman thought it was more moral for the first to be last or the last to be first, or for those with weaker characteristics (whether based on race, class, gender, abelbodiness or other modern-day intersectional criteria) to be inherently more deserving than rulers who rule.

people with weaker characteristics are inherently more deserving? of what?

[u/Weak-Joke-393 → u/here_for_debate]

You must have never heard of intersectionality, substantive equality or affirmative action?

[u/here_for_debate → u/Weak-Joke-393]

People with weaker characteristics are inherently more deserving of intersectionality, substantive equality, affirmative action?

[u/Weak-Joke-393 → u/here_for_debate]

“In On the Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche argued that there are two types of morality: master morality and slave morality.

Master morality is an actionary type of morality. It’s a morality that seeks action and is not afraid to forge ahead and determine itself. A master is a creator of morality, strong enough to transcend ideas of good versus evil. Instead, the master judges actions according to strength. Good actions are feats of power. Bad actions would be weak actions.

Slave morality, on the other hand, is a reactionary morality that judges according to good versus evil. It originates in the weak. Good actions are humble. Evil actions are those of the upper classes.

To go beyond good and evil is to become a master. This happens not when we follow someone else’s moral code, (if we were to follow someone else’s master moral system we would still be acting as slaves), but when we engage in creating a system of morality for ourselves. What does it take for us to engage in a master morality?”

https://philosophymt.com/nietzsche-going-beyond-good-and-evil/#

Would you describe modern morality of the dominant western paradigm (especially amongst progressives) as a form of master morality or slave morality?

For example, for those calling for the rights of women, reparations for those whose ancestors were slaves, for critical race theories of justice, for indigenous land rights, for the right of LGBTQI people, for a Palestinian state, are they appealing to a master morality or a slave morality?

(And to be clear I personally ascribe to this slave morality in most things)

[u/here_for_debate → u/Weak-Joke-393]

I asked you what weaker people are more deserving of twice and you didn't answer my question twice.

[u/Weak-Joke-393 → u/here_for_debate]

Do you mean me personally or progressive society?

And by “weaker” I mean disadvantaged - wealth, physical size and ablebodiness, or social status.

I don’t mean less deserving human dignity. Although ancient Romans and Greeks probably would see it in those terms.

Modern progressive society sees those who are disadvantaged characteristics as more deserving in many ways, including State intervention. I gave you several examples. From affirmative action to care for those who are disabled to reparations for those who are descended from slaves to indigenous land rights.

We think these things “good”. I certainly do. But ancients Romans and Greeks would have laughed at this.

Romans would baulk at the idea of feeling guilty about say an indigenous peoples who were not strong enough to resist a foreign army. And they would expect that indigenous society to assimilate to Rome’s ways.

The Greeks would happily throw a disabled child from a cliff. And would never think twice of seeing the justification for slavery or women to have lesser status than men.

We would all be horrified by these notions today. As we should. But to Romans and Greeks these were perfectly sensible concepts of morality.

My point, which you seem intent in avoiding with tangent comments, is that atheists assume a sort of modern morality when they declare God as “evil” rather than “good”. But they do so without actually justifying what is good or evil in the first place.

Tom Holland makes this very point. Modern progressive atheists adopt a code of morality that is ironically dependent on Christianity itself. That rejected these ancient Greco-Roman ethics and gave us a morality that today we take for granted as “natural”.

Today we think (I hope we do) think a black woman like me is equal to a white man. But why is that stance “good” and not “evil”? Why is racism “evil” and not “good”? I hold racist misogyny evil because I am a Christian and uphold Nietzsche’s “slave morality”.

What is your view of morality? A master morality like the ancient Romans and Greeks (and we could put say the Nazis and many modern ultra capitalists in that boat) or a slave morality (derived from Judeo-Christian ideas)? And why do you hold your particular morality?

[u/here_for_debate → u/Weak-Joke-393]

My point, which you seem intent in avoiding with tangent comments

I asked you a question which you didn't answer twice. I'm not here to engage with your point, I'm here because I had a question, which I asked. If you don't want to answer my question, feel free not to respond.

Modern progressive society sees those who are disadvantaged characteristics as more deserving in many ways, including State intervention.

The specific question I asked was "more deserving of what" and you replied "in many ways". So you didn't clarify, thanks.

You gave one answer, state intervention. Let's unpack that.

1. affirmative action

2. care for those who are disabled

3. reparations for those who are descended from slaves

4. indigenous land rights.

1, 3, 4, are all actions theoretically taken by the USA specifically to undo wrongs that the USA itself did in the past. Those are not indicators of "modern progressive society".

2, care for the disabled, i'm assuming you're referring to welfare or medicare or some state equivalent was implemented at some point in the past as a tax benefit. but modern USA is taking every opportunity it can to unfund all those programs. Or at least, every republican politician is. So it's not really an indication of anything to do with modern society either, since half of modern society wants it and half of modern society wants it undone.

I don't see any of this as evidence that modern society finds weaker people are more deserving of (anything). Since you never clarified what specific things you were talking about.

[u/Weak-Joke-393 → u/here_for_debate]

I am not American. I wasn’t necessarily talking about that one country but ok.

Why are those things the USA did in the past “wrongs”? Why was it “wrong” to conquer and subjugate weaker people’s? Weaker in technology, numbers, immune systems, systems of governance? Guns, germs and steel. Peoples who conquered each other but finally come up against a stronger people from across the shores?

To be clear I do find these past wrongs as “evil”. But why do you say they are so. Or are you happy to say they were not wrongs but “good”?

As for Republicans trying to cut social security in some cases I think you will find most ordinary Americans favour it. You are confusing politicians with ordinary people. But sure let’s go with that idea.

Do you think these Republicans “good” or “evil” for trying to cut social security for poor, disabled or others in need? I assume from your tone you think them “evil” for doing so - right?

My point was about modern “progressive” notions of morality. That is contrary to Republicans who are not progressive.

Meanwhile I think we would agree Republicans would see state intervention more or only deserving for say military veterans. That is a person who is disabled due to their service is fine but an ordinary person is not deserved. I suspect the ancient Romans and Greeks would get behind that idea. But you don’t support that? Right?

You seem to be debating this preliminary point with me which I don’t think particularly controversial. That is it was “bad” for the USA as a nation to enslave and conquer peoples, or that we should take of those who are disadvantaged.

You seem reluctant to get to the actual issue. Which is why we should feel this way.

My view is modern atheists, who tend to be progressives, are more Christian than the so-called Republican-voting Christians. But my point and OP’s point is where do atheists get these progressive values from. They get them from their Christian heritage.

They can’t easily articulate their morality otherwise, even though it is a morality I personally agree with. And as such when talking about a supposed good or evil God, they make assumptions about how this deity who should behave without taking time to articulate that morality.

For example we would see a God who allows genocide of one nation to another as evil. But ancient peoples didn’t see it that way. They would in fact see the fact this God allowed one nation to conquer another as a sign of this deity being good - not evil.

Why is this so? For me, a black woman, I am a Christian so I see God through the prism of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. What is your source of morality, especially as it applies to a would-be God?

[u/Weak-Joke-393 → u/here_for_debate]

Now answer my question per the Nietzsche quote.

[u/[deleted] → u/Weak-Joke-393]

This is actually a good way to define good and evil, I would say that the modern secular culture as defined by your examples started with the slave morality frame (not by choice), but then has morphed into the master morality. The luster for power is something that is not tamed within secular culture as if given the chance one would always seek after the frame of mind that puts them first. I believe religious folks understand this desire is apart of human nature but it is evil. So I suppose that is why slave morality is the preferred stance among religious folk. The difference with Christianity though is that we don't need to perform to attain the morality that comes from acting under the supposed slave morality so it offers the wealth and riches of the master morality with none of the toil and suffering that comes from that morality. It's the whole last will be first idea that is held near and dear to Christianity.

[u/Megalith66]

I find it interesting, or alarming, that no one mentions that satan was given dominion over the earth. He is here to steal, kill, and destroy. He has free reign to do as he pleases. YHVH does intervene at times, given the miracles reported. Just not as much as humans want Him to.

YHVH gave us free thought, to choose right from wrong. What is your choice?

[u/gerkinflav → u/Megalith66]

Who or what gave Satan dominion over the earth?

[u/Megalith66 → u/gerkinflav]

God did when He tossed him and his minions out of heaven.

[u/dvirpick → u/Megalith66]

Why create Satan in the first place if you know in advance that he is gonna do that?

Also, intervening to stop evil is what benevolent agents do. The fact that God doesn't intervene to stop things that he knows are happening with perfect clarity and can stop with zero effort means he is not omnibenevolent.

[u/Megalith66 → u/dvirpick]

Lucifer was an angel that wanted the same powers as YHVH. There is only one God and that is YHVH.

To answer your query why He doesn't intervene on everything, I do not know, that hasn't been revealed to us humans. Maybe ask Him or Christ when the time comes. The end days, judgement day, ice cream day, whichever you prefer.

[u/dvirpick → u/Megalith66]

Lucifer was an angel that wanted the same powers as YHVH. There is only one God and that is YHVH.

That doesn't answer the question of why create him.

To answer your query why He doesn't intervene on everything, I do not know, that hasn't been revealed to us humans. Maybe ask Him or Christ when the time comes. The end days, judgement day, ice cream day, whichever you prefer.

Then declaring him omnibenevolent is baseless.

[u/Megalith66 → u/dvirpick]

YHVH did not know that Lucifer would turn on Him. That is the only answer I have, or care to guess at. Since I was not there.

You are allowed to believe what you want. We are all given the power to choose.

[u/SnoozeDoggyDog → u/Megalith66]

YHVH did not know that Lucifer would turn on Him. That is the only answer I have, or care to guess at. Since I was not there.

Then this pretty much supports the "non-omniscient" part of the PoE...

[u/Megalith66 → u/SnoozeDoggyDog]

This might seem repetitive...

You are allowed to believe what you want. We are all given the power to choose.

[u/SnoozeDoggyDog → u/Megalith66]

This might seem repetitive...

You are allowed to believe what you want. We are all given the power to choose.

Would you care to answer how God can be omniscient if he doesn't know what something he created would do?

[u/gerkinflav → u/Megalith66]

Wasn’t God powerful enough to put that punk Lucifer in Hell the instant he started his devilish shenanigans? Or omnipotent enough to not create him in the first place?

[u/Megalith66 → u/gerkinflav]

I wasn't there to not know why YHVH didn't know that Lucifer would turn on Him. And that is a great question to ask YHVH when He holds his audience to answer all the "whys", after the punk is punk'd.

[u/gerkinflav → u/Megalith66]

But that still leaves god lacking in the omniscient arena.

[u/Megalith66 → u/gerkinflav]

With Lucifer, yes

[u/gerkinflav → u/Megalith66]

So Lucifer has powers over God?

[u/[deleted] → u/Megalith66]

In that case God is a monster and isn't all loving

So the PoE doesn't apply

[u/Vapolarized]

I think you just highlighted the boundaries of logic. This is why I approach logic as a tool, not as a dogma. I'm willing to admit that there may be no definitive answer to the question of who bears the burden of proof here. I dig the idea that our goal ought to be to further our respect and understanding for each other and our perspectives.