tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post7978126589914934057..comments2024-02-26T03:25:06.471+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: The Evil God challenge cartoonStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger131125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-71371475431242062372013-10-07T11:34:59.303+00:002013-10-07T11:34:59.303+00:00Well this one's easy.
It is more reasonable...Well this one's easy. <br /><br /><br />It is more reasonable to conclude that God is good based on His creative abilities. ie. God instituted and uphold moral goodness as the foundation for all things known. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-33903425195182380272012-12-09T19:58:37.186+00:002012-12-09T19:58:37.186+00:00I was about to leave a comment but am too frighten...I was about to leave a comment but am too frightened for fear of being caught in the crossfire of dr stephen, ben, djindra, mr spam and testinganidea. I don't want to die. not in my lifetime. However, bless you all. <br /><br />cowardly anonymous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-26409059420493874252012-12-04T10:17:56.261+00:002012-12-04T10:17:56.261+00:00Your EG hypothesis and its alleged refutation are ...<br />Your EG hypothesis and its alleged refutation are based on the assumption that this is the only world we are destined to live in.<br /><br />However, according to the different theistic world-views, this world is perceived as a preliminary test or trial, and what is seen at stake is each individual's own morality through which he/she passes or fails the current test.<br /><br />Therefore any claim as to God's moral character based on empirical observation in this world seems to be false, or at least it rests on an inadequate and insufficient premise that can be accepted as "true" only by a naturalist/materialist. <br /><br />Free will is the key that the EG hypothesis primarily disregards. Free will is the freedom of each of us to choose between morally good or bad intentions/acts, which definitely reduces this world from it best potential to a much lower degree. <br />In this world to make the right choice is particularly demanding, because in many cases we find that those who are morally good, or at least refrain from intentional evil acts, are often subjected to suffering, and most often they become the victims of those who deliberately choose, justify and carry out evil deeds. <br /><br />The high probability of suffering in this world from such perspective is very different from the Buddhist view, which actually does not worship any God at all, either personal or non-personal.<br /><br />Theistic views are different because they claim that there are other worlds where those will live who have made the moral choice on the side of goodness (humility, loving kindness, justice, compassion, tolerance, mercifulness, etc) even if their choice inflict suffering caused by the evil-doers.<br /><br />On a side note, it is a myth that Christianity is an immoral world-view. The original Christian world-view is represented by Christ and through his character, which manifests God's moral perfection. He himself rejected and revised the morally imperfect claims of the Old Testament. <br />He, as a human had to suffer by those who hated his moral goodness and preferred a world ruled by their evil deeds instead. <br /><br />Another note: I am coming from an agnostic position, therefore my comment is not meant to be a means to proselytize.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02008513902931730833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-77516325161160752122012-12-04T10:17:18.628+00:002012-12-04T10:17:18.628+00:00Your EG hypothesis and its alleged refutation are ...<br />Your EG hypothesis and its alleged refutation are based on the assumption that this is the only world we are destined to live in.<br /><br />However, according to the different theistic world-views, this world is perceived as a preliminary test or trial, and what is seen at stake is each individual's own morality through which he/she passes or fails the current test.<br /><br />Therefore any claim as to God's moral character based on empirical observation in this world seems to be false, or at least it rests on an inadequate and insufficient premise that can be accepted as "true" only by a naturalist/materialist. <br /><br />Free will is the key that the EG hypothesis primarily disregards. Free will is the freedom of each of us to choose between morally good or bad intentions/acts, which definitely reduces this world from it best potential to a much lower degree. <br />In this world to make the right choice is particularly demanding, because in many cases we find that those who are morally good, or at least refrain from intentional evil acts, are often subjected to suffering, and most often they become the victims of those who deliberately choose, justify and carry out evil deeds. <br /><br />The high probability of suffering in this world from such perspective is very different from the Buddhist view, which actually does not worship any God at all, either personal or non-personal.<br /><br />Theistic views are different because they claim that there are other worlds where those will live who have made the moral choice on the side of goodness (humility, loving kindness, justice, compassion, tolerance, mercifulness, etc) even if their choice inflict suffering caused by the evil-doers.<br /><br />On a side note, it is a myth that Christianity is an immoral world-view. The original Christian world-view is represented by Christ and through his character, which manifests God's moral perfection. He himself rejected and revised the morally imperfect claims of the Old Testament. <br />He, as a human had to suffer by those who hated his moral goodness and preferred a world ruled by their evil deeds instead. <br /><br />Another note: I am coming from an agnostic position, therefore my comment is not meant to be a means to proselytize.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02008513902931730833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-66768562387980065362012-04-26T19:16:54.428+00:002012-04-26T19:16:54.428+00:00There is no possible galaxy where the regulations ...There is no possible galaxy where the regulations of sense and non-contradiction apply that can even get this disagreement off the earth for me.<br /><br /><a href="http://gruber-law.com/" rel="nofollow">auto accident lawyer milwaukee</a>grubvallancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17563158321945356570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-11115197480282429802012-04-04T08:33:52.391+00:002012-04-04T08:33:52.391+00:00Let each individual take a sheet of paper and draw...Let each individual take a sheet of paper and draw a line across it. Making the end furthest right consummate good, and that furthest left extreme evil. Next list a number of acts, while every participant marks its correct location on that standard scale. <br />Now, will any two of those evaluation sheets match up? If not, then who is it that claims to know good from evil?<br />We can pursue that which acts to eradicate us from the universe. Or we can pursue that which acts to conserve our kind. The rest is irrelevant.<br /><br />When I dream I accept that experience as reality. No matter how preposterous it may be. When awake I have another experience. Which I may compare with my dream state to expose contractions. However I can never ‘wake’ from this second state, to secure one more means for correlation. I am cocooned in a unique rendition of questionable prominence. Which if unaware of, I may easily mistake for that actual reality I am not constructed to experience first hand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-5510698551598241622012-03-22T05:49:14.541+00:002012-03-22T05:49:14.541+00:00Ben,
Thank you for the complement it is appreciat...Ben,<br /><br />Thank you for the complement it is appreciated. I also appreciated the role you played here as I am certain I would have struggled to frame my question for Dr. Law without the clarity of argument and attention to using terms consistently that I found in your post prior to my joining in. (not to mention you calling him out which may have prodded him a bit though I like to think he would have responded regardless)<br /><br />Regardstestinganideahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17264420433491373741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-16753294002245358232012-03-21T12:44:40.318+00:002012-03-21T12:44:40.318+00:00testinganidea you have renewed my faith(pun intend...testinganidea you have renewed my faith(pun intended) in the existence of rational Atheists of good will.<br /><br />Peace.BenYachovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-484828016553097942012-03-21T03:10:03.777+00:002012-03-21T03:10:03.777+00:00EVIL GOD CARTOON!
http://chaospet.com/2012/02/23...EVIL GOD CARTOON! <br /><br />http://chaospet.com/2012/02/23/224-god-is-hate/Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-66066837476773765632012-03-21T01:15:08.309+00:002012-03-21T01:15:08.309+00:00Patrick,
“If such a God exists why would he allow...Patrick,<br /><br />“If such a God exists why would he allow the spread of a book claiming to be his revelation that promotes as its most important commandments to love God and to love of one’s neighbour and that holds out the prospect of punishment in the afterlife for evil behaviour?"<br /><br />Four (of many more) possible reasons:<br /><br />1- He wants to crate sectarian divides among mankind so he seeds the earth with multiple “revelations” to love and obey different gods knowing how ingroup / outgroup behavior will unfold<br /><br />2- Getting gullible humans to believe they are saved by doing a small amount of good for a short lifetime makes the eternal punishment they face all the more evil<br /><br />3- He knows the guilt and personal torment that will ensue when true believers fail to love our neighbor and avoid evil and as a result fear being condemned for all time<br /><br />4- Evil god move in mysterious ways, who are we to judge his motives<br /><br />“Why do miracle claims connected to this book seem to have better evidence than other miracle claims?”<br /> <br />Evil god causes each group to feel that their miracle claims are the best supported<br /><br />“Why is it that good can exist without evil, but not evil without good?”<br /><br />I have not accepted this assertion as I believe you have provided no evidence other than most people believe this which even if true, we both agree, proves nothing. As you stated this may imply there is something behind their rational but at this time it is as likely to be cultural bias as rational thought. The only worlds we know of have both good and evil.testinganideahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17264420433491373741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-79950492468288896632012-03-21T00:37:51.965+00:002012-03-21T00:37:51.965+00:00Ben,
Thank you for your comments; they caused me ...Ben,<br /><br />Thank you for your comments; they caused me to reexamine my last posts and see them differently.<br /><br />I did not intend to tell Patrick to stop examining, evaluating and incorporating new arguments and evidence into his belief system. That is something that I do personally and I hope others do as well.<br /><br />My point was that Patrick should rebalance his likelihoods to better reflect his actual situation prior to getting the next piece of evidence. I suggest that his current position should have the likelihood of evil god and good god at about the same level (such as both 8 or evil god 1, good god 2) as his current state of knowledge does not justify a large difference.<br /><br />I understand that my Bayesian approach to the EGC colors my view. That said, I can and do expect new evidence to potential change Patrick's ratings but I also expect that until that evidence is evaluated his current background knowledge should be evaluated consistently.<br /><br />I also did not intend to imply that I thought the EGC was a knockout argument (even when restricted to personal theism and empirical evidence). I think this is still to be shown and I look forward to Dr. Law's follow-on paper. I do however find it can highlight hidden assumptions, special pleading and the gap between "a creator exists" and "that creator is my god".<br /><br />Finally, I was unfair to Michael R who claimed only that the trinity was consistent with the required multiple personalities not that the trinity was required or proved by his approach as I thought on my first reading.testinganideahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17264420433491373741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-16442194664748673012012-03-20T22:47:36.365+00:002012-03-20T22:47:36.365+00:00That's the problem with these discussions. Pe...That's the problem with these discussions. People are talking past each other since we don't have an agreed on terminology. <br /><br />I've seen the term "Theodicy" used in Thomist thought but in those cases is broadly means justification for belief in God.<br /><br />In the modern sense "Theodicy" means the moral justification for a morally good God allowing evil.<br /><br />This difficuly arsed when two theists talk it triples when it's Atheist to Theist.BenYachovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-5106837089513972362012-03-20T22:13:27.105+00:002012-03-20T22:13:27.105+00:00Ben Yachov: “Why does the Good God who wrote the B...Ben Yachov: “Why does the Good God who wrote the Bible tolerate the Book of Mormon/Koran/Vedas etc? This is not a good argument from the Theist side. I would never use it to polemic EGC.”<br /><br />Point (3) of my theodicy outlined above may provide an answer. It aims at explaining why God often doesn’t interfere more conspicuously in order to prevent evil. It is formulated as follows:<br /><br />“The greater God’s beneficial power due to His love, the greater God’s destructive power due to His justice (see Matthew 13,27-29). Striving to prevent as much suffering as possible God can only interfere to such a degree that the beneficial effect of the interference is not neutralized by the destructive effect of it.”<br /><br />It may be of interest to you as a classical theist that this point is based on the concept of divine simplicity. For those who are not familiar with this concept, Edward Feser explains it very well as follows (source: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/11/william-lane-craig-on-divine-simplicity.html):<br /><br />“The doctrine of divine simplicity holds that God is in no way composed of parts. ... There is also no distinction within God between any of the divine attributes: ... Talking or conceiving of God, God’s essence, God’s existence, God’s power, God’s goodness, and so forth are really all just different ways of talking or conceiving of one and the very same thing. Though we distinguish between them in thought, there is no distinction at all between them in reality.”<br /><br />This point of the theodicy shows that God’s power, God’s love and God’s justice are indistinguishable. As an evil God is neither perfectly good nor perfectly just, the constraint pointed to in this point doesn’t apply to such a God.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733557675273087950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-2209634023951933862012-03-20T21:03:32.809+00:002012-03-20T21:03:32.809+00:00>If such a God exists why would he allow the sp...>If such a God exists why would he allow the spread of a book claiming to be his revelation that promotes as its most important commandments to love God and to love of one’s neighbour and that holds out the prospect of punishment in the afterlife for evil behaviour?<br /><br />I am an equal opportunity critic & I don't play partisan favorites just because Patrick is a fellow Theist and Christian.<br /><br />Why does the Good God who wrote the Bible tolerate the Book of Mormon/Koran/Vedas etc? This is not a good argument from the Theist side. I would never use it to polemic EGC.<br /><br />Philosophical arguments that contrast God who by definition is Perfect with Evil which by definition describes imperfection are more successful in showing an Evil God is an incoherent concept when applied to Western Monotheistic God concepts. <br /><br />Go back to that.BenYachovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-74757007359363444642012-03-20T20:37:38.690+00:002012-03-20T20:37:38.690+00:00testinganidea: “That “most people would suggest th...testinganidea: “That “most people would suggest that (1) [evil is the lack of good] is more reasonable” makes no difference to whether or not it is true. The point of the EGC is that many people, such as you, say good god is more reasonable than evil god even when they have no justification for making that claim. We are asking why you claim good god is more reasonable and what evidence do you have to support that claim. You cannot simply assert the answer or claim truth is determined by majority rule.<br /><br />If your argument boils down to “most people would suggest” then you have no argument and we are back to the question of why you have such different likelihood for good god and evil god.”<br /><br />I agree with you that what most people regard as true is not necessarily true. However, there must be a reason why so many people have such an intuition, and it’s certainly worth examining whether or not there is something substantial behind it.<br /><br />testinganidea: “A minor aside and not central to the discussion - Since you object to allowing god to have two opposing qualities what are your thoughts on: God can have perfect indifference and good and evil are just the results of the lack of that perfection that is option (4) Good and evil are the lack of indifference”<br /><br />In my view indifference is not a positive quality but can be seen as a lack of interest. Moreover if good is a positive quality and therefore has its origin in God I don’t see how God could be indifferent to something that has its origin in Himself. Finally I wonder if an omniscient being to whom all things and beings owe their existence can be indifferent towards anything at all. <br /><br />testinganidea: “First, as you just discovered this argument, it could not have anything to do with the rational you used in determining your likelihood ratings so I am not sure it is relevant.”<br /><br />This argument is not meant to explain my assessment of the likelihood of an evil God in response to your question, as the comment is not addressed to you specifically.<br /><br />testinganidea: “The question is why do you believe so strongly in the good god and so easily reject the evil god.”<br /><br />An evil God certainly would do anything to promote evil in the world. Unlike a good God this God would have no moral restraints that would restrict his ability to pursue his goals. If such a God exists why would he allow the spread of a book claiming to be his revelation that promotes as its most important commandments to love God and to love of one’s neighbour and that holds out the prospect of punishment in the afterlife for evil behaviour? Why do miracle claims connected to this book seem to have better evidence than other miracle claims? Why is it that good can exist without evil, but not evil without good?Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733557675273087950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-71671663371080807502012-03-20T19:07:13.553+00:002012-03-20T19:07:13.553+00:00>First, as you just discovered this argument, i...>First, as you just discovered this argument, it could not have anything to do with the rational you used in determining your likelihood ratings ...<br /><br />What does this matter? I always had a sense God was something Radically Other than what I am or other creatures are but when I discovered Thomism I could put my intuitions into a formal philosophical model. <br /><br />Clearly there are good reasons to believe the choice is either good god or no god.<br /><br />Of course you can use Theodicy to justify a morally good god or anti-theodicy to justify a morally evil one. All things being equal there isn't a reason to prefer one over the other till you start investigating what do we mean by "god" & what do we mean by "good" vs "evil".BenYachovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-65550304694303970562012-03-20T18:00:18.012+00:002012-03-20T18:00:18.012+00:00> It seems that you are intent on rigging the g...> It seems that you are intent on rigging the game; whenever it looks like the scales are balanced you scour the internet looking for arguments that might bolster your current position rather than honestly confront the fact that you might believe in good god over evil god without any demonstrable reason and that both good god and evil god are equally likely.<br /><br />I cry bullshit!<br /><br />This makes no sense so Patrick should just rely on his own knowledge when arguing & no research other responses to the EGC?<br /><br />If the EGC is so formidable then it should be able to take on all comers? <br /><br />Suppose Patrick where a follower of Michael Behe & he was debating you on why you believe in Neo-Darwinian Evolution but set up some Ad Hoc rule that forbade you to searching for responses to Behe's objections via his critics?<br /><br />What if you where dumb enough(& I don't think you are) to accept this limit & as a result of it Patrick succeeds exploiting your ignorance to create cognitive dissonance and cause you to abandon evolution.<br /><br />Would anybody see that as credible?<br /><br />Mind you I think most of Patrick's argument are non-starters in the first place.<br /><br />You are better than this testinganidea.<br /><br />>you might believe in good god over evil god without any <b>demonstrable reason</b> and that both good god and evil god are equally likely.<br /><br />I would actually agree with the above statement if you replaced the phrase "demonstrable reason" with "empirical".<br /><br />Because that is what this is about.<br /><br />Can God be known empirically?BenYachovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-43143776881909402372012-03-20T00:03:08.660+00:002012-03-20T00:03:08.660+00:00Patrick,
First, as you just discovered this argum...Patrick,<br /><br />First, as you just discovered this argument, it could not have anything to do with the rational you used in determining your likelihood ratings so I am not sure it is relevant. The question is why do you believe so strongly in the good god and so easily reject the evil god. It seems that you are intent on rigging the game; whenever it looks like the scales are balanced you scour the internet looking for arguments that might bolster your current position rather than honestly confront the fact that you might believe in good god over evil god without any demonstrable reason and that both good god and evil god are equally likely. <br /><br />That said, my preliminary analysis follows:<br /><br />Michael Rundle’s argument he seems to be treating good and evil as verbs (that is actions taken by god toward something) and this is not the same sense (the nature of god’s attributes) as we have been using. Under this approach Rundle makes god a plural subject to avoid the initial target issue (the third person of the trinity is completely gratuitous and only postulated to match his preexisting belief and this should be an obvious case of results not support by the argument even to believers). If you want to use this definition and split god into multiple personalities the same can be done for evil god.testinganideahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17264420433491373741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-89379221477446446122012-03-19T22:35:12.935+00:002012-03-19T22:35:12.935+00:00>That “most people would suggest that (1) [evil...>That “most people would suggest that (1) [evil is the lack of good] is more reasonable” makes no difference to whether or not it is true.<br /><br />How do you determine which of these is true?<br /><br />Atheist? Non-Thomist Theists?BenYachovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-4632169187985764272012-03-19T21:57:11.046+00:002012-03-19T21:57:11.046+00:00Patrick,
That “most people would suggest that (1)...Patrick,<br /><br />That “most people would suggest that (1) [evil is the lack of good] is more reasonable” makes no difference to whether or not it is true. The point of the EGC is that many people, such as you, say good god is more reasonable than evil god even when they have no justification for making that claim. We are asking why you claim good god is more reasonable and what evidence do you have to support that claim. You cannot simply assert the answer or claim truth is determined by majority rule.<br /><br />If your argument boils down to “most people would suggest” then you have no argument and we are back to the question of why you have such different likelihood for good god and evil god. <br /><br />A minor aside and not central to the discussion - Since you object to allowing god to have two opposing qualities what are your thoughts on:<br /><br />God can have perfect indifference and good and evil are just the results of the lack of that perfection that is option (4) Good and evil are the lack of indifferencetestinganideahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17264420433491373741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-62133007850021306032012-03-19T21:09:04.525+00:002012-03-19T21:09:04.525+00:00Theologian Michael Rundle formulated an objection ...Theologian Michael Rundle formulated an objection to the EGC, which is worth considering. It can be read in the following link:<br /><br />http://whatyouthinkmatters.org/blog/article/the-evil-god-challenge <br /><br />A further argument against the EGC, put forward by Michael Rundle, seems to me also very interesting (source: http://sententias.org/2012/01/20/a-response-to-the-problem-of-an-evil-god-as-raised-by-stephen-law/):<br /><br />„[I]f evilness itself requires some object which it can be evil toward then this god cannot be a necessary being but must be contingent. The existence of evil god would only make any sense in relationship to some other being to which it could be evil in relationship to. The necessary relationship is one where evil god is the perpetrator and there is some victim.“<br /><br />It might be objected that the same applies to a good God, as He could also only be good in relationship to some other being. But to whom could God have been good to before He created anything? However, as Rundle pointed out, this needn’t be a challenge for Trinitarian monotheism (source: http://whatyouthinkmatters.org/blog/article/the-evil-god-challenge): <br /><br />“The cosmological argument points to some ontically necessary being which does not depend on anything else for its existence. But evil god cannot fit that bill. In order to be necessary it cannot depend on anything else to exist as itself and evil god cannot meet that challenge. However, interestingly neither can a good god. However, a trinitarian good God can. Since there are a trinity of persons expressing love perfectly to each other in eternity.”Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733557675273087950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-41206886912325283232012-03-19T16:21:12.347+00:002012-03-19T16:21:12.347+00:00Number "3" is meaningless at best & ...Number "3" is meaningless at best & illogical at worst if there is no formal definition or metaphysical description of either good or evil.<br /><br />It in essence makes the claim Being is evil or Existence is evil but a lack of existence or non-Being is good.<br /><br />Which is weird since that would mean even a Morally good God by even Prof Law pre-theoretical concepts of Good & Evil would in effect be really evil for merely existing.<br /><br />Of course I reject Theodicies for the most part and I am a (Classic) Theist so I don't have a dog in this fight.BenYachovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-14099318601310253272012-03-19T15:28:29.519+00:002012-03-19T15:28:29.519+00:00testinganidea: “I am sorry that I cannot yet respo...testinganidea: “I am sorry that I cannot yet respond to your statement on the ontological argument but I am still unclear which ontological argument you favor. I assume it is not the one BenYachov defends as that would not give you a personal god and is inconsistent with the theodicies you put forward. Can you provide some details so I can understand why you think this is an asymmetric argument?”<br /><br />As Stephen Law in his paper “The evil-god challenge” argues that there can be a reverse ontological argument pointing to a maximally evil God and as I am not an expert on the ontological argument, I suggest that we leave this issue.<br /><br />testinganidea: “Your thought experiment actually hinges not on if there can be a world without any good but on whether we can have, in this world, good without evil since if both require the other this example tell us little if anything about the nature of god.”<br /><br />There are three possibilities how the relationship between good and evil can be seen:<br /><br />(1) Evil is a lack of good.<br />(2) Good and evil are both positive qualities that are on a par, and thus evil can exist without good.<br />(3) Good is a lack of evil.<br /><br />In my view (2) can be excluded, as it would entail that God being the origin of all qualities would have to be at the same time perfectly good and perfectly evil, which clearly is a logical impossibility.<br /><br />Now (1) and (3) are the options that are left and the question arises which of these views is more reasonable. I think prima facie most people would suggest that (1) is more reasonable than (3). But (1) points to a good God.<br /><br />testinganidea: Also, since we cannot, in this discussion, just assert good god exists and evil god does not exist, by what yardstick are you measuring superior and inferior?<br /><br />My yardstick is as follows: “If x can exist without y, but y not without x, x is superior to y.”<br /><br />testinganidea: There is now a third scale this one is used to measure the reasonableness of a morally indifferent god.<br /><br />If of the three options mentioned above (1) is correct, God is perfectly good, if (3) is correct, God is perfectly evil. I’ve pointed out that we can exclude (2) and with it the concept of a morally indifferent God, as neither a perfectly good nor a perfectly evil God can be morally indifferent.<br /><br />testinganidea: “An omnipotent god could create a world with humans but where evil does not arise”<br /><br />What you are referring to here is the logical problem of evil. As can be seen from the following link it is widely acknowledged that this version of the problem of evil has been solved.<br /><br />http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/ <br /><br />testinganidea: “Note that theodicies cannot help here because you granted that it was possible to have good without evil and theodicies only explain why evil exists alongside of good.”<br /><br />The point is that it is no problem to conceive of a world with only good but no evil, but that it is hardly conceivable that in a world where things would be the other way round humanity would survive for a long time.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733557675273087950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-61530355198891721652012-03-18T13:25:16.082+00:002012-03-18T13:25:16.082+00:00Patrick,
A quick aside about your thought experim...Patrick,<br /><br />A quick aside about your thought experiment as it seems to have interesting consequences if true. The informal outline below shows how if your claim is true it may actually prove good god false.<br /><br />Let us assume that you are correct and that you can think of a world like ours but with only good and no evil. <br /><br />1- One can imagine a world like ours but with only good<br /><br />2- For your thought experiment to work this world must not be a logical contradiction like a square circle.<br /> <br />3- From your definition of good being superior to evil this world is better than our world. (If some specific evil makes a world better than it would be without it than this evil is superior to the good that would exist if this evil did not exist.)<br /><br />4- An omnipotent god can do anything that is not logically impossible<br /><br />5- An omnipotent god could create a world with humans but where evil does not arise <br /><br />6- If this god crated our world instead of this possible world he crated gratuitous evil and is therefore not Omni-benevolent (as required of good god)<br /><br />Note that theodicies cannot help here because you granted that it was possible to have good without evil and theodicies only explain why evil exists alongside of good.testinganideahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17264420433491373741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-58195346004463265832012-03-18T00:25:38.034+00:002012-03-18T00:25:38.034+00:00Deathray32,
While I am inclined to agree with you...Deathray32,<br /><br />While I am inclined to agree with your approach to good and evil (although I think assuming that the consciousness that conceptualize the terms must be human is a bit self-aggrandizing) but if the EGC is to be effective I believe we must start from the terms, definitions and arguments provided by the theist. If we do not take this approach it is hard to see how EGC can be convincing to anyone.testinganideahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17264420433491373741noreply@blogger.com