In Defense of an Evidential Argument from Evil: A Reply to William Lane Craig

[Jeffery Jay Lowder]

Abstract: In a popular article about general arguments from evil against the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God, William Lane Craig raises objections to such arguments that are consistent with those he earlier raised against Paul Draper’s evidential pain-and-pleasure argument from evil in an oral debate with Draper in 1998. In this article Jeffery Jay Lowder considers whether Craig’s points have any force in rebutting Draper’s writings on his pain-and-pleasure argument, ultimately concluding that they leave Draper’s argument unscathed.

LINK: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/12/20/defense-evidential-argument-evil-reply-william-lane-craig/

[Cheerful Charlie]

From the article linked.

"Craig's first objection to probabilistic arguments from evil is that the probability of known facts about evil on theism is inscrutable (unknowable):

"1. We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has morally sufficient reasons for the evils that occur.

God is said to be simple, that is God's goodness is part of his nature.  Simplicty is mean to side step the issue of are there any outside forces that limit God.  This avoids the issues of where God's attributes come from and how they came to be attributes of God.  There is nothing beyond and outside of God metaphorically.  No metaphysical necessities or laws or rules outside of God that God must obey.

Descartes,in his letters to Messennes takes this ti its logical conclusion.  God creates all the laws and rules of the Universe, the Universe's logic and all metaphysical necessities of the Universe that are not God.  If so, God can make any rule God wants the Universe to have.  Thus God can arbitrarily rule out say, all moral evil.  he could create man with a perfectly good nature as God enjoys, and  free will to freely follow his good nature unerringly, again, as God enjoys.

Thus God has no possible obstructions that could make it impossible to create a Universe without moral evil.  Since he makes all the rules, God can have a perfect Universe.  Thus WCL's  question is answered.  There is no issue of inscrutability involved.  The idea that we must have evil to obtain a greater good is an invalid proposition.

I call this the argument from super omnipotence.  God being able to create any state of affairs God wishes, and God being supremely good, is quite capable of banishing moral evil all together, and any theory as to why he cannot is not viable.

Descarte's idea can be derived from the doctrine of God's simplicity and either must be accepted, or it destroys God's simplicity and implies a whole world of metaphysical necessities outside of God that limits God's omnipotence.  But if we accept that God is super omnipotence, and perfectly good,we have evidnce that God cannot exist.  We would live in a far different Universe than we do.

William C.Barwell

[jayceeii]

"1. We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has morally sufficient reasons for the evils that occur.

No one has put two and two together, to begin to see the system of God for “raising” the souls. God may be pure and perfect, but His creatures may not begin this way. In the East a very different story was told, and looking impartially many things not explained in Christian texts fall into place. The Hindus teach that the souls are evolving from the animal condition in a process of rebirth, gradually purifying themselves to reach more advanced states of consciousness/being. They teach the souls are bound by samskaras or deeply ingrained tendencies, carried through from the animal realm. This should very readily be seen as possibly a different way to describe the “original sin,” of Christianity.

Then you see the wisdom of Jesus, knowing just how many lifetimes it takes to purify one of the souls arising from the animal plane, saying, “They’re not making much progress anyway, let me just tell them for awhile there is nothing they can do but wait for God.” The Christians then set their minds to work rather than meditation, resulting in the industrial era the East was very slow to adopt. This consideration answers all the issues of the West about God’s goodness, for it has been following wrongly the notion the soul is created fresh at birth. God does not purify the souls as they reach the human state, and then the Buddha chimes in, “It is man’s part to sweat in labor to the goal.” These ideas are at least plausible, and the primary factor limiting God is the real nature of the souls.

[Tom Paine]

From the article linked.

"Craig's first objection to probabilistic arguments from evil is that the probability of known facts about evil on theism is inscrutable (unknowable):

"1. We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has morally sufficient reasons for the evils that occur.

God is said to be simple, that is God's goodness is part of his nature.  Simplicty is mean to side step the issue of are there any outside forces that limit God.  This avoids the issues of where God's attributes come from and how they came to be attributes of God.  There is nothing beyond and outside of God metaphorically.  No metaphysical necessities or laws or rules outside of God that God must obey.

Descartes,in his letters to Messennes takes this ti its logical conclusion.  God creates all the laws and rules of the Universe, the Universe's logic and all metaphysical necessities of the Universe that are not God.  If so, God can make any rule God wants the Universe to have.  Thus God can arbitrarily rule out say, all moral evil.  he could create man with a perfectly good nature as God enjoys, and  free will to freely follow his good nature unerringly, again, as God enjoys.

Thus God has no possible obstructions that could make it impossible to create a Universe without moral evil.  Since he makes all the rules, God can have a perfect Universe.  Thus WCL's  question is answered.  There is no issue of inscrutability involved.  The idea that we must have evil to obtain a greater good is an invalid proposition.

I call this the argument from super omnipotence.  God being able to create any state of affairs God wishes, and God being supremely good, is quite capable of banishing moral evil all together, and any theory as to why he cannot is not viable.

Descarte's idea can be derived from the doctrine of God's simplicity and either must be accepted, or it destroys God's simplicity and implies a whole world of metaphysical necessities outside of God that limits God's omnipotence.  But if we accept that God is super omnipotence, and perfectly good,we have evidnce that God cannot exist.  We would live in a far different Universe than we do.

William C.Barwell

Right. I've made a similar argument, that omnipotence should obviate the need for a consequentialist justification of God's alleged doings. The doctrine that the "ends justify the means" is roundly rebuked by most people even though we probably all resort to it at times. What necessitates our resort to this reviled doctrine is our impotence. If we could reach the desired moral ends without resort to morally questionable means we would do so. An omnipotent being should have no such problem.

[jayceeii]

If we could reach the desired moral ends without resort to morally questionable means we would do so. An omnipotent being should have no such problem.

This is indeed the Ape in the Sky vision of God, as domineering egos presuming power means following desire, and infinite power means following any desire, begin with a premise God must have no limits. It’s gotten so silly to me at this point, particularly as I observe God’s creatures expecting God to be perfect are wildly imperfect themselves. It’s humorous, like if hell were real and the devils sat around in amazement God could make anything so wonderful as they. The challenge is finding anyone greater than such a devil.