Reposted in the right place:
Pater,
An effective start to the debate. Thank you.
For me so much of the PoE arguments hinge on presumptions made about evil. Its good to see you have outlined some of the key factors in your argument, but I think it could be expanded even further. Whilst we may all assume to acknowledge evil exists, what is not clear is just exactly what evil is, and what it is not.
Yet it is so critical to the argument.
Often examples like rape are cited as being universally acknowledged as evil, but such an example is based upon presumptions about a conclusion. Rape is a crime. Therefore we conclude it is evil. But what is it that makes it evil? Citing the conclusion, i.e. rape, is to miss the very issue of what constitutes evil and good. How? Because with rape, the act that takes place is exactly the same as the highest expression of love and intimacy between a husband and wife. How can the very same act be evil and good? Mutual acknowledgement of evil existing, and citing examples like rape, misses the entire point. We must drill into what it is that make the same act good, into an evil act, without any difference in what can be observed.
In doing so, we press into justification for God to allow the possibility of good and evil. Because to deny the possibility of evil, is to deny the possibility of the good. The example of rape serves this purpose. Because you can take the exact same act, without any change in the physical/observable act that tales place, and have either evil, or good. For rape to not exist, or to be denied, it to deny the possibility of the mutual selfless intimacy of love expressed through sexual intercourse. To understand this fully requires not a mutual acknowledgement of evil, but to fully explore what makes something evil as opposed to good, and something good, as opposed to evil. When we speak of rape, we are actually concluding moral presumptions about the motives, context, intent, not the act, without defining what those moral presumptions are.
I find with the majority of arguments relating to the PoE, this is completely missed. Yet it is crucial. The non theist is making moral presumptions that go untested, because a mutual acknowledgement of evil existing does not tackle the core of what constitutes evil or good. It is never an act alone. It is something else. A motive and context. But where does this come from? It cannot be presumed by those who do not think God can allow evil, without them defining what evil is and why it is evil.
We all know what the word evil means. It means to cause unjustified harm to another (or on some accounts to oneself, too) It can also be broadened a bit to include causing harm to society in general.
I really don't think there is much else to it at all. Well, yes intent has something to do with it also. I might accidentally harm someone, but that would not necessarily be evil unless I was being negligent, and of course the whole notion of justification can get thorny.
Do I really need to make that definition of "moral evil" more explicit in my argument? I think I explained what I mean by "natural evil" Is there anything I left unclear on these terms.
We don't all know what evil means. Thats a presumption. We may be able to think of examples we each consider
an evil, but that does not mean we understand what makes such evil, how it is evil, and why it is evil. I have outlined how rape is cited. Appealing to a universal OMV&D is one thing, but it is appealing to the conclusion, the end result, not exploring the how or why it is evil, what makes it evil, rather just an agreement "it is."
So if we are going to judge the 3 O God, we need to be clear what this entails. Intent does not have
something to do with it, it has everything to do with it.
"It means to cause unjustified harm."
That is as clear as mud. Because harm is undefined, as is justification. And justification relies upon information.
I can give you an example, and you cannot determine good or evil.
A man is penetrating the vagina of a woman.
You could even be observing the act, but you lack the information to judge, rape, or mutual intimacy between husband and wife! The act cannot determine the good or evil. Something else does. What is the harm? The penis penetrates a vagina, in the same way in both cases. Evil, or good? Justified? Unjustified?
We lock people up in prison, some for weeks, months or all their lives. It this evil? You cannot tell. You need more information.
A man fathers a child as a result of a mutual relationship. The child grow up never knowing their father. Good? Or evil? We cannot tell, without more information. What makes it evil? The father chooses to abandon the mother and child. This could be evil.
The father who loses his life from illness or accident, not evil at all.
So how does a 3 O God deny evil? Evil should not happen. Does God prevent the relationship? The child being born? The father leaving the mother?
The suggestion the 3 O God should allow good, but not evil is fraught with consequences, as long as you delve further into what constitutes something being evil. Because what we are suggesting is in reality, crazy. No possibility of evil, is to have no possibility of good. And to be preventing things at an unrealistic level.
The man who is engaging in mutual intercourse with a woman, God should allow or stop? When the woman say stop, but the man forms the intent to continue against her consent, how and when should God intervene to prevent the impending evil? The act has not changed, the conclusion is not a rape. What began as good is about to become evil, and it is all hinged on the heart of the man in an instant.
