Comment thread "God is justified in allowing evil to exist". BC vs Paterfamilia

[bruce culver]

Not sure how this escaped me before, but if we want to be sticklers about the propositions and proof, even if we interpret "God is justified in allowing evil" as "God is justified in allowing some evil" then Pater hasn't proven the proposition is necessarily true, only that it is possibly true, so I don't think I even need to concede that "God is justified in allowing some evil to exist". I'll concede the epistemic possibility of that, but tat is not the same as conceding that it is true.

However, and this is why I think my affirmative should actually be the central debate topic, one doesn't have to prove the necessity of God being justified in allowing evil in order to defeat my proposition. On a strict deductive form of the argument all one has to do is show that it is possible (but for all evil not just some), and that is why the strict deductive form is rarely used. In an evidential form it becomes necessary for the person trying to refute the proposition to show that is more plausible than not that God has justification for allowing evil, but not just some evil, but all evil.

I'm afraid our debate has become a bit of a schmozzle now because we didn't specify clearly enough some of these points before we started. I'd like to continue, and finish it up, but perhaps we might try again at a later date with an independent moderator who can help us set the terms more clearly before we start.

[Paterfamilia]

I look forward to answering all of the comments AFTER the debate is over.

[bruce culver]

I look forward to answering all of the comments AFTER the debate is over.

I'm sorry, would you prefer I not comment on the debate before it's over? That would actually be a reasonable request. I'll refrain from further comment after this.

I just want to inquire as you how you would like to wrap up. Do you want one more rebuttal before we give our closing comments, or would you like to rebut and close in one post and then I'll just give a short closing statement?
That's something we forgot to agree on before the debate. What is the standard? Opening statements, two rebuttals and then a close? Since my opening was short and you said I could continue with rebuttal in the first post, I've already had two rebuttals, so maybe if you give a second rebuttal and close in the next post, I should be limited to a 1,000 word close or something like that. What do you think?

[Paterfamilia]

Sir Pater,

You seem to have overlooked a subtlety in your snide, triumfantilistic response to Bruce, when you prematurely claim victory.  Your argument is "God is justified in allowing evil to exist".  The potential truth of that claim depends in part on another claim, that being the claim that your god exists.  If you didn't want to include that as a necessary component in your argument, you should have sought agreement to a different wording.

You might think that you have cut Bruce off from the approach of showing that your god does not exist, via your statements: "I will not be arguing that God exists.  That is beyond the scope of my responsibility for this debate."

In that, you are wrong.  What you have done instead is concede the debate four paragraphs in.  A non-existent god is not justified in doing anything, or more briefly and all-encompassingly - a non-existent god is not.

I note that your three arguments are all speculative.  In other words, they work if: your god exists, your god is  immeasurably good (which could be due to such little goodness that it's below a measurable level, by the way), your god has a specific psychology (leading to certain objectives and desires), there is such a thing as an eternal afterlife and there are such things are sin and evil.  Absent those, your arguments are just so much hot air.

I don't know what I should think about this.  I'll take the purely irenic approach (at the risk of snideliness) and break it down for you.

This is a PoE debate.  As such, it is a given for one party to argue that because evil exists, God does not.  That pre-supposes the assumption for the other side that God does exist.  We stipulated that the God in question is the MGB God.  Bruce had his opportunity to prove by weight of argument and evidence, that the MGB doesn't exist, without having to prove that no god exists.  Just the MGB God.

Maybe it will be easier for you to understand if I ask this question - If Bruce is arguing that the problem of evil proves that God doesn't exist, what should be my argument?  That the PoE proves that the MGB does exist? 

That would be an interesting debate, but pretty irregular, and that wasn't our agreed resolution.

[Paterfamilia]

Not sure how this escaped me before, but if we want to be sticklers about the propositions and proof, even if we interpret "God is justified in allowing evil" as "God is justified in allowing some evil" then Pater hasn't proven the proposition is necessarily true, only that it is possibly true, so I don't think I even need to concede that "God is justified in allowing some evil to exist". I'll concede the epistemic possibility of that, but tat is not the same as conceding that it is true.

However, and this is why I think my affirmative should actually be the central debate topic, one doesn't have to prove the necessity of God being justified in allowing evil in order to defeat my proposition. On a strict deductive form of the argument all one has to do is show that it is possible (but for all evil not just some), and that is why the strict deductive form is rarely used. In an evidential form it becomes necessary for the person trying to refute the proposition to show that is more plausible than not that God has justification for allowing evil, but not just some evil, but all evil.

I'm afraid our debate has become a bit of a schmozzle now because we didn't specify clearly enough some of these points before we started. I'd like to continue, and finish it up, but perhaps we might try again at a later date with an independent moderator who can help us set the terms more clearly before we start.

I see what you are saying.  However, the PoE is an argument seeks to prove logically or evidentially that the MGB God does NOT exist.  Not that it's possible that He doesn't exist.

It's a pretty lofty hurdle.

I engaged the debate with the understanding that we were on the same page strictly based on the definitions.  The PoE is the assertion that God does not exist based on the existence of evil.  Pretty cut and dried historically.

Honestly we could have joggled the parameters a bit more from the start, and I would be willing to debate most of the permutations, but I felt it was vital to give it crystal clear distinctions rather than argue the muddy middle.

Plus I was afraid that given enough time, you might back out ha ha.  I've challenged a dozen people to formal debates on a variety of subjects and yours is the first acceptance.  Thank you for that.  That's why I jumped on it.

[bruce culver]

Hmmmm. Nobody has any comments or questions? Kind of anticlimactic.

[RKosche]

I want to thank you both for your thoughtful arguments.  I personally find it critical that all Christians and non-Christians alike wrestle personally with these issues.

[shoyt]

This is a PoE debate.  As such, it is a given for one party to argue that because evil exists, God does not.  That pre-supposes the assumption for the other side that God does exist.  We stipulated that the God in question is the MGB God.  Bruce had his opportunity to prove by weight of argument and evidence, that the MGB doesn't exist, without having to prove that no god exists.  Just the MGB God.

This doesn't follow at all; no, it doesn't entail those who disagree must have contradictory positions on the existence of God.

I am a Christian, I and other philosophers hold that certain views of God are illogical, many have fully developed arguments that play into forming their theology; Thomas Jay Oord, for example.

I argue:

P1) God allows evil.
P2) Children are raped and tortured.
P3) The rape and torture of children is evil.
P4) If y is a moral end that must obtain, then means x is justified just in case x is necessary for y obtaining.
P5) If means x is evil and sufficient but not necessary for y obtaining, means x is not justified.
P6) There is no moral end that must obtain and could only obtain through the rape and torture of children.
P7) Genuine evil is unjustified evil. (def)
SC1) The rape and torture of children is a genuine evil. (P3-P7)
SC2) Genuine evil exists. (P2, SC1)
P8) Allowing unjustified evil is immoral.
SC3) If genuine evil exists, God is immoral. (P1, P7, P8)
C) God is immoral. (SC2, SC3)

I simply hold that there are consequences to thinking God is sovereign in that He allows all things that happen rather than simply being necessary for anything to happen at all. This view would hold that God is collaborative with creation rather than dictatorial or authoritarian. That is, God cannot single-handedly do anything in creation but influences it toward it's own good. The above is merely good motivation to take that view seriously.

Just a thought or two.