Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[lucusLoC]

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him a God."~Epiricus

Ok, this just bugs me. It is often used as an argument or explanation for why someone does not believe in God (or higher power or whatever), but all it does (to me anyway) is show ignorance and a lack of critical thinking ability.

Apologies if that sounds overly harsh and offensive, I really do not mean harm, and I definitely believe you are entitled to your own opinion, religious or otherwise, but I try to stamp out logical fallacies wherever I find them, and whatever the subject. The above especially so since I have had friends use it in religious debates, expecting that it was the winning blow and end of the argument. It is not.

That being said, I will lay out why that is a logical fallacy and also seek to explain a possible answer to the implied question (that is: if there is a god, and he is good and all powerful, why is there evil?)

Logic
First off, the fallacy is of the form "false dichotomy" or the fallacy of false choice. simply put, it is a fallacy where a limited set of choices are given, and where those choices are represented as the only options when in reality there are more options available. A great many old parables and "ancient wisdoms," such as the one above, commit this particular fallacy.
 
Argument
The rebuff, unfortunately, is actually rather complicated to explain, even if it is a simple concept. I will be pulling mostly from Christian doctrine (or a subset of Christian doctrine, depending on how you group religions) but similar concepts can be found in other religions.

First thing to understand is the concept of free will. according to Christian doctrine God made man with free will, that is the ability to choose a course of action from a set of all possible actions, e.g. I choose to turn left instead of right (or the ability to choose eat pizza or bristle sprouts or whatever. or the ability to choose to harm another or not. all of these things were built into the framework of creation.).

Into that you toss in consequences to our actions. These consequences, out of necessity (that is, adhering to the laws of this universe) cause effects that impact others. If I eat nothing but pizza I will grow fat, have high cholesterol and die of a heart attack. That was my choice, and it will affect my friends and family, causing them grief and impacting their finances as they pay for my burial. If I choose to go to school and study hard, and then get a good job, and then have a family and provide for them well, I may have a happy life, and cause others to be happy as well. If I choose to abduct a child and then ruthlessly stab that child to death, the consequences of those actions is that that child dies. it was my choice.

If the consequences of my choices have no bearing on the outcome, then my choices really have no meaning. We see this all the time in games. I have a choice between two things, it has not effect on the outcome, I choose whatever I want because it does not matter. I kill off the nobles in Dwarf fort, and do not feel guilty because it really does not matter; there are no real life consequences to those actions. They have no meaning to me or anyone else, morally speaking.

If you take away the reaction of an action, the action has no meaning. If I make a choice to kill, but I live in a universe where god does not allow anyone to be killed, then I have not really made the choice to kill. I can try, but no one can say for sure if I really meant it if no one dies. I may not even know myself. (Well, an omnipotent god would know, but that is another issue entirely).

what all this means is that God still has the ability to prevent all evil, but that he does not because he respects our free will (that also includes my free will to remove someone else’s ability to exercise free will. it is in my power to do so, so it is a choice I can make). to simplify: just because I won't suppress evil doesn't mean I can't, and it also doesn't mean I myself am evil.

Now, I am often asked, why would a god even want to grant free will to a creation? What is the point?

I will use an example from programming to illustrate:

For the sake of argument, let us assume that I am a programmer. And not just any programmer, a very good programmer. One could, in fact, call me the best programmer. Ever. Supernatural even.

And I am going to write a program to prove it.

Now I could just write a simple program:

Code: [Select]

Print: "you are the best programmer ever"
But that would not really prove anything.

Since I am the best programmer ever, I decide to get a little more sophisticated. I write a program that can evaluate every possible piece of code ever written (supernatural good, remember?), evaluate it (and who wrote it), and then choose unbiasdly  who it thinks the best programmer is. If that program then returned "you are the best programmer ever" I would indeed have something to brag about.

I could even go one step further, and give the program a mind, and perhaps a soul, and (this is critical) the ability to choose if it wanted to evaluate all the code at all. I could give the program the choice to rebel. I cold even give it other things to do, and then I could say "I will not force you, but I would like you to do what you were built to do."

if the program then returned in the affirmative (and since I am the best programmer ever, I would know if it is lying, and in this case I know it is not), I will be even that much more proud, not only of myself, but of my program, which chose to do the "right" thing (according to its design)

"But Lucus!" I hear you cry "isn’t creating an entire universe (and an imperfect one at that) just to satisfy your ego malicious"

It is not, as the definition of malice is the wising of evil or ill onto another. I did not build my program because I wished it ill (even if ill was one of the options I built in). I explicitly asked that it not do those ill things, but I did give it a choice (which I respected). The fact that I gave the choice in the first place is not malicious. If I give you the keys to my house and say "please don't steal all my stuff" I am not being malicious to myself, regardless of whether or not it is a good idea. I simply gave you a choice to go in and take all my stuff or not, and then asked you not to. If you then steal all my stuff it is indeed you who make the choice to be malicious, not me. You could say that I enabled the malicious behavior, but that, in and of itself, is not malicious.

Closing statement
now i trust i can post this here without having the topic dissolve into a religious flame war (the others look more or less nice), and no i don't think anyone should modify their sigs or whatever (I don't find it offensive, so much as a mildly irritating display of faulty logic, and only then because I know people who think it is not flawed logic), it was just something that caught my eye and i wanted to talk about it. please participate in the discussion if you so choose, but whatever your feelings on the topic keep it civil.

I also want to say that I would not really want to try this on any other forum. everyone here is just so well behaved :-)

[Jude]

Tl;dr. I mean that in a non-trolling way.

Yeah, the part of it that I never bought the "if got is able to, but does not, prevent evil, then he is malevolent." It assumes that human definitions of what's good and right apply to a being that created all of the universe as we know it.

Not, of course, to imply that the fallaciousness of Epicurus' argument is a reason to believe in God.

[Dakk]

Epiricus's words don't deny the existence of god, specifically, they just deny the concept of a god, which is a fully benevolent, all powerful  and all knowing deity. This is most often used by atheists (like me) to explain why they don't believe in the god of christianity, not that god doesn't exist at all.

There's no fallacies in Epiricus words, in order for it to be a fallacy, the existence of a god who is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent should have to be a proven fact, and it isn't, therefore Epiricus's words are no more then another way of looking at things, an argument expressed over an idea, not a fact, which hasn't been proven to be right or wrong, fact or fiction, therefore its not a fallacy in any way.

Now, looking a bit at his world a bit and doing some simple analysis:


"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
If god wants to prevent evil, then he is benevolent, but if he isn't able, even if the only thing stopping him is a limit he would've imposed upon himself for some reason, that, through pure logic, denies that god is omnipotent, for being omnipotent means being able to do anything, in any way, at anytime, with no limitations.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
If you are fully able to stop something bad from happening, but just doesn't feel like stopping it, that makes you manevolent towards whoever is suffering due to that bad thing, even if you never meant to hurt them in any way. If you see someone dying of starvation in front of you, while you hold this huge sammich in your hands, and you only refuse to give it to that person because you don't feel like it, that makes you manevolent regarding that person you could've possibly saved from starvation.

Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
If god is omnipotent AND benevolent (meaning he wants to stop evil from happening, and is completely able to) then evil, in any way, should exist. People may seem but people itself are evil at times, you can't stop that!, well, god as a omnipotent being should totally be able to stop it, or else he isn't omnipotent, and if he is also willing to stop it, then the existence of evil is completely impossible.

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him a God."
Why worship something that can't do anything for you, and even if it could, isn't willing to do anything for you? This line is a direct consequence of the above. When you explain Epiricus's argument, you have to use the exact order he used, since its built on progressive logic, this means the last factor depends on the ones that came before it in order to make sense.

[Kagus]

Epicurus.

Right...  First off, I'd like to thank you for giving one of the most intelligent and complete arguments on the side of religion that I've ever heard/read/encountered.

However, there are a couple things I would like for you to clarify...   From what I understand, the main argument that evil exists in the world is because God gave humans free will and allows them to exercise it. 

But in order for God to justify not having any dealing with what's going on and the potential "evilness" of it, then that would mean that humans are accountable for ALL the evil in the world.


So...   Volcanoes, comets, lightning storms, hurricanes, tidal waves, earthquakes, firestorms...   All these things that can cause what many of us would agree upon was "evil", all these are caused by humans.  Or they just can't be evil, regardless of how many innocents they kill or how many children they orphan.

Even within the human race, with Schizophrenics and delusional people who inadvertently do horrible things because of their ailment.  By no means would they ever do something so foul and repugnant if they had their full mental capacities in order.  Or, you could say that the maniacs who eat the flesh of babies are also not evil, because they can't help it.

But then we start getting murky...   Is evil *intent* the only thing that is evil?  In that case, a rather fantastic amount of the "evil" we talk about in the world isn't evil at all, since it was done with only the best intentions in mind.


So, either the entire world is controlled by humans, or misguided people are not evil.  I'm guessing I'm missing something here.  Would you mind giving your assessment?

[Pjoo]

If you are omnipotent, can't you just know you are teh most awesome without having to have little, stupid people telling you that?

But yeah, there are limited choices, it in no way proves God doesn't exist. I feel it kinda has to rely on the good old "Such unknown are the paths of the Lord"-explanation, which I do not feel that credible answer.

So...   Volcanoes, comets, lightning storms, hurricanes, tidal waves, earthquakes, firestorms...   All these things that can cause what many of us would agree upon was "evil", all these are caused by humans.  Or they just can't be evil, regardless of how many innocents they kill or how many children they orphan.

Ever heard of abortion or homosexuals?
My alternative explanation is "grief is good, it builds character".

[Akigagak]

Are you actually a troll?

Stop baiting.

[Jude]

Epiricus's words don't deny the existence of god, specifically, they just deny the concept of a god, which is a fully benevolent, all powerful  and all knowing deity. This is most often used by atheists (like me) why they don't believe in the god of christianity, not that god doesn't exist at all.

There's no fallacies in Epiricus words, in order for it to be a fallacy, the existence of a god who is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent should have to be a fact, and it isn't, therefore Epiricus's words are no more then another way of looking at things, an argument expressed over an idea, not a fact, which hasn't been proven to be right or wrong, fact or fiction, therefore its not a fallacy in any way.

it's fallacious (maybe, in logical argument terminology, that isn't the right word) because he's taking for granted that it makes sense to apply human notions of good and so on, to God.

[Dakk]

Epiricus's words don't deny the existence of god, specifically, they just deny the concept of a god, which is a fully benevolent, all powerful  and all knowing deity. This is most often used by atheists (like me) why they don't believe in the god of christianity, not that god doesn't exist at all.

There's no fallacies in Epiricus words, in order for it to be a fallacy, the existence of a god who is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent should have to be a fact, and it isn't, therefore Epiricus's words are no more then another way of looking at things, an argument expressed over an idea, not a fact, which hasn't been proven to be right or wrong, fact or fiction, therefore its not a fallacy in any way.

it's fallacious (maybe, in logical argument terminology, that isn't the right word) because he's taking for granted that it makes sense to apply human notions of good and so on, to God.

Thats the thing, it isn't a fallacy (IE something false, made to trick people, a lie) because god isn't a proven fact, its an idea, and its subordinated to logic. The thing is, if god exists and is all the texts say he is, then through logic, he is neither good or omnipotent. Faith isn't bound to logic, so through faith, a benevolent and all mighty god can exist, but through a logical perspective, god simply cannot exist in that way due to whats mentioned in epiricus's argument.

Its easy to say oh you can't apply logic to go because he's all this and that, but logic, as far as we know, can be applyed to anything, because it has its own framework done, its pure logical thought, there's nothing still to be found out about it, it works. God is not yet a proven or disproven fact, therefore you can't say a fallacy about god, because in a logical perspective god doesn't exist yet, because he hasn't been proven or discredited yet.

[ChairmanPoo]

MORALITY IS THE HERD INSTINCT OF THE INDIVIDUAL 

[Jude]

Thats the thing, it isn't a fallacy (IE something false, made to trick people, a lie) because god isn't a proven fact, its an idea, and its subordinated to logic. The thing is, if god exists and is all the texts say he is, then through logic, he is neither good or omnipotent. Faith isn't bound to logic, so through faith, a benevolent and all mighty god can exist, but through a logical perspective, god simply cannot exist in that way due to whats mentioned in epiricus's argument.

OK so fallacy wasn't the right word. Invalid might be better. Or just a bad argument.

I'm not saying the logic of his statement is wrong. I'm calling him out on one of his assumptions.

Its easy to say oh you can't apply logic to go because he's all this and that, but logic, as far as we know, can be applyed to anything, because it has its own framework done, its pure logical thought, there's nothing still to be found out about it, it works. God is not yet a proven or disproven fact, therefore you can't say a fallacy about god, because in a logical perspective god doesn't exist yet, because he hasn't been proven or discredited yet.

I never said anything about logic not applying. You're answering a different post than the one I wrote.

[bjlong]

Thats the thing, it isn't a fallacy (IE something false, made to trick people, a lie) because god isn't a proven fact, its an idea, and its subordinated to logic. The thing is, if god exists and is all the texts say he is, then through logic, he is neither good or omnipotent. Faith isn't bound to logic, so through faith, a benevolent and all mighty god can exist, but through a logical perspective, god simply cannot exist in that way due to whats mentioned in epiricus's argument.

Its easy to say oh you can't apply logic to go because he's all this and that, but logic, as far as we know, can be applyed to anything, because it has its own framework done, its pure logical thought, there's nothing still to be found out about it, it works. God is not yet a proven or disproven fact, therefore you can't say a fallacy about god, because in a logical perspective god doesn't exist yet, because he hasn't been proven or discredited yet.

Dakk, the error is in the premises. The logic is as follows:

1) God (if he exists) is able to get rid of all evil.
2) God wants to get rid of all evil.
3) There is no good reason for evil to exist from God's perspective.
C) Therefore, God does not exist as defined by the premises.

The problem lies with the third premise. It requires us to reason 1) how evil works on a grand scale, and 2) how God thinks. If you are able to reason out both of those things, please, write a book. Atheists everywhere have tried for centuries, and none of them have been able to come up with a good answer. Most of them have shifted the burden of proof to theists.

Wikipedia has an excellent article on this argument. I suggest you read it.

[Dakk]

Thats the thing, it isn't a fallacy (IE something false, made to trick people, a lie) because god isn't a proven fact, its an idea, and its subordinated to logic. The thing is, if god exists and is all the texts say he is, then through logic, he is neither good or omnipotent. Faith isn't bound to logic, so through faith, a benevolent and all mighty god can exist, but through a logical perspective, god simply cannot exist in that way due to whats mentioned in epiricus's argument.

Its easy to say oh you can't apply logic to go because he's all this and that, but logic, as far as we know, can be applyed to anything, because it has its own framework done, its pure logical thought, there's nothing still to be found out about it, it works. God is not yet a proven or disproven fact, therefore you can't say a fallacy about god, because in a logical perspective god doesn't exist yet, because he hasn't been proven or discredited yet.

Dakk, the error is in the premises. The logic is as follows:

1) God (if he exists) is able to get rid of all evil.
2) God wants to get rid of all evil.
3) There is no good reason for evil to exist from God's perspective.
C) Therefore, God does not exist as defined by the premises.

The problem lies with the third premise. It requires us to reason 1) how evil works on a grand scale, and 2) how God thinks. If you are able to reason out both of those things, please, write a book. Atheists everywhere have tried for centuries, and none of them have been able to come up with a good answer. Most of them have shifted the burden of proof to theists.

Wikipedia has an excellent article on this argument. I suggest you read it.

There's another premise which Epiricus's argument lacked to close it totally, omniscience. If god knows everything, every idea from every point of view, then he is also able to see evil as we see, and if he is omnipotent and willing to get rid of said evil in all points of view, he also would be able to do it, or else he's not omnipotent.

So here it is:

(1)The belief is that a omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent god exists and has aways existed.

(2)Evil exists, somewhere, for someone, through a point of view.

(3)God is willing to stop evil. But if god exists according to (1), then evil shound't exist in any way, therefore god, according to (1) cannot exist through a logical perspective.

(4)If that god cannot exist through a logical perspective, then god in (1) is illogical.

(5)If god exists but not according to (1), then he must lack any of the qualities listed in (1).

(6)Meaning the god in (1) cannot exist.

[bjlong]

Actually, that has already been proposed. The problem with it is that allowing evil to exist in one person's point of view may bring them to commit a moral good later that supercedes the previous evil. Moreover, the so-called complication of adding omniscience to the mix doesn't really change the argument substantially.

Once again, I direct you to the wikipedia article. Notice the date of origin? Too old for us to figure out? That means you've got a lot of catching up to do if you want to solve your riddle.

[Dakk]

Actually, that has already been proposed. The problem with it is that allowing evil to exist in one person's point of view may bring them to commit a moral good later that supercedes the previous evil. Moreover, the so-called complication of adding omniscience to the mix doesn't really change the argument substantially.

Once again, I direct you to the wikipedia article. Notice the date of origin? Too old for us to figure out? That means you've got a lot of catching up to do if you want to solve your riddle.

Its still evil though. Omnipotence, omniscience omnipresence and benevolence (lotsa ences there) imply that the very concept of evil shound't exist, at all, not for me, you, or someone, anywhere at anytime, and it does. An evil that causes a good that supercedes said evil is still evil, therefore evil still exists in someway, somewhere, for someone, at sometime.

[smokingwreckage]

This is simple: God is not "omnibenevolent"- He (or She, or It, I was raised Christian and am trying to be polite) does not, in fact, desire the greatest niceness possible for every being on earth.

God is not "omnipotent" to the extent that He is constrained by His own character and self-consistency (this is a Christian and possibly Jewish argument, Muslim orthodoxy holds that God is not constrained by anything, including logic, causality, His own promises, or self-consistency).

Finally, the argument of omniscience adds an additional complication: when we try to determine the greater good or the lesser evil, we do not know every possible consequence of every possible alternative. A truly "omniscient" God does: this is called "middle knowledge" IIRC.  To bring omniscience into the argument but then posit that it cannot lead to knowledge outside our sphere that justifies any given action is essentially inconsistent. In other words, if you want to argue about a truly omniscient being and its motivations, you'd better be ready to accept "moves in mysterious ways" because you are way out of the maximum potential computational depth of any non-omniscient mind in existence.