Special Pleading and the Problem of Evil

[firedragon]

As noted in the OP, God could have done one better: created a world in which the physical suffering caused by people like Hitler could never happen. Wouldn't even have to take out Hitler, he'd be as harmless as the meanest ghost (at least physically).

Edit: Actually it was in my Toy World thread that I covered this.

Your definition of "better"? Is it emotion?

 

[Trailblazer]

If God could create the world in such a way that leukemia is not possible to get, but chooses not to (and knowingly so), this makes God culpable for the existence of leukemia.

For instance, if I'm a very advanced programmer and I'm programming a very advanced simulation like The Matrix, and The Matrix has actual artificial intelligence that's sapient and sentient (and thus what happens to the people in my simulation is a moral question), then I'm culpable for how I choose to create their world.

If I populate that world with a fire breathing dragon that rains death and destruction on the people, I'm culpable for that. If I program a disease that ravages them, I'm culpable for that. It's especially the case when I set it up in such ways while knowing what I'm doing.

Does my argument make more sense to you now when I talked about "God giving children leukemia?" If you prefer I can rephrase it: God set up the world (given the premises) in such a way that children can get leukemia when it was possible for God not to have done that; and God would have known that (per omniscience). So the existence of leukemia wasn't an accident, it was a deliberate choice by God, again given the premises of omnipotence and omniscience.

Do you see the reasoning?

I see your reasoning but I do not agree with it and it is not as if I did not see your reasoning before. I knew what you were saying all along.

You said: If God could create the world in such a way that leukemia is not possible to get, but chooses not to (and knowingly so), this makes God culpable for the existence of leukemia.

I suppose that God could have created such a world, but what about all the other diseases and all the accidents and injuries and natural disaster that cause suffering and death, or are children who get leukemia the only thing that matters to you? Do you expect God to create a world in which there is no suffering? If so why do you expect that?

You said: God set up the world (given the premises) in such a way that children can get leukemia when it was possible for God not to have done that; and God would have known that (per omniscience). So the existence of leukemia wasn't an accident, it was a deliberate choice by God, again given the premises of omnipotence and omniscience.

And now you speak for God and know that He made a deliberate choice? It was not a deliberate choice by God, it was what happened as humans evolved. God did not say "Now I am going to include leukemia just so children will suffer." The benevolent God would not do that.

 

[Meow Mix]

Your definition of "better"? Is it emotion?

For full context this is in response to what I said here:

As noted in the OP, God could have done one better: created a world in which the physical suffering caused by people like Hitler could never happen. Wouldn't even have to take out Hitler, he'd be as harmless as the meanest ghost (at least physically).

Edit: Actually it was in my Toy World thread that I covered this.

"Could have done one better" is an American idiom (do you one better!) meaning to upstage, outshine, or surpass something.

When I said "God could have done one better," the context was in terms of "taking care of Hitler" with a stray bullet in WWI. I was stating God could have surpassed that hypothetical in a more grandiose fashion. Sheerly that it would be within God's capability.

 

[Trailblazer]

If it's possible not to create the conditions under which leukemia could occur, but those conditions are instead deliberately chosen, that is evidence that God desires leukemia to exist; and actualized a world in which it does. That is evidence of malevolence.

As I just said in my last post, nothing was deliberately chosen by God, it evolved over time as humans evolved.

If you want to believe that God planned it deliberately therefore God is malevolent that is your prerogative. But in order to prove that God planned it deliberately, you will have to have a conversation with God and get Him to fess up I hope your cell phone range is unlimited.

Don't try to support that with a logical argument based upon God's omnipotence and omniscience because it won't fly. In fact, it won't even get off the ground because is omniscient God knows more than you do about what should have been included when He created the world. Are you omniscient?

What Causes Childhood Leukemia?

The exact cause of most childhood leukemias is not known. Most children with leukemia do not have any known risk factors.

Still, scientists have learned that certain changes in the DNA inside normal bone marrow cells can cause them to grow out of control and become leukemia cells. DNA is the chemical in our cells that makes up our genes, which control how our cells function. We usually look like our parents because they are the source of our DNA. But our genes affect more than how we look.

Some genes control when our cells grow, divide into new cells, and die at the right time:

• Genes that help cells grow, divide, or stay alive are called oncogenes.
• Genes that help keep cell division under control or cause cells to die at the right time are called tumor suppressor genes.

Cancers can be caused by DNA mutations (or other types of changes) that keep oncogenes turned on, or that turn off tumor suppressor genes. These gene changes can be inherited from a parent (as is sometimes the case with childhood leukemias), or they may happen randomly during a person’s lifetime if cells in the body make mistakes as they divide to make new cells.

A common type of DNA change that can lead to leukemia is known as a chromosome translocation. Human DNA is packed into 23 pairs of chromosomes. In a translocation, DNA from one chromosome breaks off and becomes attached to a different chromosome. The point on the chromosome where the break occurs can affect oncogenes or tumor suppressor genes. For example, a translocation seen in nearly all cases of childhood chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and in some cases of childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) is a swap of DNA between chromosomes 9 and 22, which leads to what is known as the Philadelphia chromosome. This creates an oncogene known as BCR-ABL, which helps the leukemia cells grow. Many other changes in chromosomes or in specific genes have been found in childhood leukemias as well.

Read more: What Causes Childhood Leukemia?

 

[Meow Mix]

I see your reasoning but I do not agree with it and it is not as if I did not see your reasoning before. O knew what you were saying.

You said: If God could create the world in such a way that leukemia is not possible to get, but chooses not to (and knowingly so), this makes God culpable for the existence of leukemia.

I suppose that God could have created such a world, but what about all the other diseases and all the accidents and injuries and natural disaster that cause suffering and death, or are children who get leukemia the only thing that matters to you? Do you expect God to create a world in which there is no suffering? If so why do you expect that?

Leukemia was only ever a single example. But yes, I do argue that God could create a world in which there was no physical suffering, and have done so here (Toy Worlds and the Problem of Evil). You don't have to go read that post for this discussion (I'll summarize below), I just posted it in case there is interest.

Given the premises that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, we should expect God to create a world in which suffering is minimized or absent. It is possible for God to create the world in such a way that there is no physical suffering given omnipotence and omniscience. Therefore, if we see a lot of suffering in the world, it is evidence against God having all three attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence).

You said: God set up the world (given the premises) in such a way that children can get leukemia when it was possible for God not to have done that; and God would have known that (per omniscience). So the existence of leukemia wasn't an accident, it was a deliberate choice by God, again given the premises of omnipotence and omniscience.

And now you speak for God and know that He made a deliberate choice? It was not a deliberate choice by God, it was what happened as humans evolved. God did not say "Now I am going to include leukemia just so children will suffer." The benevolent God would not do that.

Well, first let me clarify that this argument is under the assumption that God is omnipotent and omniscient. If God is not omnipotent or not omniscient, none of my arguments apply.

So, let me make more explicit the reasoning for how it must be deliberate.

If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then God can actualize any logically possible state of affairs. If God is omniscient, then God knows what all possible states of affairs are and the consequences for actualizing them.

Put simply, it's possible for God to have created a universe in which children don't get leukemia (again, just a single example; this applies to any kind of physical suffering). Yet God ostensibly chose to create the universe in a way that does allow for children getting leukemia. Since God is ostensibly omniscient, God would have known this would be a consequence of creating the world this way. That means it was deliberate given the premises.

 

[Meow Mix]

As I just said in my last post, nothing was deliberately chosen by God, it evolved over time as humans evolved.
But if you want to believe that God planned it deliberately therefore God is malevolent that is your prerogative. But in order to prove that God planned it deliberately, you will have to have a conversation with God and get Him to fess up I hope your cell phone range is unlimited.
Just don't try to support that with a logical argument because it won't fly. In fact, it won't even get off the ground.

What Causes Childhood Leukemia?

The exact cause of most childhood leukemias is not known. Most children with leukemia do not have any known risk factors.

Still, scientists have learned that certain changes in the DNA inside normal bone marrow cells can cause them to grow out of control and become leukemia cells. DNA is the chemical in our cells that makes up our genes, which control how our cells function. We usually look like our parents because they are the source of our DNA. But our genes affect more than how we look.

Some genes control when our cells grow, divide into new cells, and die at the right time:

• Genes that help cells grow, divide, or stay alive are called oncogenes.
• Genes that help keep cell division under control or cause cells to die at the right time are called tumor suppressor genes.

Cancers can be caused by DNA mutations (or other types of changes) that keep oncogenes turned on, or that turn off tumor suppressor genes. These gene changes can be inherited from a parent (as is sometimes the case with childhood leukemias), or they may happen randomly during a person’s lifetime if cells in the body make mistakes as they divide to make new cells.

A common type of DNA change that can lead to leukemia is known as a chromosome translocation. Human DNA is packed into 23 pairs of chromosomes. In a translocation, DNA from one chromosome breaks off and becomes attached to a different chromosome. The point on the chromosome where the break occurs can affect oncogenes or tumor suppressor genes. For example, a translocation seen in nearly all cases of childhood chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and in some cases of childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) is a swap of DNA between chromosomes 9 and 22, which leads to what is known as the Philadelphia chromosome. This creates an oncogene known as BCR-ABL, which helps the leukemia cells grow. Many other changes in chromosomes or in specific genes have been found in childhood leukemias as well.

Read more: What Causes Childhood Leukemia?

All of this misses the point, just see my last post (#345). God could set up the universe in a way where this doesn't happen (again, given the premises that God is omnipotent and omniscient).

 

[firedragon]

For full context this is in response to what I said here:



"Could have done one better" is an American idiom (do you one better!) meaning to upstage, outshine, or surpass something.

When I said "God could have done one better," the context was in terms of "taking care of Hitler" with a stray bullet in WWI. I was stating God could have surpassed that hypothetical in a more grandiose fashion. Sheerly that it would be within God's capability.

Haha. I got you. BTW, luv your Sheerly.

Do you think God interferes in human affairs? On the sly or otherwise?

 

[Meow Mix]

Haha. I got you. BTW, luv your Sheerly.

Do you think God interferes in human affairs? On the sly or otherwise?

As a nontheist, I doubt that gods exist. If one or more does, I suppose anything's possible -- but even then, I think it would be more likely that people are just prone to seeing order in things, and prone to misinterpreting experiences. I think if a god does exist and that god really does use systems of spreading belief like prophets and holy texts, that it's a very strange choice to pass on important information in such an inefficient way as cultural diffusion.

 

[viole]

Could you have designed it better?

Of course. Easily. If I were omnipotent I would make things like genetic diseases impossible, for instance. That would, leaving the rest the same, better than what we have today. Even if that genetic disease affects only a few kids/year.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Trailblazer]

Given the premises that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, we should expect God to create a world in which suffering is minimized or absent. It is possible for God to create the world in such a way that there is no physical suffering given omnipotence and omniscience. Therefore, if we see a lot of suffering in the world, it is evidence against God having all three attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence).

There is no way you can ever win this argument because an omniscient God knows more than you do about what is best for the humans that He created.

Suffering is evidence that suffering serves a purpose and that is why it exists.

"The trials of man are of two kinds. (a) The consequences of his own actions. If a man eats too much, he ruins his digestion; if he takes poison he becomes ill or dies. If a person gambles he will lose his money; if he drinks too much he will lose his equilibrium. All these sufferings are caused by the man himself, it is quite clear therefore that certain sorrows are the result of our own deeds. (b) Other sufferings there are, which come upon the Faithful of God. Consider the great sorrows endured by Christ and by His apostles!

Those who suffer most, attain to the greatest perfection.

Those who declare a wish to suffer much for Christ’s sake must prove their sincerity; those who proclaim their longing to make great sacrifices can only prove their truth by their deeds. Job proved the fidelity of his love for God by being faithful through his great adversity, as well as during the prosperity of his life. The apostles of Christ who steadfastly bore all their trials and sufferings—did they not prove their faithfulness? Was not their endurance the best proof?

These griefs are now ended.

Caiaphas lived a comfortable and happy life while Peter’s life was full of sorrow and trial; which of these two is the more enviable? Assuredly we should choose the present state of Peter, for he possesses immortal life whilst Caiaphas has won eternal shame. The trials of Peter tested his fidelity. Tests are benefits from God, for which we should thank Him. Grief and sorrow do not come to us by chance, they are sent to us by the Divine Mercy for our own perfecting.

While a man is happy he may forget his God; but when grief comes and sorrows overwhelm him, then will he remember his Father who is in Heaven, and who is able to deliver him from his humiliations.

Men who suffer not, attain no perfection. The plant most pruned by the gardeners is that one which, when the summer comes, will have the most beautiful blossoms and the most abundant fruit.

The labourer cuts up the earth with his plough, and from that earth comes the rich and plentiful harvest. The more a man is chastened, the greater is the harvest of spiritual virtues shown forth by him. A soldier is no good General until he has been in the front of the fiercest battle and has received the deepest wounds.

The prayer of the prophets of God has always been, and still is: Oh God, I long to lay down my life in the path to Thee! I desire to shed my blood for Thee, and to make the supreme sacrifice."

Paris Talks, pp. 49-51

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course. Easily.

Talk is cheap. Prove it. Destroy the world and start over form scratch.

 

[firedragon]

As a nontheist, I doubt that gods exist. If one or more does, I suppose anything's possible -- but even then, I think it would be more likely that people are just prone to seeing order in things, and prone to misinterpreting experiences. I think if a god does exist and that god really does use systems of spreading belief like prophets and holy texts, that it's a very strange choice to pass on important information in such an inefficient way as cultural diffusion.

Thats not relevant top whats immediately discussed.

Does God interfere with human affairs with miracles etc like you suggested? Is that the kind of God you're thinking of? Why?

 

[Trailblazer]

All of this misses the point, just see my last post (#345). God could set up the universe in a way where this doesn't happen (again, given the premises that God is omnipotent and omniscient).

Why should God do that, just because you don't like the way God designed it?

 

[Meow Mix]

There is no way you can ever win this argument because an omniscient God knows more than you do about what is best for the humans that He created.

And so we get back to the point of my OP: it is possible to fall into an epistemic trap whereby literally anything God does would never be interpreted as possible malevolence because it can always be explained away by appealing to the unknown. If this is your response, then I direct you back to the OP: this is special pleading and this line of reasoning can go on forever, no evidence can defeat it (and that is exactly the problem touched on in OP).

Suffering is evidence that suffering serves a purpose and that is why it exists.

"The trials of man are of two kinds. (a) The consequences of his own actions. If a man eats too much, he ruins his digestion; if he takes poison he becomes ill or dies. If a person gambles he will lose his money; if he drinks too much he will lose his equilibrium. All these sufferings are caused by the man himself, it is quite clear therefore that certain sorrows are the result of our own deeds. (b) Other sufferings there are, which come upon the Faithful of God. Consider the great sorrows endured by Christ and by His apostles!

God could make the world in such a way where a person suffers no ill effects from eating too much, or such that a person has a perfect sense of when their body is nourished, or any number of things. God could make the world in such a way that poisons do not exist, or at least do not harm. I agree that there are some sorrows that are our own fault, and notice I am not blaming God for things that people cause themselves: for instance, if a person is mean to someone else and says nasty things to them, losing a friend over that is their own fault: the circumstances around that all came from themselves.

But when it comes to the physical universe, when it comes to suffering that is instantiated from the physical universe, God is culpable for all of that; and it could have been otherwise.

 

[Meow Mix]

Thats not relevant top whats immediately discussed.

Does God interfere with human affairs with miracles etc like you suggested? Is that the kind of God you're thinking of? Why?

Oh, you mean you were asking about the hypothetical? I thought you were asking me in general what I thought. Ok.

Yes, within the hypothetical, that's one solution: God could intervene. But God wouldn't necessarily have to do that. God could just write physics in a conditional way, like code; then God wouldn't have to intervene personally every time, the code would take care of it. Just like if I were to write the code for The Matrix, I could make it so that nobody takes any damage from being hit by bullets with some lines of code. God could do that on an omnipotent/omniscient level. Physics itself could be conditional.

 

[Meow Mix]

Why should God do that, just because you don't like the way God designed it?

If God had the possibility not to include physical suffering yet chose to anyway, then indeed, I wouldn't like that. But this isn't about what I like. This is about whether it's logically coherent to say God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent at once. All of this is evidence that those three attributes aren't held by God at the same time.

 

[firedragon]

Oh, you mean you were asking about the hypothetical? I thought you were asking me in general what I thought. Ok.

Yes, within the hypothetical, that's one solution: God could intervene. But God wouldn't necessarily have to do that. God could just write physics in a conditional way, like code; then God wouldn't have to intervene personally every time, the code would take care of it. Just like if I were to write the code for The Matrix, I could make it so that nobody takes any damage from being hit by bullets with some lines of code. God could do that on an omnipotent/omniscient level. Physics itself could be conditional.

I am not asking about solutions. I am asking if this is the concept of God that you are opposing. Or are you building your own concept of God?

 

[viole]

Talk is cheap. Prove it. Destroy the world and start over form scratch.

I was addressing diseases. Don’t you think it would have been easy to prevent those when you are almighty?

ciao

- viole

 

[Meow Mix]

I am not asking about solutions. I am asking if this is the concept of God that you are opposing. Or are you building your own concept of God?

Oh, I see. Then the answer is that it's not relevant whether or not God directly intervenes in human affairs to the crux of the argument.

The argument has been that if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then God could have created the world in such a way that physical suffering is impossible. So the existence of physical suffering is a problem for anyone that says God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. That's regardless of whether god directly intervenes in human affairs or not.

 

[Trailblazer]

I was addressing diseases. Don’t you think it would have been easy to prevent those when you are almighty?

ciao

- viole

If the Almighty had desired to prevent them.

#325 Trailblazer