• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Special Pleading and the Problem of Evil

Kelly of the Phoenix

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
stvdv said:
Erin: Why does child leukemia exist? Why doesn't your omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being prevent it?
1) God does not have the attribute of "omnibenevolent", so this whole reasoning makes no sense and is not correct
Click to expand...
Exactly. The omnimax thing is a later invention. Yahweh and El and the other members of most ancient pantheons were never omnimax.
 
stvdv

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
9-10ths_Penguin said:
So you think there can be hidden wisdom behind killing a child with cancer?
Click to expand...
You only show half of the picture, that is not fair

1) Humans were granted "Free Will" (or choice)
2) The Law of Karma (cause & effect) balances

Would you prefer to give up "Free Will"?
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Shakeel said:
Yes.
Click to expand...
And what about humans who do things that cause children to die of cancer?

If you agree that the wisest course of action is sometimes to kill children with cancer, then when, say, a factory releases carcinogens into the environment, you're surely open to the possibility that the person responsible was just exceptionally wise and was doing the best thing, right?
 
F

F1fan

Veteran Member
Shakeel said:
Negligence? Do you have the keys to paradise? Do you decide what happens to the child after he or she dies? What value does this life have?
Click to expand...
The God would know. Yet it allows a child with a fatal defect to be born, let it suffer agony, put parents through emotional turmoil, ruin their lives, and yet this is somehow smart and moral?

I know believers default into a promise of some afterlife but we live in conscious awareness. We all observe life ending and it's the end. A God knows this and it knows humans AREN'T certain it's true. So this just adds to the immorality of this creator.
 
stvdv

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
9-10ths_Penguin said:
If I were to tell you why "free will" makes no sense whatsoever as a response to the Problem of Evil, would you be open to having your mind changed?
Click to expand...
I appreciate that you write "no sense" instead of "nonsense", that sounds much better, don't you think?

I appreciate the offer to explain why you think it makes no sense to bring in "Free Will" as a response to the "Problem of Evil"

I also know that it won't work, because you reason from an Atheist POV and I reason from a Theist POV. Those are 2 opposite worlds that will never meet; the word "Atheist" as opposed to "Theist" explains that well enough. I am fine that you believe your way. I believe my way and to me it makes sense and therefore I feel no need, nor see any use to try to change our way of thinking, those are beliefs/opinions anyway.

The whole of the Universe is too complex for me to fathom and I have not met 1 on RF who claims he understands it all, hence if I need someone to explain the concept of Free Will to me, I rather have someone explain it to me who "knows" about "Free Will" and the relation to Life and Death (what you called killing). "Free Will" is a spiritual concept, hence I need a spiritual Master to explain it to me
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
stvdv said:
I appreciate that you write "no sense" instead of "nonsense", that sounds much better, don't you think?
Click to expand...
They mean the same thing.

I could also say that "free will" as a response to the Problem of Evil is irrational and foolish, which would also be correct.

stvdv said:
I appreciate the offer to explain why you think it makes no sense to bring in "Free Will" as a response to the "Problem of Evil"
Click to expand...
I haven't made that offer yet. I asked a question to see if there's any point in me making the offer.

stvdv said:
I also know that it won't work, because you reason from an Atheist POV and I reason from a Theist POV. Those are 2 opposite worlds that will never meet; the word "Atheist" as opposed to "Theist" explains that well enough. I am fine that you believe your way. I believe my way and to me it makes sense and therefore I feel no need, nor see any use to try to change our way of thinking, those are beliefs/opinions anyway.

The whole of the Universe is too complex for me to fathom and I have not met 1 on RF who claims he understands it all, hence if I need someone to explain the concept of Free Will to me, I rather have someone explain it to me who "knows" about "Free Will" and the relation to Life and Death (what you called killing). "Free Will" is a spiritual concept, hence I need a spiritual Master to explain it to me
Click to expand...
Even within a "Theist POV", saying that free will explains the Problem of Evil is irrational.
 
Nakosis

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Meow Mix said:
Today I'd like to address a particular response often given to the Problem of Evil: that God has a good reason for allowing evil to occur, even if we're don't know what that reason is. This theodicy usually looks something like this:



This is a form of special pleading: normally when we see someone allowing suffering, we conclude that they're malevolent or at least criminally negligent. But in the case is God, a special case is made appealing to the fact that God is powerful and knowledgeable; so we can't conclude that God allowing the suffering is malevolent.

There are two objections to note here. One comes in the form of a parody:

Say that an extraterrestrial lands on planet earth and blasts a bunch of people seemingly at random with a ray gun. Inexplicably, the extraterrestrial agrees to stand trial for its actions. "I am immensely more powerful and more intelligent than you are," ET says to the judge and to the people of Earth. "You cannot say that my actions were malevolent. I have benevolent reasons for them that you couldn't possibly understand."

Intuitively, is it the case that we are incapable of arriving to the conclusion that what ET did is malevolent in a reasonable fashion? They may be more powerful and more intelligent than humans, but it seems to me as though we are still behaving reasonably by concluding the actions were malevolent in the complete absence of any evidence they were benevolent. Do you agree?

The second objection is the consequence of allowing special pleading. Special pleading is a fallacy for a reason.

Let's say that our theodicist from the earlier conversation dies, and finds themselves in a throne room before God. God gets off His throne, whips out a holy flanged mace, and begins to mercilessly beat the everloving snot out of the theodicist.

"It's okay," the theodicist might think. "This is God, God is smarter and more powerful than me. I may not understand it, but God has a good, benevolent reason for doing this."

A day passes of beatings. A week. A month. "God must have a good reason for this," the theodicist continues to think. A year goes by. A decade. Millennia. Eons.

Is there ever a point where the theodicist can break out of their special pleading argument? Is there ever a stopping point where they may admit, "ok, maybe God is just malevolent?" No -- they can continue their special pleading argument infinitely. Can you see why that's a problem?
Click to expand...

Good and evil are a matter of feelings, not facts.
The mistake is trying to apply logic to this.
A person feels God must be good in order to meet their expectation of God.
Maybe after a while, those feelings will change but humans tend to cling desperately to those feelings that support their worldview.
 
stvdv

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
9-10ths_Penguin said:
They mean the same thing.

I could also say that "free will" as a response to the Problem of Evil is irrational and foolish, which would also be correct.
Click to expand...
This proves that you are the wrong person to explain these things to me

9-10ths_Penguin said:
I haven't made that offer yet. I asked a question to see if there's any point in me making the offer.
Click to expand...
Yes, I read that, you were willing to make an offer. And I was clear that there is no point in making below offer
9-10ths_Penguin said:
would you be open to having your mind changed?
Click to expand...
It is not about "having my mind changed". I know that my POV is true. Your opinion about my POV cannot change my truth, so it's pointless to even try

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Even within a "Theist POV", saying that free will explains the Problem of Evil is irrational.
Click to expand...
And in other "Theist POVs", my POV makes perfect sense, and you are the irrational one and I am not;)

Hence I said "you stick to your belief, and I stick to mine". I never try to change others their beliefs or lack thereof, it might even violate RF Rules "Similarly, attempting to convert others away from their religion, spiritual convictions..."

I share my beliefs/truths, and you share yours. If I like yours, fine, if not, that's fine too (and v.v.)

I see no use in proving each other's POV false. Just share opinions/POVs and definitely not belittle my POV.

Why try to prove my faith is false? If you make a very good case of your belief, then I am smart enough to accept it,
 
Last edited:
A

alypius

Active Member
Meow Mix said:
Not a good analogy for this reason: God is ostensibly omnibenevolent, and could actualize any logically possible outcome without causing any suffering.
Click to expand...

The text about the parent is not an analogy.

The original proposition was that any case where suffering is permitted must definitely mean malevolence.
Is it not the text about the parent a valid counter example to the original proposition?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top