Concerto is getting into the business of limiting his god's power. His post above amounts to "well, god could fix X but if he did then Y would become a problem." Implying that god cannot fix both X and Y simultaneously. If he cannot do this, then he is not omnipotent. If god is not omnipotent, as implied above, then we can instantly rule out the Christian god from possibility...since the Christian god as defined by most theologians is omnipotent.

Thank you for making this argument against god, concerto.

Three points/questions:

1. What is this cost?
2. Is this just? In other words, it seems like God has created a world whereby some suffer so that others can benefit. Has God constructed this world such that only those who deserve to suffer do suffer? Or do the innocent sometimes suffer for others benefit?
3. Your claim seems likely to be false. Humans have already "fixed" many aspects of our "optimally imperfect" (huh?) physical environment. For instance, we've discovered the cure for many horrible diseases, we've figured out how to prevent starvation, etc.. If God had just given humans more knowledge about how the world works, much seemingly useless human suffering would have been prevented. This is why I phrased my question as a "technology." I'm not arguing that the laws of nature need to be different--just that our knowledge of these laws needed to be different. Since God has this knowledge, why didn't he use it earlier to create vaccines and new varieties of grain?

An omnipotent god can, very obviously, fix something on earth without simultaneously causing another problem. He's god, remember?

My contention with the whole PoE issue is that the believer can just claim 'they don't know' as long as it's not logically impossible.

A: How can there be apparent evil in the world if God is all-good?
B: I don't know, I don't know the mind of God.

In support, I'd argue that the physicalist or naturalist doesn't give up his ideology just because he can't answer every question or explain all phenomena and the theist's ideology shouldn't be treated differently. So, all I am trying to establish is possible/not impossible in respect to an all-good God and the PoE.

The all-evil God isn't my argument; others have made it. All I did was take it to its logical conclusion and I don't believe it establishes that evil is incompatible with an all-good God. With (5-14) it's a stand-alone argument that if a theist accepts (5) then evil in the world isn't incompatible with an all-good God.

Some of the atheists here could learn a thing or two from Original Position.

no doubt...most of the theists too...

Now I'm even more confused. If you view (5) - (14) as an interesting stand alone argument, then I'll go back to my criticism. Any theist who makes this argument is asserting a contradiction in (12) and so doesn't successfully defend her theism against the problem of evil. Also, the theist has to accept not only (5), but also (6), (7), (9), and most crucially, (12) for this argument to be successful

As to your larger point, it is true that everyone, including naturalists, have certain psychological habits that make them unlikely to give up their most basic beliefs when they encounter contrary evidence. However, I think the issue here is not an exploration of the psychological nature of ideology, but rather the narrower question of whether theistic belief is compatible with the existence of certain kinds of evil. Answering "I don't know," is not an adequate response to that question.

Insert joke about "theists learning arguments?"

When it comes to science, we are able to correctly answer "I don't know" for things which have no evidence and come to certain confidence intervals for things which have evidence. Theism doesn't work the same way. I realize that theists will argue otherwise, but those arguments are lacking.

Thanks for your deep and thoughtful contributions to the thread

That was addressed especially to you.

I don't know. My purpose is to show the logical form of a solution consistent with the Bible, not to provide specific details which require impossible knowledge of God's knowledge and intent.

Insufficient data. Suffering can be either good or bad, depending on what you do with it, so I don't see the point of questions about the supposed injustice of certain suffering as if it's an end in itself and therefore an inherent bad.

In my opinion, God chose to make our physical environment with a certain amount of "imperfection" (as we would call it) for the same reason He did not make us immune to all disease, able to breath underwater, etc. The Creator of the universe determined that this particular set of challenges due to environmental factors, some of which we can overcome while others we cannot, is best for us overall, whereas, for example, giving mankind superpowers and a perfectly nurturing environment would be detrimental, all told.

Thanks for your deep and thoughtful contributions to the thread

So you believe that the world is better off with disease, hurricanes, asteroid impacts, birth defects, etc.

For some crazy crazy reason, I expect if a family member of yours were to down with cancer you wouldn't be like "hey everyone, I see that you're crying and all but really this was just necessary because god giving us a perfectly nurturing environment would be detrimental" But you WILL allow yourself to make this generalization about people you don't know about, which is the sickest part of all.

Theists commonly challenge atheists with "But, how can you be good without god?" One can hardly resist asking you now "But how can you be good with god?"

Oh, and your entire post above is nothing but an ad hoc rationalization/excuse on god's behalf. There is no evidence that any of that is even true. All you did was suppose that it was in a desperate attempt to defend your position. In the real world most of us would like evidence for what we believe, not just desperately assert things at random which might in some weird way help justify some other previously held dogmatic belief.

IMO, the PoE is a valid reason for one to reject theism, however, I don't think it's a conclusive argument against theism. When a believer responds, "I don't know," he's really just saying he doesn't know the purpose of human suffering, but behind that is the issue of purpose or more importantly, the assertion that there is a purpose. That's something the atheist can argue:

1. If there is no end-purpose to human life, (that life is without objective meaning), necessarily, then God does not exist.
2. There is no end-purpose to human life, necessarily.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

If (2) can be established, then the theist has no grounds to assert, "I don't know." Otherwise the theist has some valid ground to stand on. Despite all the various points and arguments, it's all about (2), IMO.

Too bad you are not even trying,the point isn't that they all die ,the point is "all good" God responsible for needless suffering.

Papal infallibility

and btw how come The Bible is God's word?
Was it not written by men?
Or you do not care about such minor details?

Off course i can, it is a Christian ideal,ultimate goal,it is called heaven.

There is no inconsistency between an all-good God and needless suffering (of the natural variety). This would be a problem only if needless suffering necessarily involved evil in some way, but you haven't proven that point, just like you haven't proven that needless pleasure necessarily involves good. Pleasure and pain are good or bad depending on what you do with them and how you are changed by them. They are not ends in themselves.

That the Bible is God's word is something I take on faith, as others take the "religion hoax" conspiracy theory on faith.

We're not talking about heaven here. This is about the proving ground that decides who gets into heaven.

Oh I'm sorry, i have to connect needless suffering to evil.
Ok, no biggie ,i'll just define evil being as someone who impose
needless suffering on others.
How would you define evil ?

I not sure what it means.
How do you feel the bible came to be in this world?
Did just appeared in to pope's room,late night in 3rd century
with note attached

"Dear John
This book is true .


Your God"

p.s. if so in what language was it written (the book,not the note) ?

Remember, for concerto, evil is only doing what God doesn't want. By definition anything God does is good for Concerto, no matter how destructive. He can't bear to think that his God may be a cruel SOB. So he'll justify any of it away in his mind.

Evil is to go against the will of God.

No wonder the antichrists can't get traction using this "problem of evil" flim-flam. They try to close the sale on their shabby strawman using a non-Biblical definition.

The exact details of how the Bible came into being is yet another question with the following properties: 1) There is no reason I should be expected to have the answer to it, nevertheless 2) you act as if my not having an answer to it somehow discredits my argument when this is not the case by any logic you can demonstrate.

There are an infinite number of such questions, actually. This is probably a famous fallacy which I should look up some time.

Justify what? There is no problem here. If you want to invent semantic puzzles about God using your own definitions of words, I'm glad to leave you to it. You could even have a parade about it down Main Street for all I care.

I will leave you be Concerto.i see no point of arguing with you.
It pointless ,because you're wrong by your own definition.
I know this because i know Hebrew ,i read Isaiah 45:7
and i know that it is said.but you would never believe me anyway.

So if I try and stop an earthquake it is evil by your definition. I think you will need to widen you definition a bit.

If good is doing the will of god but no one knows what his wills are then how do we ever define good?

No need for that. What I got works fine. You failed to exclude the possibility that the person trying to stop the earthquake is also doing God's will. God can want A and B, both of which He created, to do opposing things. In fact without this happening the universe could hardly exist.

Only by accident I suppose. Such complete ignorance of God's will has nothing to do with the actual situation, of course.

Quite the opposite. I'm trying to avoid semantics. You are the one refusing to consider any action of God anything other than "good by definition" no matter how horrifying the results.

Sorry, which line in the bible says that anything God does is good? Would Genesis "and it was good" be redundant if everything was good. Didn't God express regret about wiping out humanity before promising not to do it again? Doesn't that entail that at least one action was not so good?

Even if it is explicitly in the bible, I don't see why we need to stick to that definition for the purposes of this thread. Fact is: if all of God's actions are good by definition, then it is meaningless to call him all-good. (maybe you've said this above, too lazy to go look). But I think it really does make the word meaningless.

Concerto slowly walking away from this thread