The argument from Gratuitous Evil: Response to FGB/Veritas48

[gCuezy]

Awesome, this comes in handy for a recent discussion I've been having.

[Hexdoll]

Are you just arguing that evil does not exist?

evil does exist

either god is present in evil or not

if god is present in evil then god is not Omni-benevolent

if god is not Omni-present then god is not the greatest conceivable being

if god is not Omni-benevolent then god does not exist

if god is not the greatest conceivable being then god does not exist

[D33veeoss]

A fallacious deinition of an unqualified entity/non-entity also explains everything, and leaves the board swept clean for the ones this issue was meant to be examind by.

Enter undefined and qualified reality.

Reality itself.

Mechanical? Personal? Other? Combo?

You have to list SUBJECTIVE attributes to get past ANYTHING that most people say on this net about their idea of a 'so-called' "god".

Conscious omnipotent being?

Can you say PROJECTIING?

Fuck is this ever fucking fickle.

[D33veeoss]

Stop postulating a defined "god" because as soon as you invoke definitions you LET GO of an OBJECTIVE ida and you embrace a SUBJECTIVE one.

Thanks for your time and likely not listening.

Read it until you get it and then respond.

[Hexdoll]

I think you maybe in error by embracing V48s defense of humans finite capacity, this would destroy all Theism. If said defense stands, you could not make any claim about god without the probability of error via finite capacity. I think then all Theist arguments would then be special pleading and should be treated as such.

[telemantros]

V48 was not arguing that humans are incapable of inference about God's actions (e.g. free will defense, soul making, etc), what he was arguing was that humans can be in error at times (e.g. our expectations of a omniscient/benevolent God). The distinction is between capability and fallibility. I think it is quite right to state that human beings form erroneous expectations or inferences from time to time, but this hardly destroys all of theism.

[Hexdoll]

As Noelplum points out, you claim omni-benevolence for god but you can not distinguish it from omni-malevolence as you dont know the intent or cannot know the intent of god. So how can you claim omni-benevolence if you don't know what it is yourself? hence destroys any meaningful definition of god in the arena of morality.

[telemantros]

Hex we weren't talking about benevolence, we were talking about how fallibility does not lead to incapable inference. And Neoplum isn't necessarily right either, for malevolence is not a great making attribute, therefore via the Ontological argument and the concept of a maximally great being we can picture what benevolence would be.

[Hexdoll]

sorry buy we are talking about benevolence not just that but omni-benevolence to try to circumvent this part of the argument in which the whole problem of evil stance is predicated on is meaningless.

when you put the prefix omni on a word it means- AT ALL TIMES- so this absolute stance cannot be fallible or it loses its meaning.

so all is left is a special pleading argument for the meaning of the word omni-benevolence.

[MasterChince]

Hmmm .... there are things that are ever present every where at all times.... "the concepts of evil* just may be one of them... ... say... from one phillosopher to I'll presume another ,,, how about a little exchange of subbage.... and that goes to anyone who thinks they are either cool, smart,funny,special, contravercial or all of the above

[ToriesPolishBoy]

@Telemantros

You briefly mention or allude to the apparent contradiction of God's omniscience in this video in 2:26, I think. Are you saying the objection based on omniscience could potentially discredit all forms of theism or are you claiming that is the only objection that has successfully discredited all forms of theism.

Is there a better defense out there other than Plantinga's?

[telemantros]

What contradiction of God's omniscience did you think you detected?

[ToriesPolishBoy]

I'm talking in general about the alleged contradictions with omniscience such as how can God be omniscient will the existence of free will or God being timeless and omniscient etc, not the arguments from evil etc. I thought you refer to that around 2:26. I'm not quite sure what you're referring to during that point in your video. I've been having trouble answering this alleged contradiction. I myself am a Christian theist. I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction.

[telemantros]

In video I was referencing the error in stating that human beings are in a 'better' position to judge what is/isn't allowable compared to an omniscient/benevolent being. What you raise is called a fatalistic argument (omniscience vs. free will) and I've heard two compelling answers: Ockham's way out and Monolist account of omniscience. Maybe i'll do a vid on the topic this weekend.

[superjam18]

Telemantros have you asked yourself how many people have you drawn to Christ by way of youtube arguments?

[telemantros]

I don't think that's the only way to measure success on this medium.

[DanceInYourRoom]

What a fancy way of saying "no".

So much for Matthew 5:37

[superjam18]

no it's not but what im really asking is that wouldn't it be easier to just focus on reaching out to the community you live in ?

[telemantros]

I do reach out in my community, in my job, etc.

[Veritas48]

@telemantros

It is amazing how naive people can be.

[telemantros]

Isn't it? As if "I" draw people to Christ ... that's another persons job description.

[kitrana]

while we may not be able to state with 100% certainty that there is no god, we can state with reasonable certaintly that given the track record of proving stuff that used to be known to be caused by god to not be caused by god and considering the lack of evidence for a god that there isnt one. thats how we go from "theres no evidence of elves. to there are no elves"

[kitrana]

science starts from the null position. meaning if there is no evidence for A then science does not assume A may exist anyway. though we may still look for evidence of A we can safely say A does not exist since there isnt any evidence to the contrary. Atheists simply take a null position. since there is no evidence for god we can safely say god doesnt exist. though if evidence does come about in gods favour then we'd change our position.

[Gnomefro]

I think you're ignoring one fairly major point:

Who decides whether whatever God does amounts to omnibenevolece?

I simply can't accept that the answer to this can be anything but subjective. Nobody who died horribly of starvation would have any reason to refer to an omnipotent creator god omnibenevolent, or even good.

Any attempt to divorce a definition of good from subjectivity amounts to stating "good is whatever god does" as VickMackey implied. Such a "good" is utterly without meaning.

[noelplum99]

Agreed, this is to assert that omnibenevolence is a characteristic of God when simultaneously asserting that your definition of omnibenevolence is 'whatever God does'even if not explicitly making it clear that what is what you are doing.

I have made a response and briefly asked if RD's definition is pulling itself up by its own bootstraps in this way - it remains to be seen if they provide an answer.

[telemantros]

Were these the same questions you asked in PM where I shot you an answer?

[noelplum99]

No.

In the pm I asked you about what non-revelatory grounds their were for positing omnibenevolence, I never asked for your definition of the term.

[noelplum99]

I think this video has sparked me into life, like some ancient monolithic stone behemoth jolted into animation by the right combination of forces.

A related video (hopefully) upcoming.

[conradleviston]

Nice video, but I'd like to make a quick point.

As i've said before, I don't think that there is any one argument that conclusively denies the existence of God, and as such the Argument from Gratuitous evil is not conclusive. In fact I even agree with your reason for saying it is not airtight, namely that "God could have a reason, we just don't know it."

[conradleviston]

"I don't know why" is a reasonable answer and we shouldn't be afraid of using it. If on the other hand we have a well defined counter-explanation (ie this is what we would expect if there weren't a God) then the argument still works as an argument, if not as a proof.

To switch it around, consider the first cause argument. What started time? We don't know, but we have a bunch of possible ideas. God is a possible answer, so the first cause argument is evidence (although I consider it very weak)

[Pumbaelo]

It's funny that Rowe himself (you know, the guy who came up with the argument from gratuitous evil) admitted it's worthless after the philosophical literature has explored it (and even revised it 2 times, each time making it worse ...)

[LittleSn00py]

Where did he mention it?

[Pumbaelo]

Hmm, that is a good question. I wish I would recall that. Don't have a source right now, but I don't think it really is controversial. The reason he revises the argument in the first place is the heavy criticism it's under.

[LittleSn00py]

I know Rowe revised the argument, but I would like to know where he admitted defeat.

[seflersinsburg10]

@Telemantros

Great vid as usual, but I have two objections/questions:

1) doesn't induction allow us to move from the particular to the general? If I've never seen any elves can't I make an inductive argument against their existence?

2) Can't God eliminate some suffering within the natural order? I mean, that's what we're trying to do with technological advances and better medicine, and it's not like we're changing the laws of physics. Why doesn't God give us the cure to cancer or something?

[ElasticGiraffe]

Telemantros,

In your view, what is the difference between the evidential and the probabilistic problem of evil? o.O

[oober349]

Title text here.

Subtitle text here.

[randyhelzerman]

Hi Tele, all evidence I have available to me says that it is wrong to let somebody die if you could have prevented them from dying. If there is a God, he does this all the time, so, all evidence I have available to me says that if God exists, He is evil. I can understand if you say that you take it on faith that God isn't evil. I mean, there are things my cat will never understand, and there are things I'll never understand. HOWEVER....

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to Tele) HOWEVER.... this means that you to admit that you take the existence of a good God on faith---against all evidence to the contrary. I can understand and respect it if you say you have faith that god exists and is good. but I cannot understand how you can say this and also claim you can prove his existence, or prove that He is good. You just can't have it both ways.

[vickmackey24]

The last part of your video seems to fly in the face of your belief in miracles. But then again, you'll just say "God knows when to intervene."

Ironically, you're the one using the argument from ignorance by postulating a *possible* higher purpose. You essentially make the claim of omnibenevolence unfalsifiable WITH an appeal to ignorance. How convenient :/

By your logic, I'd be perfectly justified in believing Jeffrey Dahmer was God and omnibenevolent since no one can absolutely disprove it.

[vickmackey24]

telemantros, I guess my question for you is why do YOU believe God is omnibenevolent? For the sake of argument, let's assume God exists and comes down and tells us "I AM OMNIBENEVOLENT" and then proceeds to slaughter random innocent people in horrific ways. Do you still believe Him because He might have a higher purpose? What IS your standard of evidence for belief here? Like FGB said, people don't form beliefs based on what they don't know or what's *possible*; they do it from what they know.

[vickmackey24]

Watch the movie "Mars Attacks" when the aliens come down and say "We come in peace. We come in peace." and then proceed to blow up Congress and laugh at the naivety of humans. I thought it was pretty funny... and quite relevant to this discussion :)

[askirojadu]

Wow, finally a theist that has a solid grasp on the problem. I think Noah could learn a lot from this video especially since he misconstrues what Dawkins means by evil in "The leap to the upper story"

Telemantros I'm glad you have entered this debate :)

There is much more to this story then where veritas and fgb are currently stalled.

[WayOfTheBastard]

I like this video. FYI your response is coming by monday if it kills me, promise. I am tempted to say a lot here.

[FatGermanBastard]

A few objections.

For one inductive reasoning always begs the question if you put it in a deductive form. That doesn't make it invalid of course. From your experience with hot material you conclude that touching fire always hurts eventhough deductively this begs the question.

And if you think all we can say is: "I have no reason to believe that touching fire does not hurt" then why don't you touch fire ? I mean by doing this you are converting the claim to a deductive statement, right ?

[randyhelzerman]

Yes F.G.B. you are right. Deductive reasoning is the art of begging the question. You can't really object to a deductive argument by saying it begs the question; they all do. The whole point of deductive reasoning is that it gives you nothing more than what you've already assumed.

[vickmackey24]

@randyhelzerman

Um, what? I think you have that backwards... inductive reasoning is what can be seen as "begging the question." For example, here's an inductive argument that begs the question: "Everything we've observed has had a cause, therefore the universe also had a cause."

Theists can really only argue for God through induction, not deduction... and that's why it's generally so unconvincing.

[randyhelzerman]

Hi vickmackey24, the argument you gave does not beg the question.

[vickmackey24]

@randyhelzerman

Oh no? In that case you must believe this is a sound argument.

Q. Did something cause the universe?

P1. Everything we've observed has had a cause

P2. Through induction, we can assume causal events *within* the universe also apply to the universe itself.

C. Something caused the universe

P2 is an inductive premise that indirectly entails the conclusion, thereby "begging the question." P2 was implied by way of being an inductive argument, but I stated it explicitly for clarity.

[vickmackey24]

Here's another one:

Q. Does randyhelzerman know what "begging the question" means?

P1. Randy did not know what deduction meant.

P2. Through induction, we can assume that if Randy doesn't know what deduction means, he doesn't know what begging the question means.

C. Randy does not know what begging the question means.

That's how weak inductive arguments can be if the assumptions and extrapolations are so poor :) Where do we draw the line?

[FatGermanBastard]

I think what Randy means is that since the premises of a deductive argument contain the conclusion (necessarily and by definition) the argument therefore begs the question at least to some degree because stating that the premises are true always contains the claim that the conclusion is true.

And well that's true but I wouldn't say this makes deductive reasoning question begging in general since we often can establish premises without knowledge of the conclusion.

[vickmackey24]

@FatGermanBastard

The premises don't *contain* the conclusion; they collectively entail the conclusion. I don't see how that's question begging at all, unless you're totally bastardizing the meaning of the term. Pun intended :)

Q. Is John a vegetarian?

P1. Vegetarians don't eat meat.

P2. John eats meat.

C. John is not a vegetarian.

Only with the silliest of interpretations (e.g., questioning P2 on epistemic grounds) could one say that argument begs the question.

[continued]

[vickmackey24]

As you said, if the premises are true in a deductive argument, the conclusion MUST be true; if they're true in an inductive argument, the conclusion MIGHT be true, but not necessarily. That, in essence, makes every inductive argument beg the question. (see Hume) I don't think anyone can reasonably say *every* truth claim "begs the question," unless you want to call yourself a solipsist or something. The premises simply need to be true within a certain framework of understanding.

[FatGermanBastard]

Yeah exactly that's what I tried to explain in my first comment. Deductively every inductive argument begs the question. But that does not make it invalid.

[FatGermanBastard]

Yeah that's right... I guess Randy's definition of "question begging" is just broader than ours. For me question begging is when one can only establish one of the premises if one has prior knowledge of the conclusion being true.

[FatGermanBastard]

I don't agree with that...every argument contains inductively established premises. One can not deny inductive reasoning without running into huge epistemological problems. Atheists/naturalists like myself depend on inductive reasoning just as much as Christians do. The reliability of our senses which is the basis of all science for example can only be established inductively.

[FatGermanBastard]

Well if I could observe miracles many times when someone prays to God that would count as inductive evidence for his existence IMO. But we see absolutely nothing in that direction. At least nothing verifiable or properly documented.

[vickmackey24]

@FatGermanBastard

"Well if I could observe miracles many times when someone prays to God that would count as inductive evidence for his existence IMO."

I agree. I recant my previous comment about inductive reasoning generally not being sufficient to justify belief in God. I was more referring to that particular argument of whether the universe had a cause.

[FatGermanBastard]

Hi Randy ! What I meant is actually that if you take an inductive argument and put it in a deductive form it becomes circular. I.e.

If touching fire hurt every time I tried it will hurt the next time.

Touching fire hurted every time I tried.

Therefore it will hurt the next time.

To this argument what you said about deductive reasoning applies. The premises can only be established by assuming the conclusion.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that this applies to all deductive reasoning.