The argument from Gratuitous Evil: Response to FGB/Veritas48

My thoughts on humanities epistemic position concerning evil and the argument from gratuitous evil.

Let:

(G) = An omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good God exists

(E) = Gratuitous or pointless evil exists

(MP) the principle of meticulous providence = An omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good God would prevent or eliminate the existence of really gratuitous or pointless evils

FGB and Veritas48's discussion:

1. The opening statement made by FGB on the topic was that the Problem of Evil is one reason why he finds his atheism justified. FGB argues that he would expect a benevolent omniscient God to intervene but he doesnt see this and moreover there seems to be countless unnecessary suffering.

2. Veritas48 responded stating that human beings cannot state something is unnecessary since they do not have omniscience.

3. FGB counters with a hypothetical situation: Suppose FGB comes over and sleeps on Veritas48s couch. The following day FGB is gone and so is all of Veritas48s valuable possessions. Veritas48 calls FGB and FGB states that he had to took all of the valuables, because it serves some greater good that is unknown by both parties. The thrust behind what FGB seems to be arguing in his first thought experiment is that we dont form ideas on what is potentially the case, but on what is observed. Moreover, FGB states that Veritas48 is treating FGBs inductive arguments as deductive arguments.

4. Veritas48 responds that he fails to see how induction in this case pertains to God. Noah argues that it is our expectations that are more likely fallible than Gods morally sufficient reasons given the finite and reduced nature of our human reasoning comparatively to the omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent nature of the God in question. So it is not an argument from mere possibility, but from a being that is omniscient. Moreover, Noah argues that FGBs thought experiments are dis-analogous since we are talking about a being that is omniscient and not finite like the thought experiments assume. Concisely, while we are justified in asking the question (i.e. why is there suffering/evil?) this shouldnt translate into our expectations acting as the plumb line.

5. FGB replies with another thought experiment: Suppose you are a judge and ten witness state that they have seen FGB stab a man, FGB owns the knife and his fingerprints are on it. FGB argues that if his defense was, If you had my knowledge then you would know that the witnesses are lying and I am innocent, then it wouldnt be sufficient as a defense because we dont equit people based on the knowledge that we dont have, but on the knowledge we do have.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• atheism
• argument
• from
• evil
• natural
• moral
• gratuitous
• excessive
• god
• jesus
• theism
• logic

[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.

[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]

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.

[gCuezy]

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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.