Your answer is also one generated by human cognition. If you are saying that all products of human cognition are faulty, then you and your arguments fall into that category. As such, they can be dismissed as easily as you dismiss mine- including the one in which you state human cognition is faulty.

My point is that there is no reason, based on obscure or hidden facts that justify evil, that God cannot reveal it to us based on cognitive limitation, because it was God who knowingly put us in said scenario. Again, we do not even get special assurances from God that everything is happening for a reason and the reason he cannot tell us what this evil is. This anguish from not knowing is an unavoidable evil in and of itself.

Your answer is also one generated by human cognition. If you are saying that all products of human cognition are faulty, then you and your arguments fall into that category. As such, they can be dismissed as easily as you dismiss mine- including the one in which you state human cognition is faulty. — Chany

Well, if you accept we could be wrong in our thinking I'm happy to accept my own fallibility.

Completely missing the point there: I do not accept that the human mind is so faulty to the point of inability to generate arguments. I am saying your stance is self-defeating.

Completely missing the point there: I do not accept that the human mind is so faulty to the point of inability to generate arguments. I am saying your stance is self-defeating. — Chany

How so? I only have a single thought viz. I could be wrong. There's nothing self-defeating in that. I think skepticism is recommended in philosophy.

There is a difference between leaving the possibility for error and claiming that something is unjustified. If you are saying that I cannot, with absolute certainty, disprove God via the current argument, you are right, but this is nothing new. The problem of evil the child analogy targets seeks to provide evidence for the nonexistence of God and claim that, ignoring all other relevant evidence, it is more likely than not that God does not exist. If you you do not trust the mind's ability to make sound judgments to any degree, then we are left in a permanent state of agnosticism on everything. If you trust our mind's ability to make judgments, then what is wrong with my argument regarding why cognitive limitations are not a good reason to avoid the problem of evil?

There is a difference between leaving the possibility for error and claiming that something is unjustified — Chany

A thought, even a possibility, can shatter and transform us....Friedrich Nietzsche

If you you do not trust the mind's ability to make sound judgments to any degree, then we are left in a permanent state of agnosticism on everything. — Chany

I think everybody, even non-philosophers, understands your point. So much so that it needn't be explicitly stated.

A thought, even a possibility, can shatter and transform us....Friedrich Nietzsche — TheMadFool

Okay? Fortune cookie wisdom?

I think everybody, even non-philosophers, understands your point. So much so that it needn't be explicitly stated. — TheMadFool

Except you use this view of the mind to criticize an argument I presented. Now that this avenue of attack is out of the way, please explain what is wrong with my argument regrading the failure of the child analogy.

Now that this avenue of attack is out of the way, please explain what is wrong with my argument regrading the failure of the child analogy — Chany

I'm trying to solve the problem of evil, in effect making god's existence compatible with evil. It all rests on the possibility that there's nothing impossible about us, our thinking, being wrong.

I understand that global skepticism is impractical but look at the issue. It is of universal importance - what if there is a creator, a god? It would change everything: the way we conduct ourselves, the way we think, etc. Therefore, it is wise to entertain this doubt, this skepticism. In this case evwn the tiniest of possibilities is very significant.

I'm trying to solve the problem of evil, in effect making god's existence compatible with evil. It all rests on the possibility that there's nothing impossible about us, our thinking, being wrong. — TheMadFool

The evidential problem of evil makes no such claim; read the link provided and the authors of the argument (Rowe and Russell, but mostly Rowe) specifically state that there may be other lines of evidence for the existence of God that outweigh the first premise or the argument in general. However, logical possibility alone is next to meaningless within arguments that do not revolve around logical impossibility or logical necessity. Pigs can logically fly, but pointing out that pigs can logically fly does nothing against the state of non-flying pigs in the actual world. The possibility has to be a reasonable one worth considering. The first premise does not require absolute certainty to be supported- but most premises in most arguments do not require this.

I understand that global skepticism is impractical but look at the issue. It is of universal importance - what if there is a creator, a god? It would change everything: the way we conduct ourselves, the way we think, etc. Therefore, it is wise to entertain this doubt, this skepticism. In this case even the tiniest of possibilities is very significant. — TheMadFool

What you are effectively asking for is special pleading in the case of the existence of God. You are not merely asking for the uncontroversial condition of being more rigorous in possibly important statements; we are not going to approach philosophical issues like we do with whether there is soda in the fridge. We want to be rigorous in intellectual pursuits. But what you are asking for us to do become hyper-skeptical on a specific issue because without said hyper-skepticism, you run into problems. You cannot ask to change the rules of game just because the rules of the game do not favor you. If we accept your stance- that on issues that are considered important to us, we should adopt hyper-skepticism- then we have to do the following: imagine a person claiming that every single terrorist attack and action supposedly done by Islamic extremists to Western countries was a conspiracy by the United States government to make the population of the country scared and complacent. Every shooter was a sleeper cell brainwashed by government, every terrorist video was invented by the government, etc. Imagine if we provided an argument with lots of evidence that it is the case and that there are no reasonable grounds to maintain that position. The person's response to the argument goes, "There is a logical possibility that the government does these things and that we just do not know how it is done. I understand that global skepticism is impractical but look at the issue. It is of global importance - what if the U.S. is killing the citizens of the world and are blaming it on Muslim extremists? It would change everything: the way we conduct ourselves, the way we think, etc. Therefore, it is wise to entertain this doubt, this skepticism. In this case, even the tiniest of possibilities is very significant." Do you find their counterargument very good?

Also, you are assuming that the God question actually matters. It is assumed God cares about humanity, but this might not be the case. As a joke from a television show goes, "And on the eighth day, God created a magical talking snow leopard and forgot all about us." There is, as it stands right now, no reason to believe a God that exists would actually care.

So, I restate: what is wrong with my analysis of the child analogy as faulty?

Given the hard facts above wouldn't it be utter hubris and foolish to boot to claim one can understand god's mind? — TheMadFool

What would be the basis to even begin making any claims about a god's mind? Where are we getting any information about it from?

The possibility has to be a reasonable one worth considering. — Chany

The stakes are high in this one. The truth/falsity of god is crucial to what we value, how we live our lives. Doesn't this make it reasonable (your words) to reconsider the possibility no matter how small?

What you are effectively asking for is special pleading in the case of the existence of God — Chany

You're committing the fallacy of accident. This is a special case and so must be given due respect.

what is wrong with my analysis of the child analogy as faulty? — Chany

You haven't yet convinced me that I should ignore the simple possibility that we and our reason could be mistaken.

What would be the basis to even begin making any claims about a god's mind? Where are we getting any information about it from? — Terrapin Station

I didn't understand your point.

So maybe the evil is required for some greater good? — Mongrel

Yes, may be. — TheMadFool

So you're giving up omnibenevolence because (as I think BC mentioned) evil is evil. I think I understand where you're coming from, it's just psychologically precarious to say "This evil is for a greater good" because that can feed a longing to rationalize your own evil actions. I think Wosret made that same point. I'm just chiming in.

The stakes are high in this one. The truth/falsity of god is crucial to what we value, how we live our lives. Doesn't this make it reasonable (your words) to reconsider the possibility no matter how small? — TheMadFool

This statement speaks more to what you are bringing into the discussion than the discussion itself. The existence of the god of classical theism may tell us a bunch of things about reality, but, without a bunch of other concepts and ideas attached to said god, it would not change things anymore than other important issues would change things. God existing means:
1) We know the universe was created by God (I think, I never actually pondered a god who had nothing to do with the existence of the universe)
2) There is a purpose for our evil (the problem of evil is practically solved)
3) We know there is an objective moral system
4) Physicalism is false
There might be a couple of things missing from the list, but if nothing else changes, we still have a group of problems. First, if people do not necessarily need to believe in the correct god or, so nothing changes there; atheism and nontheistic religions are off the table but that still leaves the rest of them. We know morality is objective now, but we have no idea what exactly is good. Epistemology is still a problem, and there are a boatload of metaphysical questions still unanswered.

Again, I apply it to the scenario I said above. There are a lot of things that are serious and can change a lot of how we do things and how we think about things, but the mere logical possibility that something is true alone does not matter. I actually think that there are questions in philosophy related to epistemology (how we know generally, peer disagreement) and metaphysics (free will, personal responsibility) that matter as much as, if not more than, the god question, and I do not see the reason to change the entire rule set of philosophy for them. Particularly for an argument that does not claim to disprove God, but provide strong evidence against God's existence.

You're committing the fallacy of accident. This is a special case and so must be given due respect. — TheMadFool

It is only a special case if your entire worldview already revolves around the existence of a particular god and you desperately need that god to be true within your own mind. In philosophy generally, it is a question among many. Again, we have general rules about epistemology and philosophical investigations. We can argue about the rules themselves, but we cannot arbitrarily suspend or changes them to fit our needs. We need to be consistent.

So, unless you want to say that "the mere possibility of determinism being true warrants us to ignore any argument for free will where the premises have a logical possibility of being false, no matter how true it appears to be in the actual world and how much support we muster for free will," and "we cannot dismiss the claim that terrorism is all secretly a conspiracy by the U.S. government to keep the populations of the world fearful because there is nothing inherently contradictory about the proposition," you have to say the hyperskeptical attitude you demand is special pleading.

You haven't yet convinced me that I should ignore the simple possibility that we and our reason could be mistaken. — TheMadFool

Because your argument rests on an analogy between God and man and man and child. The analogy fails because humans and children have limitations on what we can understand and what we can do, while God created us with limited cognition and can explain these facts to us.

Your argument doesn't resolve the problem of evil. Ignorance doesn't resolve the problem, it leaves it unresolved. An explanation would set the record straight one way or the other, but you can't give one without conceding or contradicting yourself. You must accept the possibility that God has no good reason and/or a bad reason for allowing evil.

But does my analogy refute the problem of evil? — TheMadFool

No. It can actually work against you, since adults can do or allow bad things without good reason and/or for bad reasons (and children can be oblivious or fail to understand). And this is evidence against them being good people.

The problem of evil is that God is supposed to be simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

Saying God moves in mysterious ways solves the problem of evil if it means there is no evil. — Mongrel

Why would it mean that? If it's a mystery, then wouldn't that just mean that that's possible, but we don't know? And that would equally apply to other possibilities, like those in the argument from evil.

I understand that global skepticism is impractical but look at the issue. It is of universal importance - what if there is a creator, a god? It would change everything: the way we conduct ourselves, the way we think, etc. Therefore, it is wise to entertain this doubt, this skepticism. In this case even the tiniest of possibilities is very significant. — TheMadFool

But the problem of evil makes assumptions which could easily be avoided with that approach, and it would cease to be a problem for you. It'd be possible that God doesn't exist, or that God exists without being omnipotent, or that God exists without being omnibenevolent, or even that God exists and is evil. These possibilities are only really a problem for theists who are committed to the existence of God, and are committed to God having those attributes which the argument from evil takes into account. You can't be such a theist and a global skeptic without contradiction. Global skepticism doesn't allow for special pleading - that's why it's called global skepticism (also known as absolute skepticism or universal skepticism).

It's a question. Conventionally you'd respond by answering it.

Why would it mean that? If it's a mystery, then wouldn't that just mean that that's possible, but we don't know? — Sapientia

If the Lord moves in mysterious ways is presented for consideration as a solution to the problem of evil, I would assume that what's meant is that an evil action is a stepping stone to some greater good.

The way that would work out in practice is that some mother whose child was murdered by a policemen might be told that her grief is inappropriate because unbeknownst to her, it's all working out for the best. So that would solve the problem of evil because it would mean there is no such thing as evil.

What would be the basis to even begin making any claims about a god's mind? Where are we getting any information about it from? — Terrapin Station

For a being that can create the universe I only have my imagination to understand.

So you're giving up omnibenevolence because (as I think BC mentioned) evil is evil. I think I understand where you're coming from, it's just psychologically precarious to say "This evil is for a greater good" because that can feed a longing to rationalize your own evil actions. I think Wosret made that same point. I'm just chiming in. — Mongrel

No I'm not giving up on omnibenevolence. I'm giving up on human ability to comprehend god.

My reply is that evil that cannot be prevented/avoided has divine purpose. Not all evil. Those which we can prevent/avoided should be prevented/avoided. God (if he exists) has empowered us enough to prevent some forms of evil but not all. — TheMadFool

Doesn't change anything. All evil that actually happens is good, and any preventable evil couldn't possibly happen, or it wouldn't be true that evil leads to a greater good, unless it was revised to a wishy-washy sometimes it leads to a greater good. This though, would defeat the best possible world notion, as all evil that actually comes to fruition isn't evil at all. All evil that is preventable, must be prevented.

unless it was revised to a wishy-washy sometimes it leads to a greater good. — Wosret

You are free to make a value judgment on fact/truth as wishy-washy. However, it doesn't alter the truth/fact.

It's wishy-washy because it no longer is controversial, nor significant. Sometimes we don't realize what worse luck our bad luck saved us from, as they say. Bad things still happen to good people as well. So it becomes insignificant and impotent in this form.

If the Lord moves in mysterious ways is presented for consideration as a solution to the problem of evil, I would assume that what's meant is that an evil action is a stepping stone to some greater good. — Mongrel

Yes, I think you're right, given that context. That's probably what he had in mind. Although that doesn't actually follow if you take that phrase at face value, as I did.

The way that would work out in practice is that some mother whose child was murdered by a policemen might be told that her grief is inappropriate because unbeknownst to her, it's all working out for the best. So that would solve the problem of evil because it would mean there is no such thing as evil. — Mongrel

Yes, and like most people, I find that ludicrous. I think that even most believers would find that ludicrous. Perhaps especially believers. You'd have to bite a massive bullet to avoid the problem of evil in this way, so I don't think that it's a good resolution. It just leads to another problem - a far bigger problem, in my opinion.

No I'm not giving up on omnibenevolence. I'm giving up on human ability to comprehend god. — TheMadFool

So, you're not giving up on omnibenevolence, but you're not committed to it either. Otherwise, that'd be inconsistent with your second sentence. So, the problem of evil isn't a problem for you.

By the way, are you aware of how many times you've contradicted yourself in this discussion? On the one hand, you claim to be unable to comprehend god, and on the other hand, you make claims about the nature of god - sometimes implicitly (e.g. "evil that cannot be prevented or avoided has divine purpose") and other times explicitly (e.g. "God (if he exists) has empowered us enough to prevent some forms of evil, but not all"). Or have you just been playing devil's advocate?

So it becomes insignificant and impotent in this form. — Wosret

I'm only after the truth. If you think my train of thought leads to a bland or weak conclusion I accept these evaluations as your opinion on the matter.
Also, truth in and of itself is more potent, more significant, more relevant, more whathaveyou than anything else in this universe.

So, you're not giving up on omnibenevolence, but you're not committed to it either. Otherwise, that'd be inconsistent with your second sentence. — Sapientia

I'm keeping an open mind on the matter. I'm especially concerned with atheistic arguments which categorically deny the existence of god. There's an unwarranted surety about them that I find problematic. My opening post explains why.

That's probably what he had in mind. — Sapientia

Or maybe he doesn't mean that... I think he was saying we shouldn't rely on our own understanding (or logic). Some would say logic puts us in contact with the Divine Mind. He's saying it's still not enough to see the truth.

Anyway, what if people worshiped a god who was supposed to be omni-malevolent? So they would have the problem of good, but the apologist might say that the appearance of good is mistaken. All good things are just the prelude to a greater Evil. :)