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? — Sapientia

I haven't contradicted myself. I only questioned the authority of rationality. You were there in the old philosophy forum. Surely you must remember how many times members expressed their fear of infallible authorities. I only ask you to extend the same care and caution towards rationality. Nothing more and nothing less.

If there's anything I've done it is put avery harsh and unforgiving judge (rationality) on trial. Isn't a judge fallible?

I haven't contradicted myself. — TheMadFool

You say that, but you have not directly addressed what I was referring to, so I don't see how you have not done so. You've made statements which seem contradictory. I even made it easier for you by quoting some of those statements.

If you can't comprehend the nature of God, then many of your claims relating to God in this discussion and others are unwarranted, and you could only reasonably make them by playing devil's advocate. Is that what you're doing or not?

If you can't comprehend the nature of God, then many of your claims relating to God in this discussion and others are unwarranted, — Sapientia

I'm only exploring the possibility of evil being compatible with god by questioning the authority of rationality. This I do because the atheistic approach to god is, to say the least, rational.

Atheists construct and present arguments that conclude by denying god's existence or diminishing god's greatness. In such behavior and certainty of claims there is an unseen, very important, extremely relevant assumption - that rationality is perfect and infallible.

It is this key assumption that I question. Isn't it fair ? Isn't it justified? Isn't it natural? The judge of rationality must be itself judged by the exact and stringent criteria that it imposes on others.

That's all I'm saying.

I'm only exploring the possibility of evil being compatible with god by questioning the authority of rationality. This I do because the atheistic approach to god is, to say the least, rational.

Atheists construct and present arguments that conclude by denying god's existence or diminishing god's greatness. In such behavior and certainty of claims there is an unseen, very important, extremely relevant assumption - that rationality is perfect and infallible.

It is this key assumption that I question. Isn't it fair ? Isn't it justified? Isn't it natural? The judge of rationality must be itself judged by the exact and stringent criteria that it imposes on others.

That's all I'm saying. — TheMadFool

So, you were playing devil's advocate? I don't know why you won't directly answer my question.

The assumption of rationality is made, at the least, for argument's sake. Otherwise, anything goes and it would be pointless to debate anything at all. If you scrap rationality, then what would be the point of any of this? Obviously, you can't argue against rationality using rationality, because that'd be self-defeating, since it would necessarily amount to a performative contradiction. So you'd have to irrationally reject rationality, and nothing you asserted would be of any significance, since the contrary of whatever you assert would have equal standing.

Obviously, you can't argue against rationality using rationality, because that'd be self-defeating, since it would necessarily amount to a performative contradiction. — Sapientia

Yes, you are right. However there's no contradiction as such. Simply a circularity: to evaluate rationality rationally you already endorse rationality. Implying therefore that rationality has no basis, no firm foundation. In other words rationality is irrational.
Why then are atheists presenting rational arguments e.g. ''the problem of evil'' and accusing theists of being irrational?

No, rationality can't be irrational, since that'd be a contradiction in terms.

No, rationality can't be irrational, since that'd be a contradiction in terms. — Sapientia

Yes

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

Isn't it clear that that only provides evidence for claims about your own mind then? You're telling us something about what you imagine. Not what any putative gods are like.

Isn't it clear that that only provides evidence for claims about your own mind then? — Terrapin Station

Do you mean that other minds have a better, more complete understanding of the matter?

You're telling us something about what you imagine. Not what any putative gods are like. — Terrapin Station

All I want to say is rationality may be wrong about the whole god issue.

Do you mean that other minds have a better, more complete understanding of the matter? — TheMadFool

No. I'm just saying that if claims about a god's mind are solely based on what you're imagining, you're really just telling us about your own mind/your imagination.

All I want to say is rationality may be wrong about the whole god issue. — TheMadFool

If it's concluding that any gods exist, then I'd say it's definitely wrong.

No. I'm just saying that if claims about a god's mind are solely based on what you're imagining, you're really just telling us about your own mind/your imagination. — Terrapin Station

I'm not claiming anything about god. I'm just playing on the chance that we may not have the right tools and/or our faculties may not be up to the task.
I feel the problem of evil is a good counter-argument to god. However, it is, at its heart, a rational argument and rationality itself has a rather shaky foundation. So the whole atheistic problem of evil becomes a self-defeating exercise.

What is "the atheistic problem of evil"?

Christianity traditionally addresses evil with free will, by the way.

All I want to say is rationality may be wrong about the whole god issue. — TheMadFool

Then you have not solved the problem of evil in all its forms and have missed the point. Again, mere logical possibility is irrelevant to truth claims unless we are talking about deductive proofs (arguments that prove necessary truths or show logical contradictions and impossibilities). The existence of a particular god does not get to have special status because, as I stated in one of my earlier posts, unless you already follow s specific religious doctrine that says a lot about metaphysics beyond the existence of god, the god of classical theism does not, as you claim, automatically change everything. It changes some things, but so would the truth of a lot of philosophical positions. It does not get special status.

Ultimately, the merits of the child-parent analogy are not based on whether it is possible we are wrong; there is only one proposition I can think of that people could not argue the truth over and lead to a possibility of error. Heck, even the version of the problem of evil I am defending says it may be mistaken. Rather, The merits are based on whether the child-parent situation are actually analogous with the person-God situation. I have pointed out that the situation is not very analogous because a) the lack of ability of the parent to explain to the child is not present with God, b) the cognitive limitations that the person is supposed to have towards God should not be there without special reassurances from God about the very specific reasons he cannot reveal right now.

I feel the problem of evil is a good counter-argument to god. However, it is, at its heart, a rational argument and rationality itself has a rather shaky foundation. — TheMadFool

At the point rationality is completely thrown out the window, we can throw out the entirety of philosophy, science, and every other intellectual pursuit. At best, we are left with Kierkegaard's faith of Abraham on practically everything, which is a very horrifying thing. And even then there are reasons given for why we would want the faith of Abraham.

Also, this lack of cognitive ability is an argument against God in and of itself.

Christianity traditionally addresses evil with free will, by the way. — Terrapin Station

Of course that runs into the problem of evidently ''evil'' natural phenomena like quakes, hurricanes, fires, etc. Anyway, I don't want to go into that because my understanding of free will is not up to mark.

What is "the atheistic problem of evil"? — Terrapin Station

Isn't the problem of evil an atheistic argument in the sense that it refutes god's existence/greatness?

Yep. The problem of evil is known as the Atheist Argument. Have you checked out Leibniz's solution?

Again, mere logical possibility is irrelevant to truth claims unless we are talking about deductive proofs (arguments that prove necessary truths or show logical contradictions and impossibilities). — Chany

Isn't the problem of evil (which I'm refuting) a deductive argument. If what you say is right (about the relevance of possibility in deduction) I'm on the right track.

Also to make matters clear let us take a legal example. Perhaps it'll drive the point home. A person is being charged with murder. It is then the prosecutor's solemn duty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In other words there should not be a shadow of doubt that the accused committed the crime. Even the slightest possibility of innocence will affect the verdict. Our situation here is similar. I believe that the problem of evil leaves much room for doubt (on the nonexistence of god) because it elevates rationality (the judge) to that of an infallible authority which, you know, is wrong. To further elucidate my concerns about rationality we can take examples from quantum physics and even well known philosophical paradoxes - they are all instances of the inability of rationality to grasp these phenomena. And these are rather mundane matters compared to the mind of a god that can create a universe. How then can atheists be so confident, so dead sure, so definitive about god e.g. by relying on rationlity to deny god's existence. It perplexes me as it should you.

I have pointed out that the situation is not very analogous because a) the lack of ability of the parent to explain to the child is not present with God, b) the cognitive limitations that the person is supposed to have towards God should not be there without special reassurances from God about the very specific reasons he cannot reveal right now. — Chany

Your objections to my analogy are noted. They make sense to me. However my previous paragraph should suffice to answer your objections.

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

At least certain types of theists seem pretty confident in their ability to decipher God's wishes, and have historically and currently even been willing to torture, kill, and oppress in the name of these supposed wishes and commandments.

If one claims that (1) there exists this entity called "God", and (2) this entity's mind is wholly inscrutable (beyond knowing that he/she/it has a mind, with intentions, desires, etc), that is fine as it goes, as there is nothing inconsistent there. However, one should be cautious not to claim to understand God's mind when it's theologically or ideologically agreeable to do so, and then to claim such inscrutability when confronted by inconvenient theological conundrums such as the problem of evil. (So one could not claim, for instance, that abortion, gay marriage, etc are contrary to God's wishes, or that God wishes for people to live the Golden Rule, and so forth.)

At the point rationality is completely thrown out the window, we can throw out the entirety of philosophy, science, and every other intellectual pursuit. — Chany

I'm not an extremist. At least not yet. Rationality has its uses and it is the most productive human tool ever. I just think its deficient in key respects when it comes to god.

Have you checked out Leibniz's solution? — Mongrel

No. Thanks

I'm not endorsing any religion. I'm only suggesting that caution is necessary in this matter.

I'm not endorsing any religion. I'm only suggesting that caution is necessary in this matter. — TheMadFool

I wasn't suggesting that you were, and in truth my comment was more of a general proclamation. I should ask, though, as you believe that God's mind is inscrutable, do you adhere to the notion that we cannot say what God's wishes and wants may be on any matter?

I'm not an extremist. At least not yet. Rationality has its uses and it is the most productive human tool ever. I just think its deficient in key respects when it comes to god — TheMadFool

And my original point stands. You have to explain why we should suspend rational argument when it comes to god. If you cannot do so in way that does not include other arguments, then you are using special pleading. You have to show it is special. Importance is not special, so it is not a valid reason.

And to point out again, in order to do so, you have to give a rational argument about something related to god, defeating the original stance you are arguing for.

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

Does this argument refute the problem of evil?

God moves in mysterious ways...Cowper — TheMadFool

No, because it begs the question.

You claim one cannot understand God's mind. Yet by saying so, you claim to understand an aspect of God's mind - it's apparent inability to be understood.

The religious leap of faith seems to be, then, that jump when someone recognizes the everyday, common-sense implausibility of what they believe, but also understands the technical internal coherence of the religion. That, despite the great chance of the opposite, it just might actually be correct. There's no way to rationally justify it. You just have to take the leap.

Much of theology and theodicy are not really proofs of God's existence or goodness or whatever, but rather defenses against criticism. Apologetics. To show that a belief in God is technically compatible with whatever criticism is brought up. It doesn't prove anything definitively, it just shows that it's not entirely incoherent.

I'm not claiming anything about god. — TheMadFool

So, when you made those statements about God, you were either playing devil's advocate or you've retracted them, and you don't want to say which it is.

Isn't the problem of evil (which I'm refuting) a deductive argument. If what you say is right (about the relevance of possibility in deduction) I'm on the right track. — TheMadFool

The form of Rowe's argument is valid, meaning, in that sense, it is deductive: if the premises are true, then the conclusion must follow. However, the argument is an evidential one: the premises may not be necessarily true, but the argument openly admits that. It is simply puts itself into a deductive form to show that if you accept the two premises as true, the conclusion follows.

The logical problem of evil must show that evil and God are, in a way, logically contradictory. This one does not attempt that. It, rather, claims that gratuitous evil, if it exists, creates massive problems for the existence of God. It just needs to show that the premises are very much more likely to be true than not. Again, read the link I provided: it does not try to hold itself up to the standard of being infallible and definitive.

Also to make matters clear let us take a legal example. Perhaps it'll drive the point home. A person is being charged with murder. It is then the prosecutor's solemn duty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In other words there should not be a shadow of doubt that the accused committed the crime. Even the slightest possibility of innocence will affect the verdict. Our situation here is similar. — TheMadFool

This actually quite a good example for my point, not yours. The legal system often operates under the notion of the reasonable observer. For example: would the reasonable observer find that this government policy violates the establishment clause of the first amendment for church-state separation? Would the reasonable observer find this voting registration law to unfairly target and infringe upon people's right to vote? And so on. Reasonable doubt operates under a similar vein. Would the reasonable person find doubt in the case of guilt? They use words like "shadow of a doubt", but, again, through the lenses of reasonable doubt. There is always the possibility that someone was possessed by a demon and the demon framed them for the murder, but this would be considered unreasonable doubt without any reason to believe it to be the case.

The emphasis is on reasonable doubt. In a murder case, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty; not an exactly parallel here, but that is not what matters, as we are interested in the what the prosecution and defense must do. The prosecution must present that the only rational, logical explanation for the available evidence surrounding a murder case must be that the defendant is guilty. The defense, on the other hand, must ensure that there remains reasonable doubt, that there is reason to doubt that the defendant is guilty. This is why defense attorneys will try to argue to implant alternative scenarios in the juror's heads or argue that critical evidence that points to the defendant's guilt can be interpreted in another way. They want to create an alternative account of what happened that can serve as a reasonable alternative. I emphasized "reasonable". The prosecution does not need a smoking gun: it does not need direct video evidence of the crime taking place in order to get the jurors to find the defendant guilty. It needs a case that no reasonable interpretation of the evidence can exclude the guilt of the defendant. So, if the defendant has a motive, does not have an alibi, was spotted at the scene of the crime around the time of death, was in possession of the murder weapon at the time, and was found at the scene of the crime with a body and no evidence offering an alternative, there is no reasonable doubt and the only way the evidence makes sense reasonably is that the defendant must have committed the murder. It is possible that this was all a grand conspiracy by a third party to frame the defendant, but without any positive reason or evidence that this is the case, it is unreasonable and, therefore, not reasonable doubt.

Also, even if I agree with you, you still have not necessarily dealt a killing blow to the argument, as you are attacking a strong version of the argument that requires a high degree of confidence and high epistemic standards. I can simply argue for a more moderate version that still has relatively high epistemic standards, just not as high as the strong version. It still offers strong evidence, just not as strong as the one you are arguing against.

To further elucidate my concerns about rationality we can take examples from quantum physics and even well known philosophical paradoxes - they are all instances of the inability of rationality to grasp these phenomena. And these are rather mundane matters compared to the mind of a god that can create a universe. How then can atheists be so confident, so dead sure, so definitive about god e.g. by relying on rationlity to deny god's existence. It perplexes me as it should you. — TheMadFool

I will not pursue quantum mechanics further, as I am not a physicist and all my information on it comes from people using it for whatever philosophical argument they want to bolster at the moment. I doubt you are a physicist as well, as whenever I hear a physicist talk about quantum mechanics, they seem to not freak out over it like it’s some impenetrable entity destroying our reality. And what of paradoxes? It’s not like we do not have potential solutions to them. They are problems, yes, but we still parse through them, and solve some of them. And the vast majority of philosophy does not involve paradox. Lastly, you really do not understand atheists, their reasoning, or their arguments that much, as you demonstrated over the course of the thread.

Lastly, you really do not understand atheists, their reasoning, or their arguments that much, as you demonstrated over the course of the thread. — Chany

I wonder how many atheists actually fit his description, or how many would agree with what he presupposes about them. I, for one, do not think of either rationality or science in quite the way that he has described them, and for the same or similar reasons as you.

As for the problem of evil, that has nothing to do with why I am an atheist, and I in no way rely upon it. I think that most atheists were atheists before learning of that problem.

Exactly. People believe things for different reasons. People have positions on various topics, of which the god question is one. I do not even like framing the debate in atheist-theist. I feel it ignores all the other positions, namely agnosticism, and tends to overlook attitudes and nuance within people's positions. I know people who are ignostic: they simply do not care enough to even form a position.

I should ask, though, as you believe that God's mind is inscrutable, do you adhere to the notion that we cannot say what God's wishes and wants may be on any matter? — Arkady

Yes.

No, because it begs the question.

You claim one cannot understand God's mind. Yet by saying so, you claim to understand an aspect of God's mind - it's apparent inability to be understood. — darthbarracuda

I can't understand what the problem is?

Perhaps some analogies will clarify:

I cannot understand Quantum physics (god).

I can't understand the theory of relativity (god).

I can't understand calculus (god).

In none of the above statements of fact (speaking for myself alone) will you conclude that NOT understanding is some form of understanding.

If so why are you accusing me of begging the question by claiming that not understanding god's mind is tantamount to understanding god's mind?

It doesn't prove anything definitively, it just shows that it's not entirely incoherent. — darthbarracuda

I agree.