I'm exploring possibilities.

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. — TheMadFool

Then I know you are special pleading. Because, if this is true, then god really does not change anything and so it is not that important.

It, rather, claims that gratuitous evil, if it exists, creates massive problems for the existence of God — Chany

Exactly. And I've shown that this is not the case.

Again, read the link I provided: it does not try to hold itself up to the standard of being infallible and definitive. — Chany

That works for me.

The emphasis is on reasonable doubt. — Chany

I agree. I find it reasonable to question the import of the problem of evil.

This issue could easily be resolved if you only mean that you don't understand these these things. But if you go further than that and claim that you can't understand them, then darthbarracuda's criticism stands.

If the latter, then you've made a false analogy in your reply, since you can understand quantum physics, the theory of relativity, and calculus. That is to say, it is both logically and physically possible - you are capable of understanding them. There is nothing about them that makes them impossible for a human to understand, but if you have a physical or mental disability then you might not be capable like the rest of us.

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." : Richard Feynman (physicist)

It, rather, claims that gratuitous evil, if it exists, creates massive problems for the existence of God — Chany

Exactly. And I've shown that this is not the case. — TheMadFool

No, you haven't. The problem isn't directed at everyone. Just because you might have found a way in which it is not a problem for you, that doesn't mean that it isn't a problem. It is still a problem for the existence of God if you accept the premises of the argument, as many believers do or would, and cannot resolve it in any other way (arguably, there are resolutions, like the free will response). And there's a sort of hidden premise in virtually every argument, which is the assumption that we're being rational, and I've explained why that assumption is required.

And I say that you might have found a way in which it is not a problem for you, because that is doubtful. Even if you refute a strong version of the argument by showing that what the argument argues is not necessarily the case, the possibility alone would still be considered a problem for many, and for even more if it has equal standing with the contrary possibility.

Like I said in one of my initial replies, as with most problems, ignorance doesn't really resolve the problem. God could still be evil or incompetent, even if I am ignorant. That's what you must accept in order to be consistent, and even if you don't consider that to be a problem, I'll bet my bottom dollar that plenty of people do - especially believers.

So, you have not resolved the problem of evil, you have just failed to understand why it's a problem.

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." : Richard Feynman (physicist) — TheMadFool

I don't think that that quote should be taken quite so literally. I very much doubt that he meant that it's impossible to understand quantum mechanics to the extent that one can do so based on our current understanding. I think that he was just emphasising the difficulty in doing so, and that we are fallible.

That's a false analogy to the claim that you can't understand God, unless you actually meant that we can understand God to a significant extent, just not completely at the current time, and with some difficulty, and with the possibility of error. But that doesn't seem to be what you meant, given what you've said previously (although you've made contradictory statements and seem to switch between positions when it suits you). And if it was, then tell me what you know about God and how you know it.

(And I'm warning you that if, in your next reply, I think that you haven't properly addressed any of these last few replies of mine, but have instead, for example, skimmed over important details and created a diversion, then I might not bother to reply again).

And there's a sort of hidden premise in virtually every argument, which is the assumption that we're being rational, and I've explained why that assumption is required. — Sapientia

Consider this: No amount of monkey rationality will help the monkey to understand geometry.

ignorance doesn't really resolve the problem — Sapientia

Ignorance creates a problem; a problem for the problem of evil argument.

and that we are fallible. — Sapientia

Please extend the same courtesy to my position.

you actually meant that we can understand God to a significant extent, just not completely at the current time, and with some difficulty, and with the possibility of error — Sapientia

Yes, that's my stand.

I don't consider that to be a proper reply, since you've avoided parts of my reply, your reply is too short, you've made bald assertions without explanation, and it doesn't seem like you've put much thought into it. More like you've just picked out certain parts and said the first brief little thought that came into your head.

I could criticise the substance of your reply - the little of it that is there - but why should I when you aren't putting in the same effort that I am? And if I did do that, then we'd be moving on from those parts of my reply that you haven't addressed at all or haven't properly addressed.

Your comments are too fast, too many. I focussed on the key points in your argument.

What I'm basically saying is there's a possibility that the problem of evil, as a refutation of god, commits the black/white fallacy (either god is not ommipotent or god is not omnibenevolent). There's a third possibility viz. we don't understand or worse, we've misunderstood, god.

Your comments are too fast, too many. I focussed on the key points in your argument. — TheMadFool

But you haven't actually answered some of those key points. Your example with the monkey and geometry is just a reiteration of your argument which I've already criticised, so that doesn't answer my criticism, it just diverts attention away from it, and that's how the discussion ends up going around in circles.

And it also contradicts your other claims. You have two contradictory positions that you keep switching between without warning when it suits you. Either you know shit about God or you're like a monkey and don't know shit. You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind and keep it that way unless you concede. If you know shit about God, then you should go back and answer my request to clearly state what it is that you know and how you know it, rather than evade it. And you should also stop contradicting yourself or making misleading statements by saying things like you can't understand God.

Why should I continue this discussion if you're going to do things like this?

What I'm basically saying is there's a possibility that the problem of evil, as a refutation of god, commits the black/white fallacy (either god is not ommipotent or god is not omnibenevolent). There's a third possibility viz. we don't understand or worse, we've misunderstood, god. — TheMadFool

And this has been addressed and criticised by myself and others. I think I speak for everyone when I say that we want a proper reply to that, rather than a reiteration of your original argument, which leads us around in circles, or some other diversion, which leads us astray.

The problem of evil is not a single argument. That is what you fail to grasp. It is like refuting one of the cosmological arguments for the existence of God and then saying you refuted all of them. All you might have done is refute the logical problem of evil (which I do not think you have done since you are not addressing that particular argument).

Either you know shit about God or you're like a monkey and don't know shit. You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind and keep it that way unless you concede. If you know shit about God, then you should go back and answer my request to clearly state what it is that you know and how you know it, rather than evade it. And you should also stop contradicting yourself or making misleading statements by saying things like you can't understand God. — Sapientia

''I know one thing; that I know nothing'': Socrates (2500 years ago).

''I know one thing; that I know nothing'': Socrates (2500 years ago). — TheMadFool

That's all you have to say in reply, is it? Funny how you seem to be suggesting that you know nothing, yet you also claim to understand God to a significant extent.

"I know a thing or two; that you're full of it": Me (just now).

Funny how you seem to be suggesting that you know nothing, yet you also claim to understand God to a significant extent. — Sapientia

How does ''maybe we're wrong about god'' become ''i understand god to a significant extent''?

All you might have done is refute the logical problem of evil (which I do not think you have done since you are not addressing that particular argument). — Chany

Can you be specific. Which version of the POE haven't I considered?

How does ''maybe we're wrong about god'' become ''i understand god to a significant extent''? — TheMadFool

You agreed to those words yourself in a previous comment on the previous page only hours ago. You said "Yes, that's my stand". :-}

The real question is, why am I arguing with a mad fool?

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

The problem here though is that if we can't comprehend god, then what are we actually believing in? We can't even comprehend the nature of the content of our belief (god). We can't even know WHAT we are believing in, and so the "god" in the "I believe in god" statement is meaningless to us. It's incomprehensible, the word is essentially meaningless.

But it appears to me like you want it both ways. As in, "god has x nature (exists, is omnipotent, non-evil, what have you), while at the same time, "gods nature is incomprehensible to humans". How can you have this both ways? It makes no sense. God can't be incomprehensible an yet you comprehend gods existence and at least a few attributes of his (its?) nature.

This apparent contradiction is why I don't think your argument works.

Personally I just don't see how the problem of evil can be resolved. There is a disgustingly abhorrent amount of suffering in this world, and I simply can't perform the mental gymnastics required to believe that an all powerful being (benevolent) being couldn't EASILY resolve. At the risk of sounding antagonistic, this "it's all for some obscure greater good so it's not REALLY that bad" strikes me a wishy washy self-comforting delusional nonsense. Forming this belief is like a child reaching for his blanket - it's a comforting feeling, but not particularly mature.

I think there's just two options here,
1. God (as an omnipotent being, benevolent, perfect, creator of universe, etc) doesn't exist
2. God exists, but just doesn't care about suffering and evil, or is downright evil himself

I'm putting my chips in with option one - although perhaps some might say that that's just me forming a belief because it's comforting - my own personal child's blanket. Option two is quite unsettling indeed.

Why don't you read the thread and find out?

It's incomprehensible, the word is essentially meaningless — dukkha

''Incomprehensible'' doesn't imply meaniglessness. Perhaps there's a meaning that we can't understand.

But it appears to me like you want it both ways. As in, "god has x nature (exists, is omnipotent, non-evil, what have you), while at the same time, "gods nature is incomprehensible to humans". — dukkha

My main point is that there's a possibility that we haven't yet understood god. The omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent (OOO) god is compatible with evil via the simple and real chance that we haven't understood god's will/message. Does a child understand why she won't be getting ice cream for dessert? She doesn't. It's painful and yet there's a greater good in the parent's actions.

Of course one can say that suffering is disproportionate to the message conveyed. When a young child is tortured, raped and killed we have great difficulty in understanding what greater good might be served. This, prima facie, appears to be a valid objection. At this point emotion kicks in and our empathy and pity for the sufferer gets the better of us and we hastily conclude that the amount of suffering in the world just doesn't tally with god. Since emotion is involved, and any logic book says, we must be cautious and still remain sufficiently aloof to be able to make a good judgment.

That said, extremeness of suffering, while painful and sad to behold, doesn't eliminate the possibility of we having not understood/misunderstood god and god's will. All it does, so far as rationality is concerned, is evoke deep emotions that obscures the truth.

As to your accusation that I want it ''both ways''...
Firstly, there's no logical contradiction in it. As I said before, an OOO god is compatible with evil solely on the basis that we've misunderstood or have not yet understood god's will. Nothing more, nothing less. Just as a child may know certain character-traits of its parents while being oblivious to other features of the parent's personality.

There is a disgustingly abhorrent amount of suffering in this world, and I simply can't perform the mental gymnastics required to believe that an all powerful being (benevolent) being couldn't EASILY resolve. At the risk of sounding antagonistic, this "it's all for some obscure greater good so it's not REALLY that bad" strikes me a wishy washy self-comforting delusional nonsense. Forming this belief is like a child reaching for his blanket - it's a comforting feeling, but not particularly mature. — dukkha

Notice how you use the terms ''disgustingly'', ''abhorrent''. It's natural. Please read my response above.

Does a child understand why she won't be getting ice cream for dessert? She doesn't. It's painful and yet there's a greater good in the parent's actions. — TheMadFool

Yet, how can you use that as an example of a greater good, for the sake of an analogy, when you extend your moral skepticism to the extent of seriously entertaining the possibility of completely turning the tables on our normal understanding of morality? If our understanding of morality is as unreliable as you suggest, then you would have no reliable comparison to make here. You'd be forced to completely scrap our human understanding of morality, so you wouldn't even be able to make that analogy in the first place.

And, in practice, you actually rely on your own human understanding of morality, and not this imaginary understanding of morality from God's perspective, so, in that very important sense, the latter is redundant.

And if you're skeptical enough to allow for the possibility of a God with the three omni-attributes, and for our understanding of morality to be completely mistaken, then why not a God with only two of those attributes or only one of them or an evil God or no God at all? Isn't it possible that our normal human understanding is right? The answer is yes. You'd need something more than mere possibility to go by here.

As far as I can tell, based on your replies, you don't have an answer for these kind of objections that have been raised, so you might as well just concede.

If our understanding of morality is as unreliable as you suggest, then you would have no reliable comparison to make here. You'd be forced to completely scrap our human understanding of morality, so you wouldn't even be able to make that analogy in the first place — Sapientia

I'm not proposing such radical measures as ''scrap our human understanding of morality''. I only suggest caution. A child latches onto what he understands about his parents and defers his analysis of what he doesn't understand. Likewise we too can do the same.

This is beside the point though. I'm not affirming god's existence, nor am I denying it. I only want to test the soundness of the problem of evil and so far it doesn't look as good as it's made out to be.

You'd need something more than mere possibility to go by here. — Sapientia

As I said I'm only questioning the soundness of the problem of evil argument. It doesn't look good because it ignores a very important possibility that we've misunderstood or don't understand god. This mere possibility is a real possibility as I've demonstrated countless number of times with my child-adult analogy.

1. If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
Therefore-
3. Socrates is mortal.

According to you, this is a bad argument because of the possibility of one of the premises being false.

I think it is obvious to any reasonable observer that you have not dealt with any objections with anything more than a restatement of the original proposition, are engaging in special pleading, and are not acknowledging the differences between various forms of the problem of evil and what they aim to do. Therefore, I think we are done here.

I'm not proposing such radical measures as ''scrap our human understanding of morality''. — TheMadFool

I didn't say that that's what you're proposing. I said that that's what you'd be forced to do for sake of consistency. I didn't think that you'd find that logical consequence acceptable, but that's what it is.

I only suggest caution. A child latches onto what he understands about his parents and defers his analysis of what he doesn't understand. Likewise we too can do the same. — TheMadFool

I already know what your argument is. Why repeat it? That doesn't address my criticism.

Is it Groundhog Day today?

This is beside the point though. — TheMadFool

No, it isn't. You made an analogy in an attempt to support your position. I argued that that analogy is not consistent with your position. You can either concede or try to show that I'm mistaken. Handwaving isn't a valid option.

I'm not affirming god's existence, nor am I denying it. I only want to test the soundness of the problem of evil and so far it doesn't look as good as it's made out to be. — TheMadFool

You mean, your interpretation of it doesn't look as good as it's made out to be. I agree. As Chany has explained, your interpretation is uncharitable, since it is a considerably weaker version of the argument.

As I said I'm only questioning the soundness of the problem of evil argument. It doesn't look good because it ignores a very important possibility that we've misunderstood or don't understand god. This mere possibility is a real possibility as I've demonstrated countless number of times with my child-adult analogy. — TheMadFool

No, you're questioning the soundness of a version of the argument from evil that is notably weaker than others, then you are using that to attempt to refute the argument from evil. So you are attacking a straw man.

If MadFool is attacking any problem of evil other than the logical problem, then their analogy is, at best, highly questionable. If MadFool is attacking the logical problem of evil, they are attacking the strongest form and are honestly not showing much, as a) I do not need to show something is logically impossible in order to claim it does not exist, b) logical possibility is the weakest form of evidence, considering it simply means the idea is coherent and internally consistent, and c) to my understanding, most people, including the original author of the argument, Mackie, already admit the argument is flawed, so refuting it is a moot point only useful in a teaching setting.

I didn't say that that's what you're proposing. I said that that's what you'd be forced to do for sake of consistency. I didn't think that you'd find that logical consequence acceptable, but that's what it is. — Sapientia

A child may choose to accept parts of a parent's personality and reject/modify others. She has no logical obligation to accept everything the parent does/says.

I already know what your argument is. Why repeat it? That doesn't address my criticism. — Sapientia

Read on. I'm responding to your criticism.

As Chany has explained, your interpretation is uncharitable, since it is a considerably weaker version of the argument. — Sapientia

The problem of evil argument I'm concerned with:
1. Either god doesn't exist or evil doesn't exist
2. Evil exists
Therefore,
3. God doesn't exist
It has the strongest conclusion: certain denial of god's existence. If you have another problem of evil argument in mind please post it.
What I want to point out is that this is a false dilemma and presented through my analogy a third alternative viz. we misunderstand or don't understand god's will. Evil could very well be for the greater good just as an adult might discipline a child in a way that causes the child to suffer.

Then you (and others) said I was contradicting myself viz. that I was making god both incomprehensible and comprehensible at the same time. To this I replied that, as in my analogy, a child may understand part of an adult's personality while remaining ignorant of the rest. There is no contradiction there.

I have summarized our discussion so far.

If MadFool is attacking any problem of evil other than the logical problem, then their analogy is, at best, highly questionable. If MadFool is attacking the logical problem of evil, they are attacking the strongest form and are honestly not showing much, as a) I do not need to show something is logically impossible in order to claim it does not exist, b) logical possibility is the weakest form of evidence, considering it simply means the idea is coherent and internally consistent, and c) to my understanding, most people, including the original author of the argument, Mackie, already admit the argument is flawed, so refuting it is a moot point only useful in a teaching setting. — Chany

I accept your criticism. However, one point I want to get across. What is relevant or important depends on the circumstances. The strong problem of evil argument has a strong conclusion viz. God DOES NOT exist. Given this is so, even the slightest possibility of being wrong counts.

Then you can't read. Read the thread.

If MadFool is attacking any problem of evil other than the logical problem, then their analogy is, at best, highly questionable. If MadFool is attacking the logical problem of evil, they are attacking the strongest form and are honestly not showing much, as a) I do not need to show something is logically impossible in order to claim it does not exist, b) logical possibility is the weakest form of evidence, considering it simply means the idea is coherent and internally consistent, and c) to my understanding, most people, including the original author of the argument, Mackie, already admit the argument is flawed, so refuting it is a moot point only useful in a teaching setting. — Chany

It would be the strongest form in the sense that logical necessity is stronger than a possibility supported by evidence. But it is weaker in the sense that there are other versions which encounter less problems. Like you say, logical possibility is the weakest form of evidence, yet it would be sufficient to refute a version of the argument which doesn't allow for that possibility.

A child may choose to accept parts of a parent's personality and reject/modify others. She has no logical obligation to accept everything the parent does/says. — TheMadFool

See here. Do you concede to my criticism of your analogy about the greater good? Yes or no. If no, then why?

Read on. I'm responding to your criticism. — TheMadFool

See here. Do you concede to my criticism of your analogy about the greater good? Yes or no. If no, then why?

The problem of evil argument I'm concerned with:

1. Either god doesn't exist or evil doesn't exist
2. Evil exists
Therefore,
3. God doesn't exist

It has the strongest conclusion: certain denial of god's existence. If you have another problem of evil argument in mind please post it.
What I want to point out is that this is a false dilemma and presented through my analogy a third alternative viz. we misunderstand or don't understand god's will. Evil could very well be for the greater good just as an adult might discipline a child in a way that causes the child to suffer. — TheMadFool

There are different ways to interpret the argument. If you think that possibility alone is enough to do away with the argument, then you are wrong. That only does away with an argument which doesn't allow for that possibility. There's no need for someone putting forward an argument from evil to be committed to a version which doesn't allow for fallibility.

So, even if you're right about this version of the argument, that doesn't make you right about the argument from evil in general.

This has been said enough times for you to have got the message.

And, if you still haven't done so, then see here. Do you concede to my criticism of your analogy about the greater good? Yes or no. If no, then why?

Then you (and others) said I was contradicting myself viz. that I was making god both incomprehensible and comprehensible at the same time. To this I replied that, as in my analogy, a child may understand part of an adult's personality while remaining ignorant of the rest. There is no contradiction there. — TheMadFool

You definitely made contradictory statements, whether you meant to or not. That isn't debatable. The evidence is right here in this discussion for anyone to see.

And don't forget to see here, tell me whether or not you concede to my criticism of your analogy about the greater good, and, if you don't, explain why.