I take your argument and think you are right that humans’ ability to do good is in fact an attribute. I still want to push back on your original argument for I sense my intuition now leads me to object to a different premise. Your original argument had this form:

1) If God is responsible for all the attributes we have, then He is responsible for our attribute to bring about evil.
2) God is responsible for all the attributes we have.
3) Therefore, He is responsible for our attribute to bring about evil. (MP 1, 2)
4) If God is responsible for our attribute to bring about evil, then He is ultimately responsible for the evil we bring about.
5) God is responsible for our attribute to bring about evil.
6) Therefore, God is responsible for the evil we bring about. (MP, 4, 5)

Instead of objecting to premise 1, I actually think premise 2 is problematic. For it seems to me the reason we grant God is responsible for all the attributes we have is because we are granting, He creates us. However, what about the attributes we pick up on the way. It seems forceful to say God is responsible for my attribute to know how to sharpen a pencil. In the same way, I argue that if I pick up an attribute to bring about evil, then it is equally forceful to say God is responsible for me picking up such an attribute. I expect you to argue that in that case, God would have been responsible for my attribute to be able to pick an attribute to bring about evil in the first place. However, if God provides me with certain attributes to bring about good but I instead use them to bring about evil, then it He is hardly responsible for the evil I bring about. In other words, if you lend me your broom because I lost mine and I need to sweep the floor of my house, but I instead use the stick of your broom to stab someone, it is hardly your responsibility what I did with the broom you lent me.

Let me know what you think!! I want to keep the conversation going : ) Pleasure to discuss with you.

Hi David Mo,

My mistake. I did not intend to claim that testimonies of the Bible written thousands of years ago would be admitted as valid testimony today. I only meant to make a distinction between faith based on miracles and faith based on testimony.

Hi TheMadFool,

It seems to me as though in your post you claim that the faith that Christians have in Christ is based on a certain set of miracles He performed (such as the ones you mention feeding five thousand with a loaf of bread, etc.) I would like to offer an alternative, however. The notion of faith I have is not one that is based directly from the miracles Christ performed. After all, how could my beliefs be founded directly on evidence I can’t set my eyes to or perceive on my own. But what I (at least myself) claim my faith to be based off is on the testimony of such miracles. I know it sounds even more far-fetched that believing directly on said miracles Christ performed. But I believe this account of faith avoids a common problem of perceiving it as beliefs on the basis of no evidence. But are testimonies not an acceptable means of evidence in court? I believe it is not irrational to have faith in Christ and His person based on testimonies from His time and the miracles He performed. I do not wish to persuade you into believing, of course. But I do aim to offer a more rational understanding on the notion of faith at least some Christians have. If I am not wrong, I believe the hard part of holding a faith in Christ is not necessarily believing in the miracles described, but rather in believing the sources by which we come to know of said miracles. Suppose you were to bear witness to a miracle such as Christ healing a crippled by standing 1 foot away from the act. Such an example, it seems to be (and I would love to hear your thought ) puts into perspective what is truly hard about having faith in Christ. I personally believe it is harder due to the available sources in which we need to believe in order to have faith in Him, than it is hard due to the surprising miracles we read about in the Bible.

Let me know what you think! Pleasure talking to you.

Hi God must be an atheist,

I believe in raising an objection against ballark’s argument, you made the following claim in your response:
If God is to know what it’s like to be human, then He must know what it’s like not to be a God– since a part of the human experience is exactly not knowing what it feels like being God. You argue that in order for God know what it’s like to be human, He must know every aspect of the human experience, and that that includes not knowing certain things (such as the experience of not knowing what it’s like to be God, or not knowing what it’s like to be a swan, etc.) Therefore, you argue that since God cannot know the what-its-like of the full human experience, He cannot know what it’s like to be human– and therefore cannot be omniscient. I think your argument takes this form:

1. If God could be omniscient, then God should be able to know what it’s like to be human.
2. God could not know what it’s like to be human.
a. If God could know what it’s like to be human, then He would have to be able to know every aspect of the human experience.
b. God cannot know every aspect of the human experience.
i. If God could know every aspect of the human experience, then He would have to not know what it’s like to be a swan (or a rock, or God himself)
ii. God cannot not know what it’s like to be a swan.
3. Therefore, God could not be omniscient.

I believe premise 2 of your argument in problematic. It seems as though you ascribe not-knowing something (what it’s like to be a swan) to the human experience. However, not-knowing what it’s like to be a swan is not a part of human experience, but rather the lack of experience of knowing what it’s like to be a swan. It would be concerning for me to say, “I know what it’s like to not know how to drive a Formula 1 car.” What I am really saying is “I do not know what it is like to drive a Formula 1 car.” Equally, you are arguing that in order for God to be omniscient, He needs to not know something. But being omniscient is the ability to know everything, not the ability not to know.

Hi TheMadFool,

I am also new to the forum so please be patient! :)

I don’t think I understand the necessity for Christians to choose between the belief that God wants for us the “rule of the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground” and the belief that God is omnibenevolent. It seems to me as though it is possible for both beliefs to be compatible. I believe it is possible for mankind to rule over all animals kindly, and I believe that is what God’s intention is when He speaks about the role of mankind in the world. Obviously, we ran the show differently than it was intended. My point however is that our ruling of the animals on earth does not take away the possibility that that role God intends for us is God’s way of being benevolent to the animals as well. I believe there is a possibility mankind can at its best think for the greater good, which would also benefit animals who can only think in a survival mindset.

I believe some indication this compatibility is actually possible is that we live by morals and are able to think rationally, and are self-aware, etc. The fact that we are able to see the bigger picture and wonder what is actually best for animals (whether it’s us ruling them with kindness or letting them be, etc.) shows that we are at least able to care for them. Obviously, we took the separate route of mostly eating them, but regardless, we are still able to care for them. On the other hand, animals are unable to think about the greater good and live instinctively. So, even though mankind has evidently not done a good job benevolently ruling animals on earth, that does not mean God’s omnibenevolence towards animals could not include our role in ruling over them as He intended for us.

I am unsure whether I understood your point correctly. If I did not, please let me know! Otherwise, let me know what you think :) Pleasure discussing with you.

Hey :) just a thought: I used to think we discovered logic, not that we invented it. Perhaps we came out with the name "logic" but logic itself was there even before we found out about it. Same with math right? Like, even when our species didn't exist, there were still a certain number of cows wondering around in the field. Again, we appeared, counted the cows, and called the subject counting, then math, etc. But mathematics were already there. Let me know what you think!

In the same way, I believe Isabel is not claiming God is constrained by the laws of logic but rather that He operates within the laws of logic. To be honest, He still might be constrained by them as well. I don't suppose God could make 2+2=5 right? However, I do not know whether this necessarily means He is constrained by this law. What if He made it so that that is the only way that equation could go? Personally, I find it hard to believe that 2+2=anything other than 4. In other words, could it not be that logic laws, physics laws, etc. are laws by which God operates in our world? As if they were part of His nature in a way? Let me know what you think! :)

Moreover, I am not sure applying these questions about whether logic rules apply to God are folly. Because just as we wonder whether God could create a square-circle, we can wonder whether He can create a rock so heave even He could not lift. And I believe these questions are not folly since they lead to question God's omnipotence for example.

Hello,

First off, I appreciate this objection as a ramification of the problem of evil. I truly have not thought about the problem of evil in this way before. By saying this I mean, I have not thought that we as “inept creatures” dishonor God and in so doing present a problem for the truth of the Christian God since it is reasonable to assume such a God would not dishonor himself. I want to begin by addressing your citing of the Old Testament. You quote, “God created…. and he saw that it was good.” I claim that everything God had created was indeed good. Notice that at the point where this quote takes place in Genesis 1:31, God had created man in his own image and had even spoken purpose over man “Be fruitful and increase in number…” in order for man to live according to the will God had for him. However, it is not until Genesis 2:7 that God “formed the man from the dust of the ground…” I believe the order and use of words is crucial in this part. I believe when the Bible says “God created man in his own image” in Genesis 1:27 it does not mean God physically formed man in the flesh just yet. I would go as far as claiming that by “created”, the Old Testament refers to the creation of the soul, prior to the formation of the flesh. And so, it is not until Genesis 2:7 that God forms man out of dust. And I believe I good indication that this formation does indeed talk about forming in a physical sense, is the fact that it mentions “dust”, which is a physical element.

Besides the technicality and timing of when God calls his creation good, I also want to address the fact that it is also not until Genesis 2:7 that God “breathed into his [man’s] nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” God calls his creation good before he brings man to life, and even before he forms him. Not only that, but also from Genesis 1:28 until 1:30 God speaks about the purpose He has for man, “Be fruitful…, fill the earth and subdue it…, I give you every seed-bearing plant, etc.” However, man is not yet formed at this point. So, it must be that God is speaking to a part of man that is not its physical form yet (whether you call it mind or soul I leave up to you). It is not after God had formed and breathed life into man (Genesis 2:7), and until Genesis 2:16 that God speaks to man in his physical and live form and the first thing He says is “You are free… but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil…” My point here is the following: By the time God tells man he is free and also tells him what he must not do, God had already spoke to man the purpose He had for him (Genesis 1:28-30). So, while man has freedom to follow God’s command or not, God had already spoke man’s purpose into his soul. God did create man good, but it was not until after man was formed, given life, and given freedom that we may call man “evil-doer”.

Just offering an interpretation of the Old Testament here. Please let me know what y’all think! (kindly pls) Pleasure talking philosophy with yall :D

Hello,

First off, thank you for raising this objection. I do not have a set answer to the problem you pose, however my intuition leads me to a different conclusion, and I would appreciate your thoughts on it. Secondly, I do not entirely disagree with your claim that “the original cause of Evil is the Original Cause of everything…” since, like you said, “God creates us,” and seems to be responsible for “ALL the attributes we have.” I believe here you are attributing God His decision to give us the power to bring about evil in the world (correct me if I’m wrong). In other words, if He decided to give us the power to bring about evil, then He is “fully” responsible for the evil we can and do bring about. I believe your argument takes this form:

1. If God is responsible for all the attributes we have, then He is responsible for our attribute to bring about evil.
2. God is responsible for all the attributes we have.
3. Therefore, He is responsible for the evil we bring about.

I guess what my intuition I mentioned before leads me to object is Premise 1. I disagree the evil us humans can bring about is something of an attribute we have. In fact, I believe it might actually be the opposite, a lack of attribute. Specifically, a lack of attribute to bring about good. Of course, this leads to asking “Why did God not make us good all around?” Why did He not make us wholly good since there seems to be parts missing?” But these are not the questions I was aiming to try to answer in this comment. Looping back, it seems to me as though God is definitely responsible for ALL of our attributes, but He cannot be responsible for what He does not give us. And the evil we bring about is caused by our lack of attribute, as opposed to being caused by some attribute God creates us with.

Please let me know what you think :D !

Hi Jjnan1,

As you well anticipated, my objection is aimed at Premise 4. It seems as though your support for the consequent of this premise is “A supreme being who is benevolent, all-power and all-knowing is a sacred concept that anyone should truly want to be true. Though if this is the case, then perhaps one should not desire that God exists then since the world with all its evils and horrors would be a dishonor to such a perfect being”. I think that by this you mean to say that if God, who is supposedly benevolent, all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfect created a world that dishonors Him, then such a God would not be desirable. And in support for the claim that the world we live in dishonors Him, you ascribe all of its evils and horrors to Him, as if God was the one that created them. My objection is against the underlying assumption that the world’s evils and horrors are God’s creation. Obviously, my objection comes from the role free will plays in the equation that results in the presence of evil in the world. It seems as though if we grant that free will is in fact given to us by God and allows us to make our own decisions and thus manifest a life that we choose, then this implies that, even if its tiny, we are thus handed the power to manifest/create things into existence, even if our manifestations/creations are temporary. If we are capable to creating/manifesting things into existence by the gift given to us by God in the form of the power to co-create our reality with Him, then it is possible that the evils and horrors present in our reality were created by us, human beings, and not by God. And it seems to me that if God would have stopped us from manifesting anything in our lives, then he would have failed at giving human beings the gift of free will, which in essence is good. I say that the gift of free will is intrinsically good because it seems to me that what it is, is ultimately the gift of choosing who we want to be as our own entities, our freedom to be. Although the gift of free will carries the potential to bring about evil in the world, the realization of the evil in the world was not in God’s hands, it was in ours. God sharing his power to manifest things into existence seems to me to speak highly of who God is, while our manifestation of evil in the world seems to speak poorly of who we are when we don’t choose to manifest in accordance to God’s will. For this reason, the presence of evil and horrors in the world are not a good reason to not desire God. They are, in my humble opinion, proof of what happens when we don’t create/manifest our lives in accordance to God’s will. And therefore, good reason to desire God.

Pleasure discussing with you! Tell me what you think :)

Hi Gregory,

Although there are a few conclusions in your post that I do not know from what it is that they follow, such as “So we are free to believe what we want”, I think your overall argument looks something like this:

1. If an argument for Christianity based on the alleged resurrection of Jesus makes the most sense out of historical record, then the alleged resurrection of Jesus must possess extra evidence or additional support or look more impressive compared to all other reported miracles and resurrection claims.
2. The alleged resurrection of Jesus does not possess extra evidence or additional support or looks more impressive compared to all other reported miracles and resurrection claims.
3. Therefore, the argument for Christianity based on alleged resurrection of Jesus does not make the most sense out of historical record compared to all other reported miracles and resurrection claims. (1,2 MT)
4. If the argument for Christianity based on the alleged resurrection of Jesus is a successful argument for Christianity, then the alleged resurrection of Jesus must possess extra evidence or additional support or look more impressive compared to all other reported miracles and resurrection claims.
5. Therefore, the argument for Christianity based on the alleged resurrection of Jesus is not a successful argument for Christianity. (3,4 MT)

Although Premise 3 could also be contested, my objection is aimed at Premise 4. It seems to me as though it is not necessary for Jesus’ alleged resurrection to make the most sense out of historical record in order to be a successful argument for Christianity. If an argument is to be successful, then it must be both valid and sound.

1. If it was possible for the alleged resurrection of Jesus to be a successful argument for Christianity without making the most sense out of historical record, then it is not necessary for the alleged resurrection of Jesus to make the most sense out of historical record in order to be a successful argument for Christianity.
2. It is possible for the alleged resurrection of Jesus to be a successful argument for Christianity without making the most sense out of historical record.
2a. If the argument for Christianity based on the alleged resurrection of Jesus could be both valid and sound (and thus successful) without providing extra evidence or additional support or looking more impressive compared to all other reported miracles and resurrection claims, then it would be possible for the alleged resurrection of Jesus to be a successful argument for Christianity without making the most sense out of historical record.
2b. The argument for Christianity based on the alleged resurrection of Jesus could both be valid and sound without providing extra evidence or additional support or looking more impressive compared to all other reported miracles and resurrection claims.
2bi. If warranted belief in the truth of a proposition requires sufficient evidence and not compelling evidence (which is the highest degree of evidence), then it is possible for the argument for Christianity based on the alleged resurrection of Jesus to be sound without providing extra evidence or additional support or looking more impressive compared to all other reported miracles and resurrection claims.
2bi1. There is sufficient evidence.
2bii. We know that an argument for Christianity based on the alleged resurrection of Jesus could/has been formed, so it is possible.
3. Therefore, it is not necessary for the argument for Christianity based on the alleged resurrection of Jesus to make the most sense out of historical record in order to be a successful argument for Christianity. (1,2 MP)

Hi Shawn,

I hope I am correct in assuming when you ask for a coherent logical explanation for the fawn scenario that you are looking for a solution to the logical problem of evil, and not a solution to the evidential problem of evil. The difference is that a solution to the logical problem of evil has to be logically possible one, and a solution to the evidential problem of evil has to be a reasonable one. I cannot give a reasonable solution to the evidential problem of evil, but I will try to offer a logically possible one to the logical problem of evil the fawn scenario presents.

I think your argument could look something like this:
1. If an omniscient, omnibenevolent and perfectly good God existed, then intense pain or suffering should not be possible (or at least God should be able to prevent it).
2. The fawn scenario is a possible example of intense pain and suffering.
3. Therefore, an omniscient, omnibenevolent and perfectly good God does not exist.

However, if God created free will for human beings, then it seems as though Premise 1 is not necessarily true. If human beings are given free will, then that means that in at least one circumstance (even if it’s on a nearby possible world) every human being will bring about moral evil. And if this is true and like we said, God is perfectly good, then it was not in God’s power to create moral goodness without creating moral evil. What follows is that, if it was not in God’s power to create moral goodness without creating moral evil, then it is possible for an omniscient, omnibenevolent and perfectly good God to exist.

A couple things that need clarification. First, it seems as though free will is good in itself, but unfortunately acquires the potential to bring about evil when human beings receive this gift and thus gain liberty to choose moral goodness or moral evil. It seems as though the only other alternative given God’s perfect goodness would have been to create equally perfect and equally good beings which would be unable to bring about moral evil. On the other hand, it seems as though a person who has the option to bring about both moral goodness and evil but still chooses goodness deserves more merit compared to the one who lacks the option to choose evil altogether. Secondly, what I mean to say when I assert that it was not in God’s power to create moral goodness without creating moral evil is not that God was unable to create such thing, but rather that the decision was passed on to human beings along with the gift of free will.