The UPD faces the obvious objection that if you have no idea what reason God has for allowing evil, then for all you know there is no justifiable reason at all for an all-good God to permit it. And even if the FWD and SMT were successful, they would still leave much apparently gratuitious evil unexplained. As William Rowe points out, when a fawn burns to death in a forest fire and no human being ever knows about it, this apparently unnecessary evil neither preserves human free will nor builds the character of human beings.
I mean really?
The UPD faces the obvious objection that if you have no idea what reason God has for allowing evil, then for all you know there is no justifiable reason at all for an all-good God to permit it
For all you know there is no justifiable reason at all? is that really a logical rebuttal? I mean really? the same logic can apply in reverse. If you have no idea what reason God has for allowing evil, then for all you know there is a justifiable reason for an all good God to permit it. Logically there is no difference between one or the other, what can be applied to one can be applied to the other, just because one has no idea, it does not follow that there is not a justifiable reason. I am sure a 2 year old cannot comprehend a justifiable reason why his mother puts him down for a nap everyday, I guess it follows there is no justifiable reason for the father to permit it? just because someone at the lower level has no idea why someone at a level higher permits X, it does not prove nor suggest that the person at the higher level has no justifiable reason to permit X anymore than it proves or suggests that person has justifiable reasons to permit X, why is this? the atheist answers his own question, because no one has any idea, round and round we go.
And even if the FWD and SMT were successful, they would still leave much apparently gratuitious evil unexplained.
How much evil does it take for it to be gratuitous? and how does the skeptic even know? where is the line between gratuitous and un gratuitous evil?
As William Rowe points out, when a fawn burns to death in a forest fire and no human being ever knows about it, this apparently unnecessary evil neither preserves human free will nor builds the character of human beings.
This is based upon pure assumption. How on earth would someone know when a fawn burns to death in a forest fire and no human being ever knows about it? that sentence alone is silly. How do they know it is apparently unnecessary, perhaps the fawn was going to run out in front of a car? perhaps the fawn burned to death in order to occupy a predator that might've otherwise killed a hunter or camper, and even if it was unnecessary, how do they know it disproves God? as the bible is rife with examples of not only God existing alongside evil, but tolerating certain levels of it as well.
Genesis 6:5-6
5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain
God did not destroy humanity until their wickedness became a certain level.
Genesis 15:16
16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure."
Here it talks about a full measure of sin. These 2 verses not only prove that God exists along side evil, but He tolerates a certain level of evil, so even if one were to concede that there is 'unnecessary evil'(I am not conceding this however) it still does not create a problem.
8 comments:
Nice to see a blog that is giving a top-drawer thinking experience to us lesser mortals. Blogging is such fun.
Peace,
Kat-man
The problem of evil doesn't assume that God cannot tolerate sin, it assumes he has not need to. You need to study up on the problem of evil before making crappy videos and content-lacking blogs.
The problem of evil doesn't assume that God cannot tolerate sin, it assumes he has not need to. You need to study up on the problem of evil before making crappy videos and content-lacking blogs.
Are you unable to tell the difference between responding to a specific article and responding to a certain POE argument? obviously not.
Also, who do you think you're fooling? ignoring the greater portion of my post in favor of an argument that proves evil does not disprove the existence of God. You basically failed to refute or EVEN MENTION everything from the beginning of the post to where I typed "but tolerating certain levels of it as well." Which was about the POE. The whole tolerating argument was an argument against the assertion that the existence of evil disproves God. So not only are you ignorantly thinking that my rebuttal to a SPECIFIC ARTICLE is a rebuttal to every single POE, but you failed to even MENTION my arguments ABOUT THE POE in this post. You're in the amateurs kid, get your weight up.
Theo, man, come on. You linked to infidels entire Evidential problem of evil argument page. I am trying to help you understand that the problem of evil, specifically the evidential problem, has nothing to do with God being able to tolerate sin.
You say-
"For all you know there is no justifiable reason at all? is that really a logical rebuttal? I mean really? the same logic can apply in reverse. If you have no idea what reason God has for allowing evil, then for all you know there is a justifiable reason for an all good God to permit it."
No no no. God is morally obligated to do the good. Creating a world with evil is not "the good". Even a 2 year old can see that, right?
Theo, man, come on. You linked to infidels entire Evidential problem of evil argument page. I am trying to help you understand that the problem of evil, specifically the evidential problem, has nothing to do with God being able to tolerate sin.
Can you read? did you not read when I said the following?
The whole tolerating argument was an argument against the assertion that the existence of evil disproves God.
The tolerating argument had nothing to do with the evidential POE at all. It was against the assertion that the existence of evil disproves God, which is an assertion that is usually almost always brought up in discussions of the POE. Try again.
No no no. God is morally obligated to do the good. Creating a world with evil is not "the good". Even a 2 year old can see that, right?
1. I see you're still making the same mistake, of taking a rebuttal to a SPECIFIC ARGUMENT and applying it to something other than the specific argument. Your first mistake
2. How many times do I have to say it? God did not create the world EVIL! can you not read? can you not listen? or is it you simply cannot refute that assertion? God did not create the world evil.
Theo I made you a pair of lovely blog entry's. Feel free to check them out on my blog and if you are so inclined respond to them
Post a Comment