so before you read, know that he had previously refuted my 2nd argument against theistic gods by saying "god forces free will to exist because he is omnipotent" because he couldnt refute the argument with logic so he used illogic which is probably the only time any valid refutation will ever take place that is rooted in illogic. see the previous post if you want to see that argument. it isnt necessary though because the only thing in that post that is relevant to this one is what he said about free will.
every argument i have against the existence of theistic gods can be validly refuted by saying "god is omnipotent so he can do x" i was trying to think of one where he couldnt do that. i thought of this and it turned out more beautifully than i could have imagined.
please note that at a few times i was not in a thinking mindset so i fucked up a bit and veered off in a ineffective direction.
it starts with me stating the argument.
me: i've been thinking of an argument that you couldnt refute, its an oldie but a goodie. it's one i almost never use because it appeals to emotion somewhat and relies on doctrine pretty heavily and it presupposes gods existence to prove his non existence. anyways its the problem of evil.
im just gonna give you the logical version.
1. god exists.
2. god is omniscient.
3. god is omnipotent.
4. god is omnibenevolent.
5. therefore no evil can exist.
basically, if god exists, then he knows how to prevent evil, he has the power to prevent it, he's perfectly good, so evil cannot exist in the face of a perfectly good being who knows how to and has the power to erase evil. evil exists according to your theology, so either god doesnt exist or nothing is evil.
one response is that we have free will so we have the capacity for evil. this response isnt sound because god apparently has free will and yet he can do no evil which means evil is not a requisite of free will. free will ultimately is just the choice to do good or evil if you take it to its very basics. look at the story of adam and eve. so since free will doesnt require evil as a choice, then the free will response to the problem of evil is useless.
another response you could do which you would do to every other argument is pull the omnipotence defense and this is why i used this argument. because it would require you to posit that god puts evil into the world. ultimately it would boil down to you having to take a position of "god creates evil but its not evil for him" or something like that.
him: Sorry, I haven't sent you a message in a while, I have been busy working on an anti-evolution argument that I think is scientifically irrefutable. Might be a world changer... we will see. Anyway, I was looking at this message about god and evil, and the answer lies in what is defined as good and evil. Evil is viewed simply anything that is contrary to the nature of God. In essence, God can do evil, he just doesn't because that is not who he is. See, free will doesn't mean you have to do everything that is free, just that there is an option.
"if god exists, then he knows how to prevent evil, he has the power to prevent it, he's perfectly good, so evil cannot exist in the face of a perfectly good being who knows how to and has the power to erase evil." I'm not very sure where you ground this statement. Having the power and using the power are not the same thing. You are what you do, not what you have. You may have a tendency to be angry, but that is not what makes you a murderer. Murdering someone makes you a murderer.
me: god created heaven and hell. a place of infinite torment and a place of infinite joy. are either of those evil or good? how can you be so sure god is good if he can commit evil?
"in the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth" yeah he created heaven. hell was made for satan and his followers. have you read the bible? god kills over 2 million people and thats not including the flood or sodom and gommorrah. killing is considered evil in most of the situations which he kills. he does it simply because he doesnt like what somebody is doing.
how would one distinguish which of gods actions are good from evil? i dont think we can say anything about morality if we cant use god as the basis for morality.
him: Heaven and Hell are not creations per say, but they are places where particular individuals dwell. For example, where does the president of the united states live? In the white house. Where does God and his children live? Heaven. Where does the devil and his followers live? Hell. The names for these places and what they become are subject by the people who dwell in them. As in when you first moved to where you bedroom (assuming you have one), it was not your bedroom until you moved into it and put all of your stuff in it. I believe God sent the devil to a place called hell, and the devil has made it what it is.
Now I can believe God is good even though he could commit evil by what good is. Evil is anything that is contrary to the nature of God. Which means that things that are good are subject to his doing of them. So he can only be good. He is consistent in the way he is good and is not changing that, so good is what applies solely to what God's nature is. Therefore, God makes things evil, by not doing them. If it were God's nature to murder, it would suddenly become good.
Killing is not evil, murder is. and heaven and hell are places which cannot take on likenesses or character. You cannot have evil places, that is personifying.
me: god is omnipotent so couldnt he make anything he wanted good or evil?
him: Well, yeah he could.
me: then how can we have any morality? how can morality exist at all? and if good is in his nature, then wouldnt it logically follow that he makes everything good? he his omnibenevolent after all. and if there is any evil in the world isnt it 100% on him?
him: If everything was directly of him, than yes, that would be correct. the kicker is though that not everything is from him. He gave man (as well as the serpent in eden) the ability to be creative. So indirectly God is the author of evil, directly we are.
me: if man has the capacity for evil, and god created man, then the capacity for evil and therefore evil itself comes from god. we cannot be the author of evil when god was the author of us
him: Indirectly speaking you are correct, but to be the author of something, it must be direct, so your conclusion is logically flawed.
me: man has the capacity for evil does he not? does god want evil? if good flows from gods nature and he has the power to make anything evil into good, then why not do it and erase all sin? wasnt that what jesus was for? to forgive us of our sin? why not just erase it?
him: Well, to erase sin I would think it would erase the ability to choose God or not. Other wise, there would be no option 2
me: oh and also, i just thought of something. if god decides what is good and evil and evil exists then therefore god is the author of evil. dont know why i didnt think of that before lol i just woke up.4
him: I held that argument before, I don't think it is active creation, because with Good, not good must come. But these are ideas and not really substances. So to create good is to create not good. Like creating fudge is like creating not fudge. I think...?
note: i missed this response and my next response was a month later.
me: i think i missed your response. you said the creation of good comes with not good aka evil. if this was your last response then im sorry i missed it. here is my counter:
yes, for x there is not x. however, my point is that since god decides what is good and evil, he is therefore the author of good and evil because if something is evil, then it is because he makes it so. he has power over everything, therefore whatever exists does so because he allows it to and furthermore, it is directly from him because he is responsible for all creation. if you program something, then you are responsible for everything that programming does.
ultimate argument:
PART A
1. god designed us.
2. therefore our actions are the result of the way he programmed us.
3. therefore he is responsible for our actions.
god is omnipotent.
god is omnibenevolent.
god is omniscient.
god is omnipresent.
1. god can make good evil and evil good.
2. therefore god decides what is good and what is evil.
3. therefore if something is evil, then it is because god says so.
god is responsible for all creation because he designed everything. therefore god is ultimately responsible for everything within creation.
we must be cleansed of sin in order to go to heaven because sin cannot exist in the presence of god.
PART B.
everything we do, god is ultimately responsible for.
god decides what is good and what is evil.
sin/evil cannot exist in the presence of god.
god is omnipresent.
god has control over everything.
god is perfectly good.
we flowed directly from gods nature.
good flows directly from gods nature.
PART C:
god is present everywhere therefore evil should not exist anywhere.
god decides what is good and evil, therefore good and evil are not objective things, they are just his opinions.
the bible never says god is always right, nowhere in any religion does it say gods opinion is always right. opinions are not a matter of right and wrong.
he is ultimately responsible for whatever happens because he has power over everything and therefore he is responsible for everything because something exists only if he allows it too.
conclusions:
1. good and evil are not objective things.
2. even if they were, since evil/sin cannot exist in the presence of god, and since god is omnipresent, everything is naturally good. therefore in order for evil to exist, god must force it into existence by way of omnipotence. therefore if good and evil were objective things, then anything thats "evil" is necessarily the direct result of god.
3. since free will must exist only by god forcing it to exist by way of omnipotence, and since anything evil can only exist by way of omnipotence, evil actions are therefore the direct result of god. god forces us to do evil.
Total conclusion: evil cannot exist except by way of god forcing it to and therefore if evil does exist, god is solely and directly authoritative and responsible for it.
this argument probably could have been more concise but i wanted to make sure it was full proof.
this is probably the greatest argument ad absurdism i have made to date and i think i have a new found respect for epicurus. i used to think the problem of evil was a weak argument, now i see the true genius of it. although i dont think it was really taken to this deep of a level. ever. maybe im just giving myself too much credit although i doubt it because i have never seen it taken to this level.
No comments:
Post a Comment