Okay, the key claim is that God’s omnipotence does not mean the ability to violate genuine principles of logic, so God is in some sense limited. Thus, any evil must be necessary. Here’s the key quote:

“With the above, the classical problem of evil has been decimated. Evil is somehow necessary. God had to do it in order to make us. Why would an all-loving, all-powerful God put us in such an evil world and cause or allow such evil things to occur? The only answer is that he must cause or allow such things to occur. No, this does not diminish his omnipotence even slightly. He could have not created us. He could have created some other foreign existence. However, for this world of differentiation to exist, in which I am me and you are you and you are not me and I am not you, this world of evil is somehow a necessity.”

The problem with this is the one raised by Hume in his Dialogues. If we are assured there is an all good, all knowing, and all powerful God, then we may reasonably conclude that the evil we witness is somehow justified. But (many think) we do not have such an assurance. We approach the issue of God’s existence as a possibility, not a certainty, and the evil we witness counts against it.

I don’t claim this challenge is final, by any means, but I don’t think the author of this piece has really engaged with this aspect of the problem.

Their lack of assurance does not constitute a logical objection to the solution of the problem. The problem of evil is supposed to be an objection to the possibility of the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. It fails because of the reasoning in the post. That people aren’t sure God exists has nothing to do with the fact that the problem of evil fails to disprove God’s existence.

Most philosophers agree that the deductive problem fails; it’s the inductive version that you should think about.

Explain. I do not know what you mean by an inductive problem of evil.

The deductive argument seeks to show that God cannot exist given the existence of evil. The inductive argument seeks to show that it is very improbable that God exists given the sheer amount of evil in the world.

Can you link me something comprehensive about this? It seems ridiculous on its face. And improbability vs. impossibility and quantity of evil have nothing to do with induction vs. deduction.

Try here

So in other words, the only version of the problem of evil you're familiar with/are attempting to resolve is the one that philosophers don't actually talk about anymore?

This makes your "not having read much more than their Hitchens book" comment rather unfortunate (and amusing).

Honestly he lost me at ‘legions of heathen internet trolls’.

I’m here for philosophy, not blind dogma.

We don’t disprove things though. You cannot disprove the existence of a flawless pink teapot floating in the asteroid belt, but that doesn’t mean anything. The burden of proof is not on the ‘legions of heathen internet trolls’, it is on those claiming a positive - ie the existence of benevolent deity. The PoE provides people like yourself the opportunity to answer its question. Nothing more.

This has nothing to do with the failure of the problem of evil to disprove the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. You are aware that’s what the problem of evil is, right? It’s an effort to disprove God. It fails.

After reading the Stanford article linked, I understand this to be a completely different issue than the one I’m addressing, and yes, it’s ridiculous on its face and throughout.

Oh boy.

This is so dumb, if there was never any brains capable of sensing anything, there would be no evil. So God's need for worship would be the reason for evil, thus, God is evil.

That is of course if God actually existed, but no one who can "hear the voice of God" have thus far done anything useful with it, like answer the P vs NP millennium prize problem.

Good and evil are subjective depending on the perspectives of people both directly and indirectly involved. This whole topic is grounded on duality. Which we would not even be able to comprehend without. I.e. without bad things happening, we wouldn't know what "good" would even be... and therefore wouldn't appreciate life in general.

If there is a God, all he did was create a universe with beings that follow a strict and scalable law of physics. Survival of the fittest is a mental/conscious law just as real as gravity. Being kind to others, in the context of a human, is still selfish behavior at it's root.. we do it to be part of a group and be accepted. Selfishness isn't inherently bad, we're just creatures that have needs that must be filled first. Simultaneously trying to please our subconcious, unconcious, and egos

Bad things happen because people are greedy, selfish, pieces of shit that need to learn how to appreciate the lives of people with opposing lifestyle or opinions and learn that their biggest enemy is their own shadow

[removed]

> Okay, the key claim is that God’s omnipotence does not mean the ability to violate genuine principles of logic, so God is in some sense limited.

"In classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion... once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (including their negations) can be inferred from it; this is known as deductive explosion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

> The burden of proof is not on the ‘legions of heathen internet trolls’, it is on those claiming a positive - ie the existence of benevolent deity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) > > > > The burden of proof is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position. > > > > Shifting the burden of proof: One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true.

It's interesting how the mind executes "logic" depending on the topic of discussion.

That’s subjective not everyone is Einstein nor capable.

For example laws have finite limit to those who wish to able and those who shall not and most would not follow and religion allows those who don’t have guidance and it prevents wars and etc.

Evil has nothing to do with laws or religion, if there are no brains there is no suffering and no one imposing suffering on others. Not even an ant being burnt by a little kid with a magnifying glass.

PoE: There is an extraordinary amount of evil and suffering in the world. How can that fact be reconciled with the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent deity?

OP: We don’t know the reason there is evil, but we can assume it is necessary. You must prove it isn’t necessary or I’m right.

See how that works?

True but consciously even without a brain just like other animals without it we’ll still commit evil.

Is killing evil? Is killing animals and human evil for food ?

Even if we weren’t wired without a brain, we’ll be wired with something else. It may sound like a white and black fallacy but it’s not bc you are talking hypothetically

That’s just a non realistic scenario

> See how that works?

How you avoided the content of my comment? Yes, I do see how that works. One might think discussions in a philosophy subreddit might be above this, but one would be regularly disappointed.

EDIT: yet another pseudo-philosopher can't substantiate their claims so drops some snark and blocks the user so they can't reply. Maybe if mods did something about this this subreddit would become smarter over time.

> I responded directly to the content of your comment.

No, you did not.

> You are trying to apply something to one side of the conversation while ignoring what would happen if it were applied to both sides equally.

No, this is your imagination.

> This convo is going nowhere, but only because you are stopping it.

Says the person who blocked me so I can't reply to his comment.

I responded directly to the content of your comment. You are trying to apply something to one side of the conversation while ignoring what would happen if it were applied to both sides equally.

This convo is going nowhere, but only because you are stopping it.

We're talking about deities, its all unrealistic. The point being that in universes where atoms cannot form at all, and thus stars don't make heavier elements than hydrogen, there is no evil there. So if God made only such universes, God could be good AND all-powerful.

>True but consciously even without a brain just like other animals without it we’ll still commit evil.

Animals without brains don't exist.

Humans can't exist without a brain, our bodily functions would not function. You are completely and utterly missing the point.

In a universe with just photons, there is no evil. There is nothing that can act evil and there is nothing that could be the victim of evil. Light particles don't care if you torture it, it is not possible to torture light particles or otherwise make them suffer. THAT is the point.

So if God exists, God demands brains to be capable of worshipping God, and thus God is evil. Because God made a universe where evil can exist at all. God made a universe where suffering is possible.

You actually come off kind of like a heathen internet troll, TBH.

Sounds like you apply that label to most people.

I actually self-identify as a heathen, but I only moonlight as a troll.

[removed]

they definitely seem to be lacking in the self-awareness/sense of irony department

>and yes, it’s ridiculous on its face and throughout.

What exactly is "it" referring to here?

Most people on the internet, yeah, but that doesn't mean I'm not meticulously discriminating. It means that the internet population is what it is.

The inductive presentation of the problem of evil. Like, the existence of evil doesn't disprove God, as my article shows, but the existence of a LOT of evil is supposed to PROBABLY disprove God? Like, how stupid can you be? And notice all of the assumptions made in that Stanford link. There's just so much evil and no use for evil! Well, my post demonstrates that there is a use for evil.

It, the inductive presentation of the problem of evil, is just so stupid. It reduces the logical analysis of the issue to a tantrum. Like, evil doesn't disprove God, so let's just whine.

What are you to say that god demands a Particular objective.

Also animals do exit without a brain The sponge

Humans are not naturally born to do Evil. It may be influence through survival but isn’t something innate. Human cannot exist without a brain with our current function. But if we were to function like a sponge it would be different.

If god exist he would want the best for us otherwise he wouldn’t of created us for evil deeds.

Instead he could’ve of created us without a brains.

Eastern belief systems I find have an easier time dealing with the concepts of good and evil. If I smush a spider that was going to bite me, that was good from my perspective, as I don't want to get bit. But it was evil from the spider's perspective, who didn't want to die.

The idea that the individual is the final arbiter of good and evil is problematic to say the least.

Can evil exist in a universe that lacks atoms? Just answer this.

Like I said evil isn’t innate it comes as a result of hardship or devilish ambitions.

Yes and no evil can exist even if we lack atoms. As only energy will be present. But that's just theoretical and not a fact.

As evil is created through the creation of organism. When they start to adapt.

Example particles

You need atoms to have ambition.....

This whole conversation has certainly given me hardship, because nothing you say is consistent.

First you say evil can exist without atoms but then you say evil is created by an organism.

And the words "example particles" doesn't even make a complete sentence. I can't read your mind! What does that mean!?

Like I said

Aren’t we formed through mostly atoms.

Without them we wouldn’t exist.

Evil will always exist in our case it the manifestation of growth. While others may be different. Evil can be described as different thing just as each culture may have its own evil.

Without atoms, most things wouldn’t exist aspect energy.

Then evil will have a nuance meaning

how would we be able to do action.

>Like I said
>
>Aren’t we formed through mostly atoms.
>
>Without them we wouldn’t exist.

And neither would evil...

So like I said.

If god made a universe with no life in it.

There would be no evil there.

THAT God would be good.

That's what I said in the first comment. Its completely pointless to talk about a "Good God" when clearly, evil CAN exist in the universe he allegedly made.

This is sort of impressive; literally every single sentence in your post is the opposite of what is the case.

The inductive PoE is evidently not "stupid", since hitherto not a single apologist or theologian has been able to refute or rebut it- you yourself failed to even attempt to raise a single substantive objection to it. If it were stupid, you would (hopefully) be able to at least attempt a substantive counter. If neither you nor any professional apologist are unable to rebut a "stupid" argument, what does that say about your intelligence (spoiler; nothing good)?

Nor did you manage to show that "there is a use for evil", in a relevant sense, as it pertains to a tri-omni deity. And indeed, the inductive version of the argument circumvents the single effective counterargument against the traditional deductive version- the logical possibility that God could have a sufficient justification for allowing gratuitous suffering, even if we can't imagine what it could be.

So indeed, this "stupid" argument remains undefeated, and succeeds in establishing the non-existence of a tri-omni deity to a high degree of probability. Oops, eh? Live and learn, I guess.

Of course I rebutted it. Anyone who rebuts the problem of evil has rebutted the inductive problem of evil.

And don’t contradict yourself. Gratuitous suffering is a synonym for unjustified suffering.