The Problem of Evil

Resolved: If evil exists, no existent god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. -Clarification: This is the logical problem of evil (LPoE), not the evidential version (EPoE). An omnipotent god could effortlessly prevent all evil. An omniscient god would know how to effortlessly prevent all evil. A benevolent god would want as little evil as possible. And omnibenevolent god would strongly, totally, infinitely, purely, unconflictedly want there to be no evil at all. A tri-omni (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) god would want to prevent all evil if he could; and he could; so there would be no evil. Therefore, if evil exists, tri-omni gods do not exist. - Definitions: Evil: The sources of unhappiness. By extension, we often use the word "evil" to refer to unhappiness itself. Good: The sources of happiness. By extension, we often use the word "good" to refer to happiness itself. Sin: Just so that we don't conflate sin with evil: sin is doubt or disobedience of god, with doubt being the greater portion. Thus, Eve first sinned when she entertained the serpent's words, not when she bit the apple. Evil is the punishment for sin. Sin and evil are often conflated because some evils (gluttony, for instance) are moral evils. That is, you can cause unhappiness by doubting or disobeying god. Benevolence: Wanting good rather than evil. Omnibenevolence: Totally, purely, strongly, unconflictedly wanting good rather than evil, wanting all good and no evil. Omnipotence: For the purposes of this debate, we're talking about punk omnipotence, not true omnipotence. True omnipotence would have god able to contradict logic; he could make square circles. But, for a logical debate, we must assume logic is inviolable. Therefore, the omnipotence under discussion is punk omnipotence: the ability to do anything except violate logic. Omniscience: Knowing everything, including the future. Knew, at the time of creation (per Plantinga) every decision that would ever be made in every possible world and every impossible world. (And, being omnipotent, he had his choice of the infinity of possible worlds. He knew how each one would turn out, and could have chosen to create one of those that had no evil. ) Tri-omni: Omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, as defined above. Goodworld: A world without unhappiness. Badworld: A world with unhappiness. -Argument: Plantinga says, and logic agrees, that in some possible worlds, people are happy all the time. An omniscient god would have known which ones those were. An omniscient god would have been able to create one of those goodworlds instead of a badworld. A benevolent god would have preferred the goodworlds. An omnibenevolent god would have totally, strongly, unconflictedly preferred creating the goodworlds. The fact that god did not create one of the goodworlds is proof that god, if he exists, is not tri-omni. A tri-omni god would prevent all evil. Therefore, if there is evil, there is no tri-omni god. -Relevant Responses: Con may claim that his god is not really omnipotent, or not really omniscient, or not really omnibenevolent. These are common responses to the PoE, but they do not contradict or refute the PoE. The PoE says that if evil exists, then god is not tri-omni. You cannot refute the PoE by agreeing that god is not tri-omni. Con may claim that evil doesn't exist. This is not a refutation of the PoE. The PoE says that if a tri-omni god exists, then evil does not exist. You cannot refute the PoE by agreeing that evil does not exist. Con may claim that his god is not bound by logic and rationality. Set aside the fact that this would be an admission that his religion is illogical and irrational, such a god is not the subject of this debate. You cannot refute the PoE by agreeing that the PoE is logical but god is not. These the five possible relevant responses to the PoE: 1. God is not really omnipotent. 2. God is not really omniscient.3. God is not really omnibenevolent. 4. Evil does not really exist. 5. Belief in tri-omni gods is not logical. None of them refute the PoE. But there are no other relevant responses to the PoE. (Because the PoE has only those five elements. ) Therefore, in my experience, defending against the PoE usually amounts to making one of the above five concessions, and then denying it. For instance, "God doesn't know the future, so he had to guess which world to create. But I still call him "omnipotent" because I like the sound of that word. " Okay, defenders don't usually phrase their arguments that clearly. Plantinga has raised the art of defending against the PoE to the point of near-opacity. -Thanks: Thanks to stubs for asking for this debate. Best wishes stubs. Obviously, I'm prejudiced against PoE defences in general, but I look forward to reading your specific defence with an open mind. I hope you surprise me. Thanks too to DDO, and any readers, voters, and commenters. - Vote Pro: In the DDO forum, I read some complaints about people who end debate posts by asking for your vote. I'm in the other camp. I like people who say "Vote Pro," or "Vote Con. " It helps me keep the players straight in my mind. I sometimes get desperately confused (particularly when Con initiates the debate) and need all the guidance I can get.