The Problem of Evil

Thanks to stubs, for his civility, clarity, and interest in the topic. He's raised so many issues, I wish we could discuss them all here. Perhaps we could have a follow-up debate on the topic of whether the PoE would still be compelling if we defined both unhappiness and lack-of-free-will as "evil." (Yes, it would still be bulletproof.) Or perhaps, after this debate, we can start a discussion thread on how Plantinga equivocates when he says god could create a badworld with free will, but not a goodworld with free will. I hope we can continue our discussion after this debate. But we can't range into those topics now. This debate is halfway over. After this post, I get only one more. We must focus on our agreed topic. My Case: If god had the will and the power to prevent all evil, there would be no evil. An omnipotent god (able to do anything except violate logic) could prevent evil if he wanted to. By definition, an omnibenevolent god (totally, strongly, unconflictedly, infinitely opposed to evil) wants to prevent evil. An omniscient god would know how to prevent evil. A tri-omni god, therefore, would have both the will and the power to prevent evil. Conclusion: 1. If a tri-omni god existed, there would be no evil. 2. If evil exists, there is no tri-omni god. And, 3. Anyone who believes in both evil and a tri-omni god is wrong. That's a patently compelling case. Bulletproof. There's no way around it. 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. Con chose moves 1 and 3. Move 1: God is not really omnipotent: Con wrote, "[W]hy should the theist accept" that "... there are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do[?]" In other words, he thinks god may not be powerful enough to prevent evil. But that's my point! I'm pointing out that if an omniscient omnibenevolent god coexists with evil, then that god must not be omnipotent. Con cannot contradict or refute that by saying that god isn't omnipotent. That isn't a refutation; it amounts to a concession that the PoE is correct. Move 3: God is not really omnibenevolent: Con wrote: "it is logically possible that God has morally sufficient reasons ... for permitting ... evils." I don't pretend to know what Con means by "morally sufficient reasons." If god were a moral law giver, anything he wanted would be a moral law, right? If he'd rather play Tetris than prevent evil, that would be a morally sufficient reason. Con's point seems to be that god may not be omnibenevolent. His desire to prevent evil may be less than strong, pure, infinite, total, and unconflicted. He may have other interests, stronger interests. Preventing evil may be on a back burner. But it is my point! I'm pointing out that an omnipotent omniscient god who coexists with evil must not be omnibenevolent. Con cannot contradict or refute that by saying that god isn't omnibenevolent. That isn't a refutation; it amounts to a concession that the PoE is correct. Move 0: Not one of the five relevant responses. Con also writes, "In response to (b) It is logically possible that God cannot create significantly free creatures who never sin." That is wrong, which I'll be happy to demonstrate in the follow-up discussion thread. Here, I'll just point out that it's not relevant to this debate. Neither freedom nor sin are part of my case. You cannot refute the PoE by talking about irrelevant issues. (Remember, evil is the sources of unhappiness, but sin is doubt and disobedience of god. In the bible, evil is the punishment for sin. As I stipulated in my opening post, sin and evil are different concepts.) Conclusion: = My Case Is Flawless And Has Not Been Attacked: I said that if a god had the power and the will to prevent evil, there would not be evil. This is obviously true, and Con didn't challenge it. I said that if a god were omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then he would have the power and will to prevent evil. This is obviously true, and Con didn't challenge it either. It follows that if a tri-omni god existed, there would be no evil. This is not only correct, it is unchallenged. Vote Pro. = Con's Case Is Off Target: Con said that if god were not omnipotent, or were not omnibenevolent, then evil could exist. This in no way contradicts or undermines my case. Con also made an interesting but irrelevant and erroneous point about sin and freedom. Even were it true, it would in no way contradict or undermine the PoE. Vote Pro. Notes: Con's God Con posited a less-than-omnipotent and less-than-omnibenevolent god. The PoE does not attack or refute Con's god. The PoE has nothing to say about such gods. My Source: I wrote, "Plantinga says, and logic agrees, that in some possible worlds, people are happy all the time." Con asked for my source. My source is the same as his source, Plantinga's book, God, Freedom, and Evil. [1] Plantinga's claim that some goodworlds are possible should not be controversial. A possible world is one with no logical contradictions. Any world with no logical contradictions is a possible world. There is no inherent logical contradiction in everybody being happy all the time, so some such worlds are possible. There aren't two sides to this. Con seems to think that Plantinga contradicts himself by saying that while such goodworlds exist, god may not be able to create such worlds with "moral good" in them. But that is not a contradiction. (Note that Plantinga's "moral good" is not the kind of "good" we are discussing in this debate.) This may be an interesting topic for the follow-up discussion thread. Sin Free Worlds: Con wrote that sin-free worlds are logically possible. Of course they are. Sinless worlds include possible worlds in which gods declare that the only sin is drawing square circles. Godless worlds (this one, for instance) are also sinless. But the possibility of sinless worlds does not undermine the PoE. The PoE has to do with evil, not sin. Arguments From Authority: Con quotes William Rowe as saying that he thinks nobody has proven that evil is inconsistent with "the existence of the theistic God." Of course the PoE cannot refute all theistic gods. Many are compatible with evil. It refutes only tri-omni gods who coexist with evil. In any case, the argument from authority is a fallacy when it is put up against a logical argument. "Therefore, Socrates is mortal? That's not what my old man says!" Con quotes William Alston saying that almost everybody says the LPoE is bankrupt. If it is bankrupt, Con ought to be able to point out what is wrong with it. When the Wright brothers demonstrated a flying machine, it did no good to quote authorities saying that such machines can't fly. Neither does it suffice to quote an authority against a demonstrated bulletproof version of the LPoE. If Con wants to claim that a god with both the will and the power to prevent evil wouldn't do so, let him field an argument to that effect. Let him not commit the fallacy of argument from authority by quoting vague and unexplained opinions of people who cannot defend or explain themselves here. If god had the will to prevent evil, then he would do so if he could. If he had that will, and if he also had the power and knowledge to enforce that will, then there would be no evil. An omnipotent god would have the power, by definition. An omnibenevolent god would have the will, by definition. There is no possible world in which a tri-omni god coexists with evil.