Thresh

  • ***
  • 1262 Posts
    • View Profile
    • The New Skeptics Guide Religious Terminology
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #15 on: June 24, 2014, 08:45:02 pm »
Maybe I'm not thinking clearly, but I'm not so sure that gratuitous evil 'apparently' exists. Why is it apparent? Seems like it is a little hasty to say we clearly experience the totality of the world's evil enough to apprehend the 'apparent' gratuitous evil of the entire world.

1

Jabberwock

  • *****
  • 14510 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #16 on: June 24, 2014, 08:47:06 pm »
Maybe I'm not thinking clearly, but I'm not so sure that gratuitous evil 'apparently' exists. Why is it apparent? Seems like it is a little hasty to say we clearly experience the totality of the world's evil enough to apprehend the 'apparent' gratuitous evil of the entire world.

One argument for this is that there evil which we try to avoid. If some evil is avoidable, then it must be unnecessary. Also, blaming someone for evil which was necessary seems to be inconsistent.
First learn to spell "ironic discussion"...

2

Thresh

  • ***
  • 1262 Posts
    • View Profile
    • The New Skeptics Guide Religious Terminology
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #17 on: June 24, 2014, 08:52:21 pm »
With morals it would seem that, like the rules logic, you continually apprehend some moral rules that exist and describe your actions. But are we continually apprehending a sort of "barometer of the totality of evil in the world' enough to believe its total amount is gratuitous? This doesn't seem apparent to me.

Quote
'If some evil is avoidable, then it must be unnecessary.'

But how do you know one way or the other if it was avoidable? I see no indicators that clearly point in any direction.

3

Jabberwock

  • *****
  • 14510 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #18 on: June 24, 2014, 08:58:30 pm »
For the argument to succeed it is enough to show that any single instance of evil is gratuitous.

Quote
But how do you know one way or the other if it was avoidable? I see no indicators that clearly point in any direction.

Can we blame a murderer for murder if the deed was unavoidable?
First learn to spell "ironic discussion"...

4

Thresh

  • ***
  • 1262 Posts
    • View Profile
    • The New Skeptics Guide Religious Terminology
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #19 on: June 24, 2014, 09:09:45 pm »
Quote
Can we blame a murderer for murder if the deed was unavoidable?

Yes. Why should its unavoidability be a factor? The man still chose to do evil, and its his fault. It's not like God predestined the man to choose to murder.

Quote
For the argument to succeed it is enough to show that any single instance of evil is gratuitous.

Yes, so how can you even begin to show one? For example, we don't have all of history yet, so you can't predict with any accuracy what the consequences of any evil actions are, therefore, there is no way to know if the act was necessary. You can't even make an good guess.

We would need a picture or even a crude estimate of the total evil and its consequences in the past and future of this world. And that is something we will never have.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2014, 09:16:51 pm by Thresh »

5

Rick Dawkins

  • **
  • 817 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #20 on: June 24, 2014, 09:18:20 pm »
isnt it somewhat unfair to say why you can beat the arguement?or say why you think you can? lol

Well, we're assuming they can avoid looking at this thread.

And even if they can't/don't avoid looking at this thread, what does it matter?  We want them each to present the best arguments they can, right?

true,but , going first seemingly to me is a disadvantage because he is opem for critique ,which them oppenent can use - thats an advantage surely?

6

Jabberwock

  • *****
  • 14510 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #21 on: June 24, 2014, 09:24:39 pm »
Yes. Why should its unavoidability be a factor? The man still chose to do evil, and its his fault. It's not like God predestined the man to choose to murder.

For the man to freely choose to do evil (on LFW) he must be able to choose otherwise. If he is able to do otherwise, then there is a possible world in which he did not commit the evil. If there is such world, then the evil is not necessary, therefore avoidable.

Quote
Yes, so how can you even begin to show one? For example, we don't have all of history yet, so you can't predict with any accuracy what the consequences of any evil actions are, therefore, there is no way to know if the act was necessary. You can't even make an good guess.

We would need a picture or even a crude estimate of the total evil and its consequences in the past and future of this world. And that is something we will never have.

If there is a possible world in which the act does not happen, then it is not necessary. All free willed acts cannot be necessary (Frankfurt's cases do not work here).
First learn to spell "ironic discussion"...

7

wonderer

  • *****
  • 14999 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #22 on: June 24, 2014, 10:14:07 pm »
Quote from: Rick Dawkins
true,but , going first seemingly to me is a disadvantage because he is opem for critique ,which them oppenent can use - thats an advantage surely?

GRW is up to any challenge. 8^)
"The world needed that of us, to maintain—by our example, by our very existence—a world that would keep learning and questioning, that would remain free in thought, inquiry, and word." - Alice Dreger

8

Thresh

  • ***
  • 1262 Posts
    • View Profile
    • The New Skeptics Guide Religious Terminology
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #23 on: June 24, 2014, 10:27:16 pm »
Quote
For the man to freely choose to do evil (on LFW) he must be able to choose otherwise. If he is able to do otherwise, then there is a possible world in which he did not commit the evil. If there is such world, then the evil is not necessary, therefore avoidable.

It may be possible in a world, for him to not choose evil, but he having LFW, may still never choose good.

Also, if in that possible world he chooses to do good, it will change the circumstances of that world, and potentially allow for even more evil to be done as a consequence.

There is no way to know if this world is in fact the world with the lowest possible total evil or not.

Once you grasp the concept of the infinite possibilities for all the consequences of human choices, then you will realize that we can never make an good estimate on what world would have the lowest amount of evil while also serving the good purposes of God. You can't even make a good guess.


Quote
If there is a possible world in which the act does not happen, then it is not necessary.

In that world, is there any guarantee (or even an indication) that the act not happening, would lower the total evil of that world below ours? I'll answer for you; no.

9

Jabberwock

  • *****
  • 14510 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2014, 01:06:05 am »
It may be possible in a world, for him to not choose evil, but he having LFW, may still never choose good.

If there is a possible world in which he does not commit the crime, then the evil is not necessary by definition.

Quote
Also, if in that possible world he chooses to do good, it will change the circumstances of that world, and potentially allow for even more evil to be done as a consequence.

If by murdering someone he changes the circumstances so that there is (potentially) less evil in the world, how can we blame him? He should be praised.

Quote
There is no way to know if this world is in fact the world with the lowest possible total evil or not.

Once you grasp the concept of the infinite possibilities for all the consequences of human choices, then you will realize that we can never make an good estimate on what world would have the lowest amount of evil while also serving the good purposes of God. You can't even make a good guess.

If that is so and only pure consequentialism matters, then we should never refrain from doing evil, as we might contribute this to the total evil of the world. "If God allows me to kill him, that means that it was necessary and not killing him would cause even more evil." Surely you see how absurd that is.

Quote
In that world, is there any guarantee (or even an indication) that the act not happening, would lower the total evil of that world below ours? I'll answer for you; no.

And I have shown above how the pure consequentialism brings absurd results. What about the world in which absolutely everyone refrains from committing evil? Such world is possible by definition of LFW. In that world, by your account, the total evil must be the same as in other worlds - in other words, in the world where nobody committs evil there would happen something so terribly evil that it would even out all possible but uncommitted evil deeds of the whole mankind - and that evil would not be caused by anyone. How does that even make sense?
First learn to spell "ironic discussion"...

10

redtilt1

  • ***
  • 1719 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #25 on: June 25, 2014, 08:55:22 am »
Quote
Can we blame a murderer for murder if the deed was unavoidable?

Yes. Why should its unavoidability be a factor? The man still chose to do evil, and its his fault. It's not like God predestined the man to choose to murder.

Quote
For the argument to succeed it is enough to show that any single instance of evil is gratuitous.

Yes, so how can you even begin to show one? For example, we don't have all of history yet, so you can't predict with any accuracy what the consequences of any evil actions are, therefore, there is no way to know if the act was necessary. You can't even make an good guess.

We would need a picture or even a crude estimate of the total evil and its consequences in the past and future of this world. And that is something we will never have.

So are you saying the holocaust might have been necessary?

11

Thresh

  • ***
  • 1262 Posts
    • View Profile
    • The New Skeptics Guide Religious Terminology
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #26 on: June 25, 2014, 06:30:55 pm »
Quote
So are you saying the holocaust might have been necessary?

Are you saying it apparently wasn't? How could you know?

12

Bertuzzi

  • ****
  • 8713 Posts
  • Check out my new blog!
    • View Profile
    • Capturing Christianity
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #27 on: June 25, 2014, 06:40:44 pm »
We should probably refrain from using modal operators (possible/necessary) when discussing supposed gratuitous evils.
Husband. Father. Photographer. Blogger.

capturingchristianity.com

"No theodicy without eschatology." - Hick

13

testinganidea

  • ***
  • 1666 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #28 on: June 25, 2014, 10:04:18 pm »
Bertuzzi,

You suggest:
"We should probably refrain from using modal operators (possible/necessary) when discussing supposed gratuitous evils."

Why? If the evil does not occur in every possible world can that be taken as evidence that the evil is gratuitous?

14

Bertuzzi

  • ****
  • 8713 Posts
  • Check out my new blog!
    • View Profile
    • Capturing Christianity
Re: DEBATE: Problem of Gratuitous Suffering - Comments Thread
« Reply #29 on: June 25, 2014, 10:57:26 pm »
Bertuzzi,

You suggest:
"We should probably refrain from using modal operators (possible/necessary) when discussing supposed gratuitous evils."

Why? If the evil does not occur in every possible world can that be taken as evidence that the evil is gratuitous?

All evil is unnecessary in the modal sense. There is a possible world where no humans are created for instance. But that isn't the question. The question is whether or not the evil in the actual world is gratuitous.
Husband. Father. Photographer. Blogger.

capturingchristianity.com

"No theodicy without eschatology." - Hick