The Optimist Argument Against the Problem of Evil

[tonyrey]

Omniscience is not a modal property.

This is as nonsensical as TheTrueCentrist’s view that everything God does is random. If this is the case, then you must concede that you do not know whether it is possible for God to know free decisions.
I do not know any more than you do. I believe it is impossible for God to know non-existent decisions. You believe the contrary.

Therefore, you must let God’s revelation tell you. Do you know what it tells us? It tells us that God knows the beginning from the end, that He knows all things. It does not say that He knows all possible things. The fact that we regard certain things impossible for God to know does not mean that God does not know them.

Do you think God knows impossible things?

Do you believe the evil in the world is excessive - given the fact of free will?
I believe that there is an apparent excess of evil. But, given God’s nature and revelation, I do believe that He has good reasons for allowing it.

In which case there is no reason to believe this is not the best possible world.

In that case it is irrational to believe in God - a view which is certainly consistent with the view that this not the best of all possible worlds…

How does that follow? I merely stated what the arguments suggest. I did not say that I thought they were sound arguments.
Then why are they unsound?

[/QUOTE]

 

[tonyrey]

I believe it was because you were talking like Marcion.

The God of the Old Testament is the God of the New Testament.
Christ affirmed the Old Testament* jot and tittle*. You, apparently, do not.

Then why did Jesus frequently say “But I say to you”? How do you reconcile the vindictive, bloodthirsty Yahweh with the loving Father full of mercy and compassion? Are you a fundamentalist who interprets Scripture literally?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Then why did Jesus frequently say “But I say to you”? How do you reconcile the vindictive, bloodthirsty Yahweh with the loving Father full of mercy and compassion? Are you a fundamentalist who interprets Scripture literally?

The OP suggested he was in a theology class, and this long discussion reminds me of my biggest complaint with small Christian, or Catholic, colleges. There is never enough diversity of belief to have a good discussion about issues like this. I find that in such a setting, people are far too timid about playing the devils advocate. They are afraid, perhaps rightfully, that if they argue too strongly against the Christian view (represented by the consensus view of the classroom) they might be perceived as actually espousing non-Christian views.

For example, if your question was asked at all, a response of “obviously people who think that God is different in the Old Testament take passages out of context” would likely end the discussion.

 

[FCCopleston]

Then why did Jesus frequently say “But I say to you”? How do you reconcile the vindictive, bloodthirsty Yahweh with the loving Father full of mercy and compassion? Are you a fundamentalist who interprets Scripture literally?

I would not call myself a fundamentalist, no. But I would much rather be a “fundie” than a Marcionite!

 

[FCCopleston]

The OP suggested he was in a theology class, and this long discussion reminds me of my biggest complaint with small Christian, or Catholic, colleges. There is never enough diversity of belief to have a good discussion about issues like this. I find that in such a setting, people are far too timid about playing the devils advocate. They are afraid, perhaps rightfully, that if they argue too strongly against the Christian view (represented by the consensus view of the classroom) they might be perceived as actually espousing non-Christian views.

For example, if your question was asked at all, a response of “obviously people who think that God is different in the Old Testament take passages out of context” would likely end the discussion.

The same can be said of secular universities–of which I have attended my entire life. While it is true that diversity of belief is better than a dead orthodoxy, I imagine a discussion of the Old Testament as the inspired and inerrant Word of God would be just as quickly “ended” in a large, secular college as one denying it in a Bible-believing college. Neither proves anything, however.

 

[FCCopleston]

tonyrey writes:

Are you denying that God knows everything that is knowable?

No. I am denying that omniscience is a modal property.

That is true if you believe free will is a natural power but false if it is independent of time and space. In God we live, move and have our being. We are like Him in our power to transcend physical laws. Do you believe free will is a natural or supernatural power?

If free will is independent of time and space, then why must God–Who is also independent of time and space–wait for our decision before knowing it? If God doesn’t know it “before” it occurs, then how does he know it “after”?

I do not know any more than you do. I believe it is impossible for God to know non-existent decisions. You believe the contrary.

I believe that God knows all true propositions. For example, God knows that “tonyrey chooses to falsely believe that omniscience is a modal property.”

In what sense are these decisions “non-existent” to a timeless God? Are you saying they are non-existent because they have not yet been decided? Why can’t God know what has not yet been decided?

Do you think God knows impossible things?

If by “impossible thing” you mean “false thing,” then no, I do not think God knows impossible things. But if by “impossible thing” you mean “those things which are not possible to be known” (thus making omniscience a modal property), then I would say that omniscience is not a modal property and your question makes no sense at all.

In which case there is no reason to believe this is not the best possible world.

Right. If “the best of possible worlds” were not hopelessly incoherent, then there would be no reason not to believe that this was such a world.

Then why are they unsound?

Read my posts throughout the thread. I am sure I have answered this question at least a few dozen times.

 

[FCCopleston]

Here is a random question for whoever is interested?

There are a large number of prophecies about Christ in the Old Testament (nearly 300). These include, but are not limited to, His place of birth, tribe and lineage, ministry, betrayal by Judas, suffering, crucifixion, and resurrection.

The Greek Septuagint (a translation of the O.T.) was completed in 250 B.C. Also the Dead Sea Scrolls have Isaiah from 125 B.C. [therefore, the predictions came before the events].

Peter Stoner and Robert Newman demonstrated that the probability that one man would fulfill just eight of the prophecies Jesus did would be 1 in 10 to the 17th power. This is the same probability of picking one quarter from a 2-foot deep pile covering Texas.

Now the question: using abductive inference to the best explanation, does this appear to be a random string of prophecies, events, and fulfillments, or is there some hint of design and purpose?

 

[FCCopleston]

Furthermore, this may be of some interest to those who doubt whether it is reasonable to suppose a total randomness in God:

In terms of a bibliographical test, the textual reliability of the New Testament, for example, is by far the greatest of any book of antiquity (their accuracy is 99.7%, the remaining .3% being variant readings which have no bearing upon any doctrinal content).

In terms of internal evidence, the New Testament exhibits the following:

1. GENRE: It asserts itself to be an authentic and accurate historical narrative
2. CONSISTENCY AND CORROBORATION: There is no proof that the N.T. documents are untruthful. Wherever apparent contradictions have appeared, harmonizations have been found. Furthermore, we ought not to bring preconceived ideas to a text which imply the source to be false, i.e., we ought to give the text the benefit of the doubt.
3. RING OF TRUTH: The text does not read like a propaganda piece, but rather as a realistic and plausible portrayal of human nature. For instance, the criterion of embarrassment (Peter denying Christ three times, harsh accusations against Jesus, and harsh accusations by Jesus [to Pharisees, etc.], the resurrection being first reported by women–whose testimony was not valid in a court of law). There is also nothing politically persuasive about the New Testament, seeing that Christ continually affirms His Kingdom not to be of this earth, and yet, Pilate had no power given him to crucify Christ than was given him by the Father.
4. AUTHORITY OF WRITERS: They were all able to record eye-witness testimony. For example, Matthew and John were eyewitnesses, Mark and Luke carefully interviewed eyewitnesses. Moreover, if the texts were inaccurate, people were around who had witnessed the events who could discredit them (how could Christianity flourish to the extent that it did if anyone could simply go to Christ’s tomb and see His dead body?). The New Testament documents were written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. This was predicted by Jesus (Mark 13:2; Matthew 24:2; Luke 19:44; Luke 21:6).
5. CHARACTER AND MOTIVATION OF WRITERS: What did the writers have to gain by lying? They had nothing to gain and everything to lose by lying. Who in their right mind–and there are no good reasons to believe that the disciples of Jesus were insane–would defend what they know to be a lie with the high probability of being tortured to death? (11 of the 12 were executed; only 1 died a natural death). Furthermore, those who were Jews would think of themselves as risking damnation by opposing salvation by the Mosaic Law (e.g. Deut. 6:4 “God is one”).
6. INTERTEXTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN O.T. and N.T.: If the New Testament is reliable on independent grounds and quotes the Old Testament, there is reason to think that it is reliable. If O.T. makes predictions which are confirmed in the N.T., reason to think the O.T. is reliable. Jesus fulfilled a large number of specific prophecies, many of which he could not arrange, e.g. His place of birth, manner of death, etc.

In terms of external evidence, we have confirmations from Christian and non-Christian sources, fulfilled prophecy, and archaeology.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Here is a random question for whoever is interested?

There are a large number of prophecies about Christ in the Old Testament (nearly 300). These include, but are not limited to, His place of birth, tribe and lineage, ministry, betrayal by Judas, suffering, crucifixion, and resurrection.

The Greek Septuagint (a translation of the O.T.) was completed in 250 B.C. Also the Dead Sea Scrolls have Isaiah from 125 B.C. [therefore, the predictions came before the events].

Peter Stoner and Robert Newman demonstrated that the probability that one man would fulfill just eight of the prophecies Jesus did would be 1 in 10 to the 17th power. This is the same probability of picking one quarter from a 2-foot deep pile covering Texas.

Now the question: using abductive inference to the best explanation, does this appear to be a random string of prophecies, events, and fulfillments, or is there some hint of design and purpose?

What prevented the writers of the new testament from simply inventing the figure of 30 pieces of silver, for example? How would they have known the exact amount? Did Judas write them a letter? Did the chief priests brag about it? No, it is simply presented as fact. It may very well be that they were aware of many prophecies and wrote their stories to accommodate as many as possible.

Also, what about intentional fulfillment? Jesus could have gone out of his way to ride a donkey into Jerusalem, or hired someone to herald his arrival, his parents might have traveled to Bethlehem deliberately in order to support their claim of virgin conception, or they were trying to dodge the stigma associated with out of wedlock pregnancy.

See also
holtz.org/Library/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Christianity/Criticism/The%20Fabulous%20Prophecies%20Of%20The%20Messiah%20-%20Lippard%201993.htm

 

[FCCopleston]

What prevented the writers of the new testament from simply inventing the figure of 30 pieces of silver, for example? How would they have known the exact amount? Did Judas write them a letter? Did the chief priests brag about it? No, it is simply presented as fact. It may very well be that they were aware of many prophecies and wrote their stories to accommodate as many as possible.

Also, what about intentional fulfillment? Jesus could have gone out of his way to ride a donkey into Jerusalem, or hired someone to herald his arrival, his parents might have traveled to Bethlehem deliberately in order to support their claim of virgin conception, or they were trying to dodge the stigma associated with out of wedlock pregnancy.

See also
holtz.org/Library/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Christianity/Criticism/The%20Fabulous%20Prophecies%20Of%20The%20Messiah%20-%20Lippard%201993.htm

In a contingent universe, I suppose anything is possible. However, not everything is likely.

Could Christ have chosen His place of birth? Could Christ have chosen His place of death? What about the resurrection? What explains the drastic change in the disciples? If Mary, the Mother of God, and Jesus’ disciples were all “in on it,” then why didn’t they expect Christ to rise from the dead on the third day? Why were they afraid of death, and then suddenly willing to die for what they now believed to be true?

I suppose you could dismiss all of this as a “random coincidence of fulfillment,” but that is only if you, once again, isolate each fulfillment from the other (it is pretty hard not to get total randomness when you dismiss every and all context, and view each and every event as arbitrary). Eventually, the sheer number and significance of the fulfillments become overwhelming and culminate in the resurrection of Christ from the dead.

The best explanation of these events is simply what the text of Scripture bears witness to: the risen Jesus.

What is really objectionable here is not the veracity of the account, but what it means for us if it is true. That is, some facts hold us accountable, and require us to act.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

In a contingent universe, I suppose anything is possible. However, not everything is likely.

Could Christ have chosen His place of birth? Could Christ have chosen His place of death? What about the resurrection? What explains the drastic change in the disciples? If Mary, the Mother of God, and Jesus’ disciples were all “in on it,” then why didn’t they expect Christ to rise from the dead on the third day? Why were they afraid of death, and then suddenly willing to die for what they now believed to be true?

I suppose you could dismiss all of this as a “random coincidence of fulfillment,” but that is only if you, once again, isolate each fulfillment from the other (it is pretty hard not to get total randomness when you dismiss every and all context, and view each and every event as arbitrary). Eventually, the sheer number and significance of the fulfillments become overwhelming and culminate in the resurrection of Christ from the dead.

The best explanation of these events is simply what the text of Scripture bears witness to: the risen Jesus.

What is really objectionable here is not the veracity of the account, but what it means for us if it is true. That is, some facts hold us accountable, and require us to act.

Because the only way we “know” they were upset and unsure was because of their own writings. The only way we “know” there was a drastic change was because of their writings. There is no archaeological corroboration for their emotions. Isn’t it a compelling story, though? The disciples were in doubt, faltering, unsure of their future when Jesus came back to them and gave them their mission to spread his word! That is the sort of story that wins you converts. That is the story you can start a religion with. That is a sort of story you might make up if you wanted to gain lots of loyal followers.

What if it is true? What if it isn’t? If it isn’t then there has been practically zero progress made in our understanding of morality, theology and purpose for the past 2,000 years. If it isn’t, then Christianity really is just a great dragon fighting against the lion of man, as Nietzsche puts it.

 

[FCCopleston]

Because the only way we “know” they were upset and unsure was because of their own writings. The only way we “know” there was a drastic change was because of their writings. There is no archaeological corroboration for their emotions. Isn’t it a compelling story, though? The disciples were in doubt, faltering, unsure of their future when Jesus came back to them and gave them their mission to spread his word! That is the sort of story that wins you converts. That is the story you can start a religion with. That is a sort of story you might make up if you wanted to gain lots of loyal followers.

What if it is true? What if it isn’t? If it isn’t then there has been practically zero progress made in our understanding of morality, theology and purpose for the past 2,000 years. If it isn’t, then Christianity really is just a great dragon fighting against the lion of man, as Nietzsche puts it.

So, you are saying that it is more probable that the disciples lied about being afraid? That they were lunatics who willingly lied about a risen Christ and were tortured and killed for what they knew to be a lie? What did they have to lose by lying? Everything. What did they have to gain by lying? Nothing, only a torturous death. And, let’s say for argument’s sake that the disciples were this deluded and insane, why would anyone listen to them? Especially since the majority of believers in the early centuries were themselves killed for the faith? Are you going to say that every Christian was deluded, or drawn to some emotionally powerful story, and that is why they died for it? All of this, when they could have simply gone to Christ’s tomb and seen His dead body lying within it?

Could Christ have “intentionally fulfilled” the prophecy of what lineage He would be born into (the son of David), or the prophecies of the treatment He received by others (trial, scourging, crucifixion, dividing of garments, etc.), or the prophecy that he would be buried in a rich man’s tomb?

While there may be no other sources which speak to directly to the “feelings” of the disciples, the reliability of the text, as well as the other considerations mentioned, render this a non-issue. If you are going to refuse the New Testament as unreliable, then you are going to have to refuse the whole of ancient literature as well (of which the Bible is the uncontested superior).

Moreover, there certainly is archaeological evidence which supports both the Old and New Testaments. For example, the Ebla tablets show that Moses could have written the Pentateuch as tradition says. This finding refuted the liberal theory that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch because there was no written language at that time (the Ebla tablets of laws antedate Moses by 1000 years). And, for some examples for the New Testament, Luke’s accounts of Paul’s missionary work agree with archaeology of various cities visited, the bones of Caiaphas were found, the details of Christ’s crucifixion and burial are soundly corroborated by the archaeological evidence we have for the Roman practice of crucifixion, etc.

All of this evidence suggesting a unity of design and purpose, and you are claiming random coincidence and/or disingenuous manipulation? *Unlikely *does not even begin to describe what you are proposing.

 

[FCCopleston]

What if it is true? What if it isn’t? If it isn’t then there has been practically zero progress made in our understanding of morality, theology and purpose for the past 2,000 years. If it isn’t, then Christianity really is just a great dragon fighting against the lion of man, as Nietzsche puts it.

What if it is true (which the evidence undoubtedly suggests)? Then God is the Creator and Judge of the world. Then we are sinners whose wages are death. Then Christ is our sole redemption. If it is true, then we are faced with eternal consequences. If it is false, then we need not worry about it much longer.

Seeing that the consequences are infinitely greater if it is true, do we not do ourselves a favor to at least honestly assess whether it is so?

 

[veritas82]

Hi all
WOW, it was on page 7 last time I checked. Maybe it might be better to start a new thread because I think we’re way off topic.
The only thing that was worrying me was that Tonyrey seemed to be suggesting that God could not know or predict a persons free choice in the future??? Should I have understood this correctly then I find this very strange and again incredibly human centric. SUrely God is transcendent beyond space and time therefore His knowledge is not constricted by time. Since then past, present and future are all the same to God then He clearly has knowledge of everything in the future of everyone including their eventual judgement.
One may say why doesn’t God intercede to direct this person away from hell? Well He does by revelation etc. And He cannot be held accountable because knowing something doesn’t mean willing it does it? If I saw you fall over then travelled back in time then I wouldn’t be accountable for you falling over.
I may have miss understood you and there is no offence meant Perhaps on this point we should start a new thread because I certainly can’t keep up with what has gone before
Everyone Does free will in the created necessitate the potential to sin? I would say yes as I think all others have said. However, we need to define ‘sin’ and why there isn’t sin in heaven… though maybe you’ve covered this?
Pax vobiscum

 

[tonyrey]

The God of the Old Testament is

 

[tonyrey]

Hi all
WOW, it was on page 7 last time I checked. Maybe it might be better to start a new thread because I think we’re way off topic.
The only thing that was worrying me was that Tonyrey seemed to be suggesting that God could not know or predict a persons free choice in the future??? Should I have understood this correctly then I find this very strange and again incredibly human centric. SUrely God is transcendent beyond space and time therefore His knowledge is not constricted by time. Since then past, present and future are all the same to God then He clearly has knowledge of everything in the future of everyone including their eventual judgement.
One may say why doesn’t God intercede to direct this person away from hell? Well He does by revelation etc. And He cannot be held accountable because knowing something doesn’t mean willing it does it? If I saw you fall over then travelled back in time then I wouldn’t be accountable for you falling over.
I may have miss understood you and there is no offence meant Perhaps on this point we should start a new thread because I certainly can’t keep up with what has gone before
Everyone Does free will in the created necessitate the potential to sin? I would say yes as I think all others have said. However, we need to define ‘sin’ and why there isn’t sin in heaven… though maybe you’ve covered this?
Pax vobiscum

You’re right about the need for a new thread. I just wish to point that I don’t deny that God has knowledge of everything that is knowable. It is not always possible for us to know what is intrinsically unknowable. God knows our decisions but that is quite different from knowing our decisions before we make them. My reasoning is based on the fact that by giving us free will God shares His power with us. We can reject Him and frustrate His Will for all eternity. Surely that in itself is evidence that our power of choice is supernatural and inexplicable. Of course I may be mistaken but it is impossible for us to understand the nature of God. We cannot know for certain whether an act of free will is knowable before it occurs.

 

[tonyrey]

The OP suggested he was in a theology class, and this long discussion reminds me of my biggest complaint with small Christian, or Catholic, colleges. There is never enough diversity of belief to have a good discussion about issues like this. I find that in such a setting, people are far too timid about playing the devils advocate. They are afraid, perhaps rightfully, that if they argue too strongly against the Christian view (represented by the consensus view of the classroom) they might be perceived as actually espousing non-Christian views.

For example, if your question was asked at all, a response of “obviously people who think that God is different in the Old Testament take passages out of context” would likely end the discussion.

What they fail to realise is that the Church is more up to date than they are in taking evolution and palaeotology into account but there is bound to be a wide diversity of opinion in a universal organization.

 

[tonyrey]

I am denying that omniscience is a modal property.

I have started a new thread because omniscience is taking us away from the topic but
I wish to make the following important points:

If free will is independent of time and space, then why must God–Who is also independent of time and space–wait for our decision before knowing it? If God doesn’t know it “before” it occurs, then how does he know it “after”?

The distinction is not between “before” and “after” but between “exists” and does not exist" - which applies to spiritual as well as physical reality.
BTW You haven’t stated whether you believe free will is a natural or supernatural power.

If “the best of possible worlds” were not hopelessly incoherent, then there would be no reason not to believe that this was such a world.

How can it be hopelessly incoherent when you know what it means? Since you agree there is not excessive evil in the world why do you imply that there could be a better world? In what ways could it be better at this precise moment?

Then why are they unsound?

Read my posts throughout the thread. I am sure I have answered this question at least a few dozen times.

You stated:

The logical problem of evil suggests that there is an incompatibility between God’s attributes and evil in the world. The probability problem of evil suggests that, because there is a heinous amount of evil in the world, God probably does not exist.

I do not recall you refuting these suggestions. Please specify the posts in which you did so.

 

[FCCopleston]

FCCopleston;7696400:

Why did Jesus frequently say "**But **

I say to you"?

How do you reconcile the vindictive, bloodthirsty Yahweh with the loving Father full of mercy and compassion?
The God of the Old Testament is the God and Father of Jesus Christ.

Are you a Marcionite, tonyrey?

 

[FCCopleston]

**tonyrey **writes:

The distinction is not between “before” and “after” but between “exists” and does not exist" - which applies to spiritual as well as physical reality.

But the “exists”/“does not exist” distinction is one which is determined by time, is it not? That is, a free decision–in your view–does not exist, and cannot be known, until it occurs. I am beginning to think that you are making this all up as you go along, tonyrey…

How can it be hopelessly incoherent when you know what it means? Since you agree there is not excessive evil in the world why do you imply that there could be a better world? In what ways could it be better at this precise moment?

By “incoherent” I mean* internally contradictory*, or illogical. There is no such thing as “the best of all possible worlds” because “the best of all possible worlds” can always be made “better.” A world is simply not something which can be thought of in terms of best and worst, but only in terms of good or bad, better or worse. I have already named several ways in which the world could be “better”: one more act of virtue, one less act of vice. The fact that this world is not “better” is the result of human free will. God created a world without sin, and we ruined it. God’s foreknowledge of our sin erases neither our responsibility nor His goodness.

You conclude:

I do not recall you refuting these suggestions. Please specify the posts in which you did so.

I do not think that I “refuted” the aforesaid arguments. I simply showed that it is not logically inconsistent for God and evil to exist, and that it is entirely probable that God has good reasons for allowing evil in the world.