number 1 philosopher!! I have been waiting for a new interview to come out with Oppy for ages and I've also been waiting for this book to come out for ages too! thanks very much !!!
The most disappointing thing about this is that there are 2 Episodes prior that I was completely ignorant about. Excellent addition to the Great Debate Community and Philosophy of Religion, Alex!
Fascinating. Thank you. As a Christian disillusioned with theodicy I long held to N Berdyaev’s position that freedom was the only acceptable explanation for evil (connected mysteriously to God being weak - with no more power than a policeman - a sort of J Caputo’s God). Now, even freedom seems an insufficient explanation as your guest lays out.
Here's the argument I hear a lot. "There is a good reason for an omnipotent God to allow evil its just to complex for our human minds to comprehend because God's mind is so much more complex than ours ". The funny thing about that argument is that usually those same people turn around and claim they know exactly what God is thinking doing, will be doing, wants, needs, desires etc. According to a lot of Christians God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent with a mind that is infinitely more complex than ours and then proceed to "prey " to that god in an attempt to beg, flatter or command God into doing their will.
Greetings Alex. I really enjoy your new channel keep up the good work! I would like to know, are you going to address the Kalam Cosmological Argument in the future? I ask this because I would like to know your point of view on the argument.
Hi Alexander. Yes, I will be going through the Kalam argument in detail with Wes Morriston in a few weeks, so hopefully that will be interesting to you. Follow the Facebook page for info on coming up interviews. Thanks for watching.
Cosmological, teleological ( order in Big Bang or fine tuning argument) , specified information -DNA, origin of life , life produces life, not rocks! moral absolutes, objective truth in mathematics and laws of logic @@TheWorldTeacher
Thankyou again for interesting talk. I have subscribed, hope you don’t mind a theist muddying the waters!😂 Your discussion on arguments, etc and strategies to rebut linkages with premises( I am not a philosopher so I hope I got the language right🥴) I found a bit frustrating. I would have thought that a philosophers main goal is to use logic to find truth. So reasonability , or plausibility or probability is essential. Anyone can postulate a proposition, but surely we then use logic to test the proposition to determine if it corresponds to reality, is logically consistent, empirically adequate and experientially relevant ( relates back to correspondence test) Your dismissal of the supernatural origin of the universe by postulating a natural cause is illogical or unreasonable(??) I don’t think you can just state an alternative theory and say , job done, I have demolished the alternative argument! ( again please feel free to help with language) as it fails to meet the empirical evidence test. It is impossible for natural causes , because there was nothing natural to work with. Physics demonstrates that prior to the Big Bang there was nothing! And from nothing we get nothing, there had to be an original causal agent that was non physical, immensely powerful, intelligent . This is not “God of the gaps” but what is most reasonable based on the evidence, and best fits current empirical evidence. You may not choose to accept the conclusion , but that does not make the conclusion less valid. Let’s face it humans make irrational choices all the time.Cosmoligical - natural cause ignores the empirical evidence non plausible, more reasonable. Then we are able to navigate this world better for trusting a lie would be detrimental Though the logical link of the premise that God is good, omnipotent and evil exists so no God meets some of the above tests , such as logical consistance and correspondence, as soon as you add other premises in it fails dismally re coherence test. If we add in the character of the Christian God as love then we have a coherent worldview which free will must exist for love has to be free. There are only 4 possible worlds that God could have created: 1. All good 2. Amoral 3 possibility of evil The third option is the only senario where the September ethic of love can exist. Free will is one of our supreme ethics , just ask those under Stalin or slaves how they feel about freedom. To dismiss it lightly is dishonest. PS nothing wrong with postulating that God originally did make the world good and man rebelled, fits with the evidence and does actually strengthen the argument that a good god would create a good world Finally I think you mentioned people despite the reasonableness of conclusions choosing to live contrary to the most reasonable conclusion. I find Atheists sit firmly in this arena, except for some of the greats such as Nietche and Camus. Very difficult to live intellectually consistent to atheist worldview. Even a discussion of evil requires borrowing from theism to make your argument, because you believe in objective laws of logic, you argue as if you have free will , though you may consider it an illusion of free will, you get upset over suffering, yet who defines suffering in an atheistic worldview? So you appeal to absolute moral law existing outside the human mind. Lots of irrationality under Atheism. Theism does not have an issue with any of these points so is by far a superior and more rational worldview
I like how GO deals with the existence of evil in its most fundamental sense. All appeals to free will etc., don’t explain the existence of what I call the P4i (Potential for imperfection) which is to say, they don’t explain why the universe is such that Evil is even a possible option. I have what I’ve been calling “The Perfected Love” theodicy, which explains not only why God could, but why God MUST, create the P4i First of all it should be noted that creating the potential for i cannot itself be an instance of i, on pain of the absurdity of circular causation. To commit i, there must ALREADY be potential for i. Therefore creating the P4i cannot be committing i. In English; the creation of the potential for imperfection could not have been an imperfect act. Therefore it was a perfect act. Therefore God did it necessarily, for a perfect being must perform all possible perfect acts. Secondly, & more to the point, according to Christianity, love that doesn’t love its enemies is not really perfect love. (See the Sermon on the Mount) “Loving those that hate you” is part of “being perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect”. Right? So it was not enough for God to merely love Himself. He had to create non-God entities towards which He could direct His love regardless of reciprocation. If we consider the implications of Divine Simplicity, any non-God entity must also be non- all of God’s attributes. Since God is Perfection & He is Infinity, the goodness of a non-God entity must be as far from God’s perfection as any number is from infinity. Which is, infinitely. So, for God’s love to be perfected, He needed something naturally evil to love. And these naturally evil entities needed a universe where evil (or imperfection) was possible. And that is the “Perfected Love” theodicy.
Can someone enlighten me about the terms "data" and "link"? Data are premises? I really enjoy these episode but I hit a wall when stuff gets too technical. Thanks for the content!
DrZw0 They are terms which refer to different premises in a logical problem of evil. Basically, there are three things we need: characterisation, data, link. The characterisation is something about what god is like (i.e. that he is all powerful and all good). The data is something bad that exists (like the seemingly needless suffering of a child). Then the link would be a claim about how those two previous things work together (a perfectly good thing would reduce cases of needless suffering wherever possible, and an omnipotent thing can do everything possible). From these there is a problem, because god is all good and all powerful (characterisation), so he should eliminate all needless suffering (link), yet there is suffering (data). So this shows that god is incompatible with evil. That's the idea anyway. Hope that helps
It helped very much! Thank you Alex for taking the time to answer and for the very inspiring content. I really admire the calm, methodical yet powerful way in which you approach logical problems.
Thanks again Alex. You are my favorite currently existing Philosopher :) I should become a Patron...ok I must. Now then, I was wondering if there are any logical problems of evil that include a linking premise along the following: A good being (not even a perfectly good being) will attempt to communicate, to the extent reasonable and possible, their reasons to other moral agents for seeming to allow certain kinds of evil when they are in fact necessary to enable greater goods. Even after the fact as maybe doing it before messes up some space-time continuum thing. It seems the goodness in communicating comes in reducing the suffering caused by holding a false belief that God either allows evil, is evil or doesn't exist.
The property is predictive success. That's why "A perfect free will" which entails all of reality is the a priori most likely model of reality with maximum predictive success. Therefore it's a priori the most likely model.
@Oners82 Predictive success is important when determining what is true. God is the most predictively successful model. Therefore God is a priori the most likely model of reality.
@Oners82 It's a strawman of extreme proportions to say God predicts everything. He doesn't. You cannot derive that humans are automatons from God. You can predict that humans will claim to be automatons from God. You cannot derive that murder is acceptable from God. You can predict that humans will murder. So your assertion is just silly. The existence of God predicts that once humans discovered Him and worshipped Him they would see advances in all areas, including civics, morality, and science. Considering science was invented by Christians, and the entire higher education is being destroyed by post modernists who deny Christianity, it's pretty obvious that what I'm saying is true. Christianity also predicts, most importantly, that if you try to have a personal relationship with God built on love, and not demands (i.e., you don't demand God talk to you to prove He exists, instead you show and truly love Him for what He's done and revealed to you, and try to form a lasting relationship with Him based on more than what He does for you, just like as a parent you dissuade your children from loving you just because you bring them food and candy), then you will have one. You will experience God and His love fully. That's why so many Christians claim first person experience with Him. It's a far more powerful and important proof than any demonstration of power by God, as anyone with even a cursory understanding of human psychology (or who has any understanding of the Bible) could tell you.
@Oners82 by the way, Newton wrote, after discovering mechanics, that that was evidence for God. So it's funny how you and he disagree about science so much. A universe were capable of understanding is required in a Christian worldview, it's impossible to explain under yours.
@Oners82 Predicting that you can have a relationship with God if you tried is a novel prediction that people confirm every day. So. You're struggling to understand what I say. Second, yes I could predict that humans would claim to be automatons given God. It's not complicated. But sure, you don't understand me so I must be the stupid one. That makes sense.
@@VACatholic 🐟 07. GOD (OR NOT): There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the slightest shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person, for the notion of an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent Deity is both profoundly illogical and extremely incongruous, to put it mildly. The English word “PERSON” literally means “for sound”, originating from the Latin/Greek “persona/prósōpa”, referring to the masks worn by actors in ancient European theatrical plays, which featured a mouth hole to enable the actors to speak through. Theists, by definition, believe that there is a Supreme Deity which incorporates anthropomorphic characteristics such as corporeal form (even if that form is a “spiritual” body, whatever that may connote), with a face (hence the term “person”), and certain personality traits such as unique preferences and aversions. Common sense dictates that Ultimate Reality must necessarily transcend all dualistic concepts, including personality and even impersonality. However, only an excruciatingly minute number of humans have ever grasped this complete understanding and realization. There are at least FOUR possible reasons why many persons are convinced of the existence of a Supreme Personal God: 1. Because it is natural for any sensible person to believe that humans may not be the pinnacle of existence, and that there must be a higher power or ultimate creative force (an intelligent designer). However, because they cannot conceive of this designer being non-personal, they automatically suspect it must be a man (God) or a woman (The Goddess) with personal attributes. One who is truly awakened and/or enlightened understands that the Universal Self is the creator of all experiences and that he IS that (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit). 2. Because they may have experienced some kind of mystical phenomenon or miracle, which they mistakenly attribute to “God's grace”, but which can be more logically explicated by another means. As explained, all such phenomena are produced by the TRUE Self of all selves (“Paramātman”, in Sanskrit). I, the author of this Holy Scripture, have personally experienced very powerful, miraculous, mystical phenomena, which I formerly ascribed to the personal conception of God (since I was a Theist), but now know to be caused, ultimately, by the Real Self. 3. Because they may have witnessed the deeds or read the words of an individual who seems to be a perfect person - in other words an incarnation of the Divine Principle (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit). To be sure, such persons do exist, but that does not necessarily prove that the Supreme Truth is PERSONAL. An Avatar is a man who was born fully enlightened, with all noble qualities, but not necessarily perfect in every possible way. For example, very few (if any) of the recognized Avatars in human history taught or practiced veganism. 4. Because they may have been CONDITIONED by their family, society and/or religious organization over many years or decades. Unfortunately, we humans are very gullible. Due to low intelligence and lack of critical analytical skills, the typical person believes almost anything they read or hear from virtually any source. During a visit to one's local place of worship on any given weekend, one will notice a congregation of sheepish individuals nodding in agreement with practically every nonsensical, inane word spouted by their deluded so-called “priest”, imam, mullah, rabbi, guru, monk, or preacher. Even the current World Teacher, despite his genius intellect, was once a thoroughly-indoctrinated religious fundamentalist, before he awoke to a definitive understanding of life. Having stated the above, the worship of the Personal Deity (“bhakti yoga”, in Sanskrit), is a legitimate spiritual path for the masses. However, the most ACCURATE understanding is monistic or non-dual (“advaita”, in Sanskrit). If one wishes to be even more pedantic, the ultimate understanding is beyond even the concept of nonduality, as the famous South Indian sage, Śri Ramana Maharishi, once so rightly proclaimed. As an aside or adjunct, it seems that virtually every religious organization, particularly those originating in Bhārata (India), claims to have been founded by an Avatar, but that’s simply wishful thinking on the part of their congregations. Only a great sage or World Teacher can POSSIBLY recognize an enlightened being, what to speak of an Incarnation of the Divine. The typical spiritual aspirant, even one who may seem to be a highly-exalted practitioner, has very little idea of what constitutes actual holiness. Frankly speaking, many famous (infamous?) religious leaders were some of the most vile and contemptible characters in human history, particularly in this Epoch of Darkness (“Kali Yuga”, in Sanskrit). “God is greater than God.” ************* “Where there is Isness, there God is. Creation is the giving of isness from God. That is why God becomes where any creature expresses God.” ************* “Theologians may quarrel, but the mystics of the world speak the same language.” ************* “There is something in the soul that is so akin to God that it is one with Him... It has nothing in common with anything created.” ************* “The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God as if he stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge.” ************* “The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.” Eckhart von Hochheim O.P. (AKA Meister Eckhart), German Roman Catholic Priest. “God is merely one of man's concepts, a symbol used for pointing the way, to the Ultimate Reality, which has been mistaken for the Reality itself. The map has been mistaken for the actual territory.” ************* “Worshippers may derive some sort of satisfaction or peace of mind, through worship of a concept such as God (created by themselves), but it is a futile process, from the viewpoint of experiencing one's true nature.” Ramesh Balsekar, Indian Spiritual Teacher.
CS Lewis was an atheist who due to the problem of evil became a theist. He realised that if absolute evil exists there must be an absolute good. All atheists I know agree and even rage at evil, yet have no rational basis to determine why something is evil, from an atheistic worldview, other than it is what they prefer? This breaks the truth tests of correspondence to the reality of their experience that absolute evil exists, they cannot live consistently with the rational conclusion that all evil is relative under an atheistic framework, yet how do they explain their experience and belief in absolute evil? Theism is a more rational conclusion, because absolute evil exists there must be ( ontologically) absolute good ( God)
Hello - atheist here. I can't speak for the atheists you know and maybe your comment is specifically about them, but when I talk about 'evil' I am not saying it's a thing that (ontologically) exists in world. Instead I'm only using it as a linguistic tool to refer to actions (by people) I consider to be at the very extreme 'bad' end of the spectrum. ie: 'evil' only makes sense to me in reference to a person(s) actions. I wouldn't say a tsunami is 'evil.' If you want to say that whatever I consider to be acts of 'evil' is subjective - that's fine, because I do tend to think moral statements are subjective (mind dependent) anyway.
oh and also, re: Plantiga's strategy to find some claim, however implausible, that's consistent with the characterization that when conjoined to it, entails the datum...how is that not a nice definition of an ad hoc rationalization?
Joshua Shrode it can be seen as positing an auxiliary hypothesis which is not unjustified. If one has a working system but there’s a loose end, it’s not intellectually dishonest to posit a plausible auxiliary hypothesis that’s consistent with your system and explains the loose end. This is a common and justified practice that’s even been applicable to science to support overarching theories. If you’re justified in believing an auxiliary to be false, that enough to dismiss the auxiliary and dismiss the system. But it isn’t just ad hoc postulation.
@@RadicOmega I'd agree but for the "however implausible" component. Which you seem to agree with? If it is implausible, then it cannot, by definition, change our overall probability that H1 is true to be above 50%. Possible is not probable. This is the problem with ad hoc. They don't impact our overall probability calculus because they too are "just so" when there are a lot of other H(1+n) which are more probable.
Joshua Shrode Well the thing about auxiliary hypothesis is that what matters is how probably this auxiliary would be GIVEN if the hypothesis was true. For example, let’s say a planet is out of orbit that you might expect if we assume Newtonian mechanics. One who defends it, might make an auxiliary hypothesis and say that there is actually another planet beyond that one that is. Now, if we assume that Newtonian mechanics are true, it would be quite likely that there actually WOULD be a planet out there, it would just be a matter of discovery. I don’t believe one would be justified in assuming it to be false without argumentation, thus, more investigations need to be made to see if there actually is an additional planet, or Newtonian mechanics should be dumped. A defender of Newtonian mechanics would however be unjustified in saying that the explanation of a planet out of expected orbit is due to a spaceship using a gravity ray to pull it out of orbit. Nothing about assuming Newtonian mechanics to be true makes us likely to expect that, so we’re justified in believing it to be false. So you do have to assume what the plausibility of the auxiliary is having given the hypothesis the assumption of truth
@@RadicOmega ok maybe I'm mistaken about what's going on here so let's go slowly. I'll make some equivalences based on your explanation. 1. Newtonian Mechanics is true = God exists and has as his nature "goodness" (or some known property) 2. A planets observed orbit is "thus and so" we'll call it 'O(1)'. = "The Problem of Evil" or other observed phenomena. 3. O(1) Given the background information we have, Newtonian Physics predicts the orbit is something different. Call it O(2) = "Our universe is not the expected one given God's nature." We have options as follows: 1.) Consider Newtonian Mechanics falsified given the observed data. = God is falsified 2.) Reject #2 as an error and resample or falsify sampling technique. = The Problem of Evil isn't really evil, our senses are mistaken, suffering is an illusion etc. 3.) Harmonize discrepancy between prediction and observation. a.) Propose a plausible harmonizing hypothesis. b.) Propose an implausible harmonizing hypothesis. The question then is how do we decide which option we are most justified in adopting? Would you agree with the setup above or would you amend in some way? Edit: I added in the Theodicic equivalences which I'd forgotten.
Joshua Shrode yes perfect parallelism, precisely! So how do we determine which route to go down? I think we can both agree that postulating B.) is off the table, as there is no reason to intentionally postulate things that are implausible. So firstly, should we just throw away a hypothesis that seems to have just been falsified? I argue that not only is this an unreasonable epistemic obligation, but also just counterintuitive to our motivations for doing philosophy. The theories that are being proposed (ie Newton’s mechanics, God, etc) have great explanatory power, simplicity, and intuitive appeal. Reality certainly makes sense if we take these things to be true based on their explanatory scope, etc. Now someone comes up with an objection to these theories: if we just assume that the theory is false right off the bat, we lose a whole deal of understanding reality, and have nothing to replace it with. We lose our ability to understand and make sense of reality entirely. That’s why I believe rejecting a theory right off the bat once falsified is counterintuitive to why we do philosophy. But why is this also an unreasonable obligation? We simply cannot know everything there is to know about the theories we propose and how they correspond with reality, therefore, when someone brings forth an objection, we may be unable to see how it’s reconciled with our theory in the moment, but we might be able to show that it can be reconciled upon further investigation or argumentation. So I believe we should do a.) , propose a plausible harmonizing hypothesis. And plausible GIVEN that we assume the theory to be true (ie, a heaven which may justify suffering on earth is highly plausible if theism is true) and this is where I think the heart of theodicy, skeptical theism, and arguments from evil rest: determining whether or not these auxiliary hypothesis are plausible given theism, and whether or not these arguments actually reconcile the problem of evil. But my main point is, these postulations of auxiliary hypothesis are not just ad hoc: there is intellectual credulity and honesty in trying to preserve theories that have great explanatory power, and epistemic humility in supposing that you need to investigate whether or not these defectors for your world view actually _are_ defeaters. As a theist, my approach is this: while I think the logical problem of evil is false, the evidential problem poses challenges to the probability of theism being true. However, I think that the entire picture of reality supports theism (via other arguments, such as the contingency argument, TGA, Bayesian arguments, the thomistic proof, etc) therefore, while I may not have full explanation for why there’s evil, I’m justified in believing that there does exist an answer for it, although I may not know what that it is.
Seems a logical deduction : omnipotent, good God, existence of evil so he must not exist, but I think it is not that simple and may be, dare I say, a straw man argument. It only is a problem rationally if you limit God to those two characteristics, add in the other attributes of a Christian god and you also have he is loving and patient . Then the contradiction goes away, because an omnipotent God limits his own power to allow human free-will, for love requires freedom of will. Humans then can choose evil. In addition I would like to ask the Atheist, what does he mean by evil? Who’s evil? Hitlers? Don’t get me wrong , the atheists I know live a moral life and agree with me, mostly, about what they consider evil, and certainly agree there is absolute evil, despite not having a worldview which allows this. If the human mind comes up with what is evil then all evil is relative , the appeal to absolute evil means there is an absolute good , absolute good means there is ontologically the existence of A moral law outside the human mind, moral law can only come from a moral law giver and another religious word for absolute good is Holy. I think theism again is a better explanation of evil , where an atheist looks at suffering and consistent with his worldview would just have to shrug his shoulders and say “such is life”. Atheists have no answer to the question of evil , nor can live within the constraints of a worldview that only can produce relative evil
... "much discussed in the philosophy of religion for the last 40 years or so"... Err... Epicurus, from around 300 BC:- “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
@@bigtombowski, it is not considered to be good etiquette for a person who is even lower than a slave to presume to instruct her MASTER, or to provide unsolicited advice to her superiors. Is that fully understood, SLAVE?
Even if we someday prove God's existence to everybodys satisfaction, I would not be surprised if high quality, intelligible webinar audio quality remained unattainable...
I know I'm in the minority here. I think the logical argument from evil is a sound, irrefutable argument. A loving God would, given his desire to make everyone happy, make everyone happy. Around 7:00, Oppy says (paraphrasing) that the logical PoE shouldn't convince anyone given that smart theists have maintained their position, and that that shows there isn't an inconsistency. I disagree. A lot of people continue to think that free will is compatible with foreknowledge, though it clearly isn't. I simply don't care about the fact that highly educated people believe crazy sh** and come up with fancy-sounding arguments to defend them. Free will is the same as randomness, for example, and the fact that some philosophers still defend it doesn't make it any less incoherent. So the fact that a majority of philosophers reject the logical PoE doesn't sway me.
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM: Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and every thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning. If humans TRULY possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to switch their preferences at any point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of their own heart. This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in “F.I.S.H”. The most common argument against this concept of 'non-doership', is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to CHOOSE what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent entirely upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”. N. B. According to some geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate. However, that phenomenon would be included under the "conditioning" aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply impossible for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, ‘conditioning’ includes everything that acts upon the person from conception. We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? To claim that one is the ultimate creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very BEING. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considers itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds. The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. When someone blames another person for his or her actions, it is akin to blaming the penultimate domino in a row of dominoes for doing what it did to fell the final domino, when in actual fact, the ultimate cause of the final domino falling was the INITIAL domino which fell. If anyone is to blame for anything, surely it is the Person who created everything. Who then, is that Supreme Creator? That thou art ("tat tvam asi", in Sanskrit). Read Chapter 08 for a succinct, yet accurate, explanation for this chain of causation, and Chapter 05 to understand the Primal Self. Therefore, EVERY action, including seemingly-heinous deeds, is ultimately in alignment with the predestined "Story of Life" (or, for those who are attached to a theistic viewpoint, "God's Perfect Will"), since nothing could have happened differently, given the circumstances. That does not mean that a person ought to deliberately perform criminal acts and use his lack of free-will to justify his actions. If, however, he blames his dastardly deeds on a lack of personal freedom, that blame too was destined, just as any consequences were destined. Unfortunately, very few crimes are punished in so-called "first-world" societies, which helps to explain why the "Westernized" nations are morally bankrupt. When did you last hear of an adulterous couple being put to death for their sin? Never, I would posit. That explains why this so-called “Wisdom Teaching” was traditionally reserved for students of high-calibre. It requires an unusually wise and intelligent person to understand that, despite everything being preordained, to blame one's lack of free-will for criminal actions and expecting NOT to be punished for them is unbeneficial to a peaceful society. Even today, with easy access to knowledge and information, few persons will come to hear this teaching, and fewer still will realize it, and integrate it into their daily lives. Obviously, that too is a consequence of destiny. Everything is permissible but not everything is BENEFICIAL. One can eat junk "food" but that is not going to benefit one’s physiology in any way (unless, of course, it enables one to temporarily survive a famine). We can murder our enemy, but we may not escape being punished by the local judicial system. Therefore, lack of free-will is not to be used as an excuse for immoral behaviour or for negligence of one’s societal duties. To assume that free-will suddenly and INEXPLICABLY appeared on this planet at the birth of the first Homo sapiens, is the height of presumption. This assumption alone is sufficient cause for the notion of free-will to be critically-questioned, what to speak of the wealth of evidence provided in the preceding paragraphs. One day, humanity will come to see the obvious truth of its lack of freedom of volition. “The Lord dwelleth in the hearts of all beings, causing all to behave as if seated on a machine, under His illusory spell.” Lord Śri Krishna, “Bhagavad-gītā”, 18:61. “To be, or not to be, that is the question.” ************* "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players." William Shakespeare, English Playwright.
I disagree that free will is the same as randomness. Randomness is different from free will. Think about quantum displacement for example. In some theories, these are entirely random. But this doesn't entail free will. Likewise, I don't think free will would entail randomness. And this is perfectly acceptable for the theist when it comes to an omnipotent God. Think about Divine Command Theory for example. Most theists hold this belief that God is restrained by His good nature. But that doesn't mean He isn't free, it just means He cannot create logical contradictions and have every world feasible for Him to actualize.
Your argument is self defeating , your opinion is just a chemical response from a brain fart, so any dialogue is beteeen Two bags of chemicals undergoing chemical reactions, you also contradict yourself, if your premise is correct and we have no free will, then there is no wrong or right, it is just a brain fart telling me to rape, murder. All morality is reduced to chemistry and no one is responsible for what their chemistry makes them do. So judge, I am always not guilty because my chemistry made me do it! Rational dialogue is impossible because any argument you make is just your chemistry making you say it. Free will is possible under Christian theism for God is love and love is only possible with a free will. Finally it is impossible to live out your own worldview, as you have stated , if your wife committed adultery I don’t think you would just say , oh well that’s your chemistry making you do that. The fact that you feel moral outrage that is inconsistent with your worldview means that your worldview does not adequately explain reality@@TheWorldTeacher
The attractiveness of your worldview is that you are free morally to do as you wish, cause your chemistry made you do it! And some sort of moral code based on what benefit’s society? Who’s chemistry determines what benifits? Stalin benefited from killing 70M of his own people@@TheWorldTeacher
I have no idea how it's possible that Free Will isn't considered an ultimate good? There's literally nothing more important to your life than you have free will. There's a reason that slavery is wrong. As to limiting freedom? First, It's ridiculous to say you have freedom if it's limited! In what sense can you say "Free will is free with provisos". If it takes information to describe a limitation, that limitation is a priori adding complexity with no explanatory power to your model. Second, without Free Will you don't exist as a person in the image of God. In some sense one can understand free will to be the Imago Dei. That is, what makes you human is the amount of free will you have to manifest things into reality (turn possible worlds into actual worlds), and as such can be thought of as the finite creature's ability to create "ex nihilo", so to give that up makes you literally less powerful. Furthermore, under this definition even some animals and plants have the Imago Dei, and so should not be abused. Literally gives a full justification on the is-ought question that is unambiguous and morally perfect. Third, as to the question of Heaven, it's a fundamental ignorance of Catholic theology, which is almost universal even in Catholics today that I find especially sad because of how beautiful the idea is. Specifically, if you listen to any exorcist or priest who talks about angels, they will all tell you that all angels are unique. That they each have different essence and are completely unique, meaning you can instantly tell any 2 angels apart. Furthermore, they will tell you that when God created angels, they each had instant knowledge of everything (they existed outside of time and so "thinking" involved understanding the entailment, to the angel's intellectual abilities, of the "knowledge of a concept". As such, rather than having to live a life as we do to gain knowledge to finally accept or reject God, they had all that knowledge instantly so instantly made a decision with their free will on whether they would love God or not that can by definition never change (since they won't ever learn anything more than they already know). Those that chose to love God are in Heaven, and those that didn't are in hell. So to ask about free will in Heaven for believers? Everyone will have Free will, and will choose to live a life of Love than life of hell. You are given free will so you can make your choice. Since God is perfectly just, He will judge you when you die, which is why Catholics are supposed to be charitable toward everyone, especially nonbelievers, as their souls are certainly in the balance. (The issue of the Catholic Church being a crumbling institution is an orthogonal question to the dogma as described here. As perhaps might be obvious, the full treatment requires more than a small comment section.) Good talk, but I think most of the questions have very plausible orthodox Catholic answers that most people can sign on to.
@Oners82 It's only a stupid thing to say if you buy into the idea that humans are robots. I don't think humans are robots, I think they're rational agents capable of making decisions, and I will treat them as such. If you want me to treat you as a robot, though, let me know. I can do that. Sure if you're been brainwashed that for 2000 years the smartest people who thought about this every day and discovered science were dumber than you, then yeah you probably will find it ridiculous. But notice you haven't explained how or why, you've just asserted that if someone doesn't agree with you they're dumb, whereas I say "my worldview has rational responses to each of these criticisms".
@@VACatholic You consider free will, that is the possibility of doing evil, an "ultimate good." Well, God has free will, yet is unable to commit an evil act. This shows that having free will (with the ability) to do evil _is not_ an ultimate good. Otherwise, God would have that ability given that he is supposed to possess all maximal attributes. Thus, we have a logical proof that having free will is not an ultimate good.
@@VACatholic You said free Wil, that is human free will is an "ultimate good." But if that were the case, then God would have the free will to do evil which is impossible given God's perfect nature. Thus, we can derive that having free will to do evil *is not* an ultimate good. If it were then God would have that attribute.
Oh my, the most underrated philosophy show on the internet. Great stuff, Alex.
number 1 philosopher!! I have been waiting for a new interview to come out with Oppy for ages and I've also been waiting for this book to come out for ages too! thanks very much !!!
Thank you Alex! Thanks Graham! :)
The most disappointing thing about this is that there are 2 Episodes prior that I was completely ignorant about. Excellent addition to the Great Debate Community and Philosophy of Religion, Alex!
Fascinating. Thank you.
As a Christian disillusioned with theodicy I long held to N Berdyaev’s position that freedom was the only acceptable explanation for evil (connected mysteriously to God being weak - with no more power than a policeman - a sort of J Caputo’s God). Now, even freedom seems an insufficient explanation as your guest lays out.
very interesting to hear Oppy's thoughts on Mackie as well
Here's the argument I hear a lot. "There is a good reason for an omnipotent God to allow evil its just to complex for our human minds to comprehend because God's mind is so much more complex than ours ". The funny thing about that argument is that usually those same people turn around and claim they know exactly what God is thinking doing, will be doing, wants, needs, desires etc. According to a lot of Christians God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent with a mind that is infinitely more complex than ours and then proceed to "prey " to that god in an attempt to beg, flatter or command God into doing their will.
Absolutely amazing and informative talk.
Really enjoy you two :)
Greetings Alex. I really enjoy your new channel keep up the good work! I would like to know, are you going to address the Kalam Cosmological Argument in the future? I ask this because I would like to know your point of view on the argument.
Hi Alexander. Yes, I will be going through the Kalam argument in detail with Wes Morriston in a few weeks, so hopefully that will be interesting to you. Follow the Facebook page for info on coming up interviews. Thanks for watching.
Are you a THEIST? 🤔
If so, what are the reasons for your BELIEF in God? 🤓
Cosmological, teleological ( order in Big Bang or fine tuning argument) , specified information -DNA, origin of life , life produces life, not rocks! moral absolutes, objective truth in mathematics and laws of logic @@TheWorldTeacher
Thankyou again for interesting talk. I have subscribed, hope you don’t mind a theist muddying the waters!😂
Your discussion on arguments, etc and strategies to rebut linkages with premises( I am not a philosopher so I hope I got the language right🥴) I found a bit frustrating. I would have thought that a philosophers main goal is to use logic to find truth. So reasonability , or plausibility or probability is essential. Anyone can postulate a proposition, but surely we then use logic to test the proposition to determine if it corresponds to reality, is logically consistent, empirically adequate and experientially relevant ( relates back to correspondence test)
Your dismissal of the supernatural origin of the universe by postulating a natural cause is illogical or unreasonable(??) I don’t think you can just state an alternative theory and say , job done, I have demolished the alternative argument! ( again please feel free to help with language) as it fails to meet the empirical evidence test. It is impossible for natural causes , because there was nothing natural to work with. Physics demonstrates that prior to the Big Bang there was nothing! And from nothing we get nothing, there had to be an original causal agent that was non physical, immensely powerful, intelligent . This is not “God of the gaps” but what is most reasonable based on the evidence, and best fits current empirical evidence. You may not choose to accept the conclusion , but that does not make the conclusion less valid. Let’s face it humans make irrational choices all the time.Cosmoligical - natural cause ignores the empirical evidence non plausible, more reasonable. Then we are able to navigate this world better for trusting a lie would be detrimental
Though the logical link of the premise that God is good, omnipotent and evil exists so no God meets some of the above tests , such as logical consistance and correspondence, as soon as you add other premises in it fails dismally re coherence test. If we add in the character of the Christian God as love then we have a coherent worldview which free will must exist for love has to be free. There are only 4 possible worlds that God could have created:
1. All good
2. Amoral
3 possibility of evil
The third option is the only senario where the September ethic of love can exist. Free will is one of our supreme ethics , just ask those under Stalin or slaves how they feel about freedom. To dismiss it lightly is dishonest.
PS nothing wrong with postulating that God originally did make the world good and man rebelled, fits with the evidence and does actually strengthen the argument that a good god would create a good world
Finally I think you mentioned people despite the reasonableness of conclusions choosing to live contrary to the most reasonable conclusion. I find Atheists sit firmly in this arena, except for some of the greats such as Nietche and Camus. Very difficult to live intellectually consistent to atheist worldview. Even a discussion of evil requires borrowing from theism to make your argument, because you believe in objective laws of logic, you argue as if you have free will , though you may consider it an illusion of free will, you get upset over suffering, yet who defines suffering in an atheistic worldview? So you appeal to absolute moral law existing outside the human mind. Lots of irrationality under Atheism. Theism does not have an issue with any of these points so is by far a superior and more rational worldview
New to the channel, love your theme music!
I like how GO deals with the existence of evil in its most fundamental sense. All appeals to free will etc., don’t explain the existence of what I call the P4i (Potential for imperfection) which is to say, they don’t explain why the universe is such that Evil is even a possible option.
I have what I’ve been calling “The Perfected Love” theodicy, which explains not only why God could, but why God MUST, create the P4i
First of all it should be noted that creating the potential for i cannot itself be an instance of i, on pain of the absurdity of circular causation. To commit i, there must ALREADY be potential for i. Therefore creating the P4i cannot be committing i. In English; the creation of the potential for imperfection could not have been an imperfect act.
Therefore it was a perfect act.
Therefore God did it necessarily, for a perfect being must perform all possible perfect acts.
Secondly, & more to the point, according to Christianity, love that doesn’t love its enemies is not really perfect love. (See the Sermon on the Mount) “Loving those that hate you” is part of “being perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect”. Right? So it was not enough for God to merely love Himself. He had to create non-God entities towards which He could direct His love regardless of reciprocation. If we consider the implications of Divine Simplicity, any non-God entity must also be non- all of God’s attributes. Since God is Perfection & He is Infinity, the goodness of a non-God entity must be as far from God’s perfection as any number is from infinity. Which is, infinitely.
So, for God’s love to be perfected, He needed something naturally evil to love. And these naturally evil entities needed a universe where evil (or imperfection) was possible.
And that is the “Perfected Love” theodicy.
Can someone enlighten me about the terms "data" and "link"? Data are premises? I really enjoy these episode but I hit a wall when stuff gets too technical. Thanks for the content!
DrZw0 They are terms which refer to different premises in a logical problem of evil. Basically, there are three things we need: characterisation, data, link. The characterisation is something about what god is like (i.e. that he is all powerful and all good). The data is something bad that exists (like the seemingly needless suffering of a child). Then the link would be a claim about how those two previous things work together (a perfectly good thing would reduce cases of needless suffering wherever possible, and an omnipotent thing can do everything possible). From these there is a problem, because god is all good and all powerful (characterisation), so he should eliminate all needless suffering (link), yet there is suffering (data). So this shows that god is incompatible with evil.
That's the idea anyway. Hope that helps
It helped very much! Thank you Alex for taking the time to answer and for the very inspiring content. I really admire the calm, methodical yet powerful way in which you approach logical problems.
@@DrZw0
Are you a THEIST? 🤔
If so, what are the reasons for your BELIEF in God? 🤓
@@thoughtology7732
The typical response is “but FREE-WILL”.☝️
I just want to call out I became an atheist because of the problem of evil logically presented to me
Thanks again Alex. You are my favorite currently existing Philosopher :) I should become a Patron...ok I must. Now then, I was wondering if there are any logical problems of evil that include a linking premise along the following: A good being (not even a perfectly good being) will attempt to communicate, to the extent reasonable and possible, their reasons to other moral agents for seeming to allow certain kinds of evil when they are in fact necessary to enable greater goods. Even after the fact as maybe doing it before messes up some space-time continuum thing. It seems the goodness in communicating comes in reducing the suffering caused by holding a false belief that God either allows evil, is evil or doesn't exist.
Good and bad are RELATIVE. 😉
@faris, how so?
@faris, kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
@faris, Good Girl! 👌
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
@farisGood Girl! 👌
In your own words, define “VEGANISM”. ☝️🤔☝️
The property is predictive success. That's why "A perfect free will" which entails all of reality is the a priori most likely model of reality with maximum predictive success. Therefore it's a priori the most likely model.
@Oners82 Predictive success is important when determining what is true.
God is the most predictively successful model.
Therefore God is a priori the most likely model of reality.
@Oners82 It's a strawman of extreme proportions to say God predicts everything. He doesn't. You cannot derive that humans are automatons from God. You can predict that humans will claim to be automatons from God. You cannot derive that murder is acceptable from God. You can predict that humans will murder. So your assertion is just silly.
The existence of God predicts that once humans discovered Him and worshipped Him they would see advances in all areas, including civics, morality, and science. Considering science was invented by Christians, and the entire higher education is being destroyed by post modernists who deny Christianity, it's pretty obvious that what I'm saying is true.
Christianity also predicts, most importantly, that if you try to have a personal relationship with God built on love, and not demands (i.e., you don't demand God talk to you to prove He exists, instead you show and truly love Him for what He's done and revealed to you, and try to form a lasting relationship with Him based on more than what He does for you, just like as a parent you dissuade your children from loving you just because you bring them food and candy), then you will have one. You will experience God and His love fully. That's why so many Christians claim first person experience with Him. It's a far more powerful and important proof than any demonstration of power by God, as anyone with even a cursory understanding of human psychology (or who has any understanding of the Bible) could tell you.
@Oners82 by the way, Newton wrote, after discovering mechanics, that that was evidence for God. So it's funny how you and he disagree about science so much.
A universe were capable of understanding is required in a Christian worldview, it's impossible to explain under yours.
@Oners82 Predicting that you can have a relationship with God if you tried is a novel prediction that people confirm every day. So. You're struggling to understand what I say.
Second, yes I could predict that humans would claim to be automatons given God. It's not complicated.
But sure, you don't understand me so I must be the stupid one. That makes sense.
@@VACatholic
🐟 07. GOD (OR NOT):
There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the slightest shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person, for the notion of an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent Deity is both profoundly illogical and extremely incongruous, to put it mildly.
The English word “PERSON” literally means “for sound”, originating from the Latin/Greek “persona/prósōpa”, referring to the masks worn by actors in ancient European theatrical plays, which featured a mouth hole to enable the actors to speak through. Theists, by definition, believe that there is a Supreme Deity which incorporates anthropomorphic characteristics such as corporeal form (even if that form is a “spiritual” body, whatever that may connote), with a face (hence the term “person”), and certain personality traits such as unique preferences and aversions. Common sense dictates that Ultimate Reality must necessarily transcend all dualistic concepts, including personality and even impersonality. However, only an excruciatingly minute number of humans have ever grasped this complete understanding and realization.
There are at least FOUR possible reasons why many persons are convinced of the existence of a Supreme Personal God:
1. Because it is natural for any sensible person to believe that humans may not be the pinnacle of existence, and that there must be a higher power or ultimate creative force (an intelligent designer). However, because they cannot conceive of this designer being non-personal, they automatically suspect it must be a man (God) or a woman (The Goddess) with personal attributes. One who is truly awakened and/or enlightened understands that the Universal Self is the creator of all experiences and that he IS that (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit).
2. Because they may have experienced some kind of mystical phenomenon or miracle, which they mistakenly attribute to “God's grace”, but which can be more logically explicated by another means. As explained, all such phenomena are produced by the TRUE Self of all selves (“Paramātman”, in Sanskrit). I, the author of this Holy Scripture, have personally experienced very powerful, miraculous, mystical phenomena, which I formerly ascribed to the personal conception of God (since I was a Theist), but now know to be caused, ultimately, by the Real Self.
3. Because they may have witnessed the deeds or read the words of an individual who seems to be a perfect person - in other words an incarnation of the Divine Principle (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit). To be sure, such persons do exist, but that does not necessarily prove that the Supreme Truth is PERSONAL. An Avatar is a man who was born fully enlightened, with all noble qualities, but not necessarily perfect in every possible way. For example, very few (if any) of the recognized Avatars in human history taught or practiced veganism.
4. Because they may have been CONDITIONED by their family, society and/or religious organization over many years or decades. Unfortunately, we humans are very gullible. Due to low intelligence and lack of critical analytical skills, the typical person believes almost anything they read or hear from virtually any source. During a visit to one's local place of worship on any given weekend, one will notice a congregation of sheepish individuals nodding in agreement with practically every nonsensical, inane word spouted by their deluded so-called “priest”, imam, mullah, rabbi, guru, monk, or preacher. Even the current World Teacher, despite his genius intellect, was once a thoroughly-indoctrinated religious fundamentalist, before he awoke to a definitive understanding of life.
Having stated the above, the worship of the Personal Deity (“bhakti yoga”, in Sanskrit), is a legitimate spiritual path for the masses. However, the most ACCURATE understanding is monistic or non-dual (“advaita”, in Sanskrit). If one wishes to be even more pedantic, the ultimate understanding is beyond even the concept of nonduality, as the famous South Indian sage, Śri Ramana Maharishi, once so rightly proclaimed.
As an aside or adjunct, it seems that virtually every religious organization, particularly those originating in Bhārata (India), claims to have been founded by an Avatar, but that’s simply wishful thinking on the part of their congregations. Only a great sage or World Teacher can POSSIBLY recognize an enlightened being, what to speak of an Incarnation of the Divine. The typical spiritual aspirant, even one who may seem to be a highly-exalted practitioner, has very little idea of what constitutes actual holiness. Frankly speaking, many famous (infamous?) religious leaders were some of the most vile and contemptible characters in human history, particularly in this Epoch of Darkness (“Kali Yuga”, in Sanskrit).
“God is greater than God.”
*************
“Where there is Isness, there God is. Creation is the giving of isness from God. That is why God becomes where any creature expresses God.”
*************
“Theologians may quarrel, but the mystics of the world speak the same language.”
*************
“There is something in the soul that is so akin to God that it is one with Him... It has nothing in common with anything created.”
*************
“The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God as if he stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge.”
*************
“The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.”
Eckhart von Hochheim O.P. (AKA Meister Eckhart),
German Roman Catholic Priest.
“God is merely one of man's concepts, a symbol used for pointing the way, to the Ultimate Reality, which has been mistaken for the Reality itself.
The map has been mistaken for the actual territory.”
*************
“Worshippers may derive some sort of satisfaction or peace of mind, through worship of a concept such as God (created by themselves), but it is a futile process, from the viewpoint of experiencing one's true nature.”
Ramesh Balsekar,
Indian Spiritual Teacher.
A god who designs suffering for all living things is no good god
50:22 Could I freely choose to be a mass murderer in a universe where volcanoes don’t needlessly kill loads of birds?
CS Lewis was an atheist who due to the problem of evil became a theist. He realised that if absolute evil exists there must be an absolute good. All atheists I know agree and even rage at evil, yet have no rational basis to determine why something is evil, from an atheistic worldview, other than it is what they prefer? This breaks the truth tests of correspondence to the reality of their experience that absolute evil exists, they cannot live consistently with the rational conclusion that all evil is relative under an atheistic framework, yet how do they explain their experience and belief in absolute evil? Theism is a more rational conclusion, because absolute evil exists there must be ( ontologically) absolute good ( God)
Hello - atheist here.
I can't speak for the atheists you know and maybe your comment is specifically about them, but when I talk about 'evil' I am not saying it's a thing that (ontologically) exists in world. Instead I'm only using it as a linguistic tool to refer to actions (by people) I consider to be at the very extreme 'bad' end of the spectrum.
ie: 'evil' only makes sense to me in reference to a person(s) actions. I wouldn't say a tsunami is 'evil.'
If you want to say that whatever I consider to be acts of 'evil' is subjective - that's fine, because I do tend to think moral statements are subjective (mind dependent) anyway.
oh and also, re: Plantiga's strategy to find some claim, however implausible, that's consistent with the characterization that when conjoined to it, entails the datum...how is that not a nice definition of an ad hoc rationalization?
Joshua Shrode it can be seen as positing an auxiliary hypothesis which is not unjustified. If one has a working system but there’s a loose end, it’s not intellectually dishonest to posit a plausible auxiliary hypothesis that’s consistent with your system and explains the loose end. This is a common and justified practice that’s even been applicable to science to support overarching theories. If you’re justified in believing an auxiliary to be false, that enough to dismiss the auxiliary and dismiss the system. But it isn’t just ad hoc postulation.
@@RadicOmega I'd agree but for the "however implausible" component. Which you seem to agree with? If it is implausible, then it cannot, by definition, change our overall probability that H1 is true to be above 50%.
Possible is not probable. This is the problem with ad hoc. They don't impact our overall probability calculus because they too are "just so" when there are a lot of other H(1+n) which are more probable.
Joshua Shrode Well the thing about auxiliary hypothesis is that what matters is how probably this auxiliary would be GIVEN if the hypothesis was true. For example, let’s say a planet is out of orbit that you might expect if we assume Newtonian mechanics. One who defends it, might make an auxiliary hypothesis and say that there is actually another planet beyond that one that is. Now, if we assume that Newtonian mechanics are true, it would be quite likely that there actually WOULD be a planet out there, it would just be a matter of discovery. I don’t believe one would be justified in assuming it to be false without argumentation, thus, more investigations need to be made to see if there actually is an additional planet, or Newtonian mechanics should be dumped. A defender of Newtonian mechanics would however be unjustified in saying that the explanation of a planet out of expected orbit is due to a spaceship using a gravity ray to pull it out of orbit. Nothing about assuming Newtonian mechanics to be true makes us likely to expect that, so we’re justified in believing it to be false. So you do have to assume what the plausibility of the auxiliary is having given the hypothesis the assumption of truth
@@RadicOmega ok maybe I'm mistaken about what's going on here so let's go slowly.
I'll make some equivalences based on your explanation.
1. Newtonian Mechanics is true = God exists and has as his nature "goodness" (or some known property)
2. A planets observed orbit is "thus and so" we'll call it 'O(1)'. = "The Problem of Evil" or other observed phenomena.
3. O(1) Given the background information we have, Newtonian Physics predicts the orbit is something different. Call it O(2) = "Our universe is not the expected one given God's nature."
We have options as follows:
1.) Consider Newtonian Mechanics falsified given the observed data. = God is falsified
2.) Reject #2 as an error and resample or falsify sampling technique. = The Problem of Evil isn't really evil, our senses are mistaken, suffering is an illusion etc.
3.) Harmonize discrepancy between prediction and observation.
a.) Propose a plausible harmonizing hypothesis.
b.) Propose an implausible harmonizing hypothesis.
The question then is how do we decide which option we are most justified in adopting?
Would you agree with the setup above or would you amend in some way?
Edit: I added in the Theodicic equivalences which I'd forgotten.
Joshua Shrode yes perfect parallelism, precisely! So how do we determine which route to go down? I think we can both agree that postulating B.) is off the table, as there is no reason to intentionally postulate things that are implausible.
So firstly, should we just throw away a hypothesis that seems to have just been falsified? I argue that not only is this an unreasonable epistemic obligation, but also just counterintuitive to our motivations for doing philosophy.
The theories that are being proposed (ie Newton’s mechanics, God, etc) have great explanatory power, simplicity, and intuitive appeal. Reality certainly makes sense if we take these things to be true based on their explanatory scope, etc. Now someone comes up with an objection to these theories: if we just assume that the theory is false right off the bat, we lose a whole deal of understanding reality, and have nothing to replace it with. We lose our ability to understand and make sense of reality entirely. That’s why I believe rejecting a theory right off the bat once falsified is counterintuitive to why we do philosophy. But why is this also an unreasonable obligation? We simply cannot know everything there is to know about the theories we propose and how they correspond with reality, therefore, when someone brings forth an objection, we may be unable to see how it’s reconciled with our theory in the moment, but we might be able to show that it can be reconciled upon further investigation or argumentation.
So I believe we should do a.) , propose a plausible harmonizing hypothesis.
And plausible GIVEN that we assume the theory to be true (ie, a heaven which may justify suffering on earth is highly plausible if theism is true) and this is where I think the heart of theodicy, skeptical theism, and arguments from evil rest: determining whether or not these auxiliary hypothesis are plausible given theism, and whether or not these arguments actually reconcile the problem of evil.
But my main point is, these postulations of auxiliary hypothesis are not just ad hoc: there is intellectual credulity and honesty in trying to preserve theories that have great explanatory power, and epistemic humility in supposing that you need to investigate whether or not these defectors for your world view actually _are_ defeaters.
As a theist, my approach is this: while I think the logical problem of evil is false, the evidential problem poses challenges to the probability of theism being true. However, I think that the entire picture of reality supports theism (via other arguments, such as the contingency argument, TGA, Bayesian arguments, the thomistic proof, etc) therefore, while I may not have full explanation for why there’s evil, I’m justified in believing that there does exist an answer for it, although I may not know what that it is.
Seems a logical deduction : omnipotent, good God, existence of evil so he must not exist, but I think it is not that simple and may be, dare I say, a straw man argument. It only is a problem rationally if you limit God to those two characteristics, add in the other attributes of a Christian god and you also have he is loving and patient . Then the contradiction goes away, because an omnipotent God limits his own power to allow human free-will, for love requires freedom of will. Humans then can choose evil. In addition I would like to ask the Atheist, what does he mean by evil? Who’s evil? Hitlers? Don’t get me wrong , the atheists I know live a moral life and agree with me, mostly, about what they consider evil, and certainly agree there is absolute evil, despite not having a worldview which allows this. If the human mind comes up with what is evil then all evil is relative , the appeal to absolute evil means there is an absolute good , absolute good means there is ontologically the existence of A moral law outside the human mind, moral law can only come from a moral law giver and another religious word for absolute good is Holy. I think theism again is a better explanation of evil , where an atheist looks at suffering and consistent with his worldview would just have to shrug his shoulders and say “such is life”. Atheists have no answer to the question of evil , nor can live within the constraints of a worldview that only can produce relative evil
... "much discussed in the philosophy of religion for the last 40 years or so"... Err... Epicurus, from around 300 BC:- “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
Are you a THEIST? 🤔
If so, what are the reasons for your BELIEF in God? 🤓
@@TheWorldTeacher stop it
@@bigtombowski,
it is not considered to be good etiquette for a person who is even lower than a slave to presume to instruct her MASTER, or to provide unsolicited advice to her superiors.
Is that fully understood, SLAVE?
Even if we someday prove God's existence to everybodys satisfaction, I would not be surprised if high quality, intelligible webinar audio quality remained unattainable...
I know I'm in the minority here. I think the logical argument from evil is a sound, irrefutable argument. A loving God would, given his desire to make everyone happy, make everyone happy.
Around 7:00, Oppy says (paraphrasing) that the logical PoE shouldn't convince anyone given that smart theists have maintained their position, and that that shows there isn't an inconsistency. I disagree. A lot of people continue to think that free will is compatible with foreknowledge, though it clearly isn't. I simply don't care about the fact that highly educated people believe crazy sh** and come up with fancy-sounding arguments to defend them. Free will is the same as randomness, for example, and the fact that some philosophers still defend it doesn't make it any less incoherent. So the fact that a majority of philosophers reject the logical PoE doesn't sway me.
@Oners82
Because?
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM:
Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and every thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning.
If humans TRULY possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to switch their preferences at any point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of their own heart.
This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in “F.I.S.H”.
The most common argument against this concept of 'non-doership', is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to CHOOSE what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood).
That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent entirely upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”.
N. B. According to some geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate. However, that phenomenon would be included under the "conditioning" aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply impossible for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, ‘conditioning’ includes everything that acts upon the person from conception.
We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature?
To claim that one is the ultimate creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very BEING. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considers itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds.
The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence.
When someone blames another person for his or her actions, it is akin to blaming the penultimate domino in a row of dominoes for doing what it did to fell the final domino, when in actual fact, the ultimate cause of the final domino falling was the INITIAL domino which fell. If anyone is to blame for anything, surely it is the Person who created everything. Who then, is that Supreme Creator? That thou art ("tat tvam asi", in Sanskrit). Read Chapter 08 for a succinct, yet accurate, explanation for this chain of causation, and Chapter 05 to understand the Primal Self.
Therefore, EVERY action, including seemingly-heinous deeds, is ultimately in alignment with the predestined "Story of Life" (or, for those who are attached to a theistic viewpoint, "God's Perfect Will"), since nothing could have happened differently, given the circumstances. That does not mean that a person ought to deliberately perform criminal acts and use his lack of free-will to justify his actions.
If, however, he blames his dastardly deeds on a lack of personal freedom, that blame too was destined, just as any consequences were destined. Unfortunately, very few crimes are punished in so-called "first-world" societies, which helps to explain why the "Westernized" nations are morally bankrupt. When did you last hear of an adulterous couple being put to death for their sin? Never, I would posit.
That explains why this so-called “Wisdom Teaching” was traditionally reserved for students of high-calibre. It requires an unusually wise and intelligent person to understand that, despite everything being preordained, to blame one's lack of free-will for criminal actions and expecting NOT to be punished for them is unbeneficial to a peaceful society. Even today, with easy access to knowledge and information, few persons will come to hear this teaching, and fewer still will realize it, and integrate it into their daily lives. Obviously, that too is a consequence of destiny.
Everything is permissible but not everything is BENEFICIAL. One can eat junk "food" but that is not going to benefit one’s physiology in any way (unless, of course, it enables one to temporarily survive a famine). We can murder our enemy, but we may not escape being punished by the local judicial system. Therefore, lack of free-will is not to be used as an excuse for immoral behaviour or for negligence of one’s societal duties.
To assume that free-will suddenly and INEXPLICABLY appeared on this planet at the birth of the first Homo sapiens, is the height of presumption.
This assumption alone is sufficient cause for the notion of free-will to be critically-questioned, what to speak of the wealth of evidence provided in the preceding paragraphs. One day, humanity will come to see the obvious truth of its lack of freedom of volition.
“The Lord dwelleth in the hearts of all beings, causing all to behave as if seated on a machine, under His illusory spell.”
Lord Śri Krishna,
“Bhagavad-gītā”, 18:61.
“To be, or not to be, that is the question.”
*************
"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players."
William Shakespeare,
English Playwright.
I disagree that free will is the same as randomness. Randomness is different from free will. Think about quantum displacement for example. In some theories, these are entirely random. But this doesn't entail free will. Likewise, I don't think free will would entail randomness. And this is perfectly acceptable for the theist when it comes to an omnipotent God. Think about Divine Command Theory for example. Most theists hold this belief that God is restrained by His good nature. But that doesn't mean He isn't free, it just means He cannot create logical contradictions and have every world feasible for Him to actualize.
Your argument is self defeating , your opinion is just a chemical response from a brain fart, so any dialogue is beteeen Two bags of chemicals undergoing chemical reactions, you also contradict yourself, if your premise is correct and we have no free will, then there is no wrong or right, it is just a brain fart telling me to rape, murder. All morality is reduced to chemistry and no one is responsible for what their chemistry makes them do. So judge, I am always not guilty because my chemistry made me do it! Rational dialogue is impossible because any argument you make is just your chemistry making you say it. Free will is possible under Christian theism for God is love and love is only possible with a free will. Finally it is impossible to live out your own worldview, as you have stated , if your wife committed adultery I don’t think you would just say , oh well that’s your chemistry making you do that. The fact that you feel moral outrage that is inconsistent with your worldview means that your worldview does not adequately explain reality@@TheWorldTeacher
The attractiveness of your worldview is that you are free morally to do as you wish, cause your chemistry made you do it! And some sort of moral code based on what benefit’s society? Who’s chemistry determines what benifits? Stalin benefited from killing 70M of his own people@@TheWorldTeacher
Religion is epistemologically inconsistent though, is it not?
@Oners82
Are you a THEIST? 🤔
If so, what are the reasons for your BELIEF in God? 🤓
I have no idea how it's possible that Free Will isn't considered an ultimate good? There's literally nothing more important to your life than you have free will. There's a reason that slavery is wrong.
As to limiting freedom? First, It's ridiculous to say you have freedom if it's limited! In what sense can you say "Free will is free with provisos". If it takes information to describe a limitation, that limitation is a priori adding complexity with no explanatory power to your model.
Second, without Free Will you don't exist as a person in the image of God. In some sense one can understand free will to be the Imago Dei. That is, what makes you human is the amount of free will you have to manifest things into reality (turn possible worlds into actual worlds), and as such can be thought of as the finite creature's ability to create "ex nihilo", so to give that up makes you literally less powerful. Furthermore, under this definition even some animals and plants have the Imago Dei, and so should not be abused. Literally gives a full justification on the is-ought question that is unambiguous and morally perfect.
Third, as to the question of Heaven, it's a fundamental ignorance of Catholic theology, which is almost universal even in Catholics today that I find especially sad because of how beautiful the idea is. Specifically, if you listen to any exorcist or priest who talks about angels, they will all tell you that all angels are unique. That they each have different essence and are completely unique, meaning you can instantly tell any 2 angels apart. Furthermore, they will tell you that when God created angels, they each had instant knowledge of everything (they existed outside of time and so "thinking" involved understanding the entailment, to the angel's intellectual abilities, of the "knowledge of a concept". As such, rather than having to live a life as we do to gain knowledge to finally accept or reject God, they had all that knowledge instantly so instantly made a decision with their free will on whether they would love God or not that can by definition never change (since they won't ever learn anything more than they already know). Those that chose to love God are in Heaven, and those that didn't are in hell. So to ask about free will in Heaven for believers? Everyone will have Free will, and will choose to live a life of Love than life of hell. You are given free will so you can make your choice. Since God is perfectly just, He will judge you when you die, which is why Catholics are supposed to be charitable toward everyone, especially nonbelievers, as their souls are certainly in the balance. (The issue of the Catholic Church being a crumbling institution is an orthogonal question to the dogma as described here. As perhaps might be obvious, the full treatment requires more than a small comment section.)
Good talk, but I think most of the questions have very plausible orthodox Catholic answers that most people can sign on to.
@Oners82 It's only a stupid thing to say if you buy into the idea that humans are robots. I don't think humans are robots, I think they're rational agents capable of making decisions, and I will treat them as such.
If you want me to treat you as a robot, though, let me know. I can do that.
Sure if you're been brainwashed that for 2000 years the smartest people who thought about this every day and discovered science were dumber than you, then yeah you probably will find it ridiculous.
But notice you haven't explained how or why, you've just asserted that if someone doesn't agree with you they're dumb, whereas I say "my worldview has rational responses to each of these criticisms".
@Oners82 not an argument.
@@VACatholic You consider free will, that is the possibility of doing evil, an "ultimate good." Well, God has free will, yet is unable to commit an evil act. This shows that having free will (with the ability) to do evil _is not_ an ultimate good. Otherwise, God would have that ability given that he is supposed to possess all maximal attributes. Thus, we have a logical proof that having free will is not an ultimate good.
@@counteringchristianity You're very confused. How old are you?
@@VACatholic You said free Wil, that is human free will is an "ultimate good." But if that were the case, then God would have the free will to do evil which is impossible given God's perfect nature. Thus, we can derive that having free will to do evil *is not* an ultimate good. If it were then God would have that attribute.