Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

If there is a god, why are some people born disabled? Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    For all arguments along the lines of 'If God exists, why does X bad thing happen. He cannot be both omnipotent and ominbenovelent'.

    My answer to this sort of argument is that religious people believe in two things:
    A) The afterlife
    B) God said that he compensates people for the sufferings that they've endured in this world in the afterlife. Least he does in my religion.

    So the people that suffer, suffer relatively little and for a relatively short period of time, and in exchange, they end up getting a reward that is relatively large and that lasts forever.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    I'll try, i find some parts confusing myself. In the book i have by him (The Nature of necessity) it's like a 20 page argument.

    Well, basically, there's an atheistic argument that goes roughly like this:

    1. God is omnipotent.

    2. God is omni-benevolent

    3. Evil exists in the possible world A.

    4. 3 contradicts one or both of 1 or 2.

    5. So God cannot exist in A.

    6. A is the actual world.

    7. God does not exist in the actual world.


    (btw possible worlds are just complete sets of non contradictory propositions which account for each other, so there is a possible world which is exactly the same apart from I have blue not brown hair. There are no possible worlds where I dye my hair blue successfully but have entirely brown hair.).



    When the theist points out that evil is required for free will, the atheist tends to say

    "God could have made some possible world P where free will exists and no evil occurs, otherwise he wouldn't be omnipotent".

    Plantinga therefore says that any morally relevant definition of free will has to include the ability to do evil on every possible world (Call this def.1). Plantinga calls this Transworld Depravity.


    So suppose I can choose to kill someone or not to kill someone on world A at time t, and i can't kill someone and not kill someone at t. I will use this as an example, but the point extends to the moral decisions of everyone in a possible world.

    Call the world in which i choose not to A1, the one where i do A2.

    Suppose God could instantiate possible world A1.

    Then by def.1 and def.2 "I do not have free will with respect to the fact I did not kill someone at t in world A1. As By def.1, free will requires my ability to make the morally relevant choices P and not P in the same possible world. So, if God creates a world in which not P must obtain, and therefore P is impossible, I have no free will to choose P or not P. So I am not free on world A1.

    Therefore, if God creates a world A1, where it is impossible that i choose to kill, God has on that world removed evil by removing free will.

    In A1, therefore, God has not "created a world in which myself and everyone else freely chooses not to do evil", he has simply attained the world in which moral evil does not occur.

    Now imagine I am on A2, and that God's will does not enforce my murderous choice on A2. Also suppose that on A2, up until time t when i actually kill the *******, the proposition I could choose not to kill him, is true. Universalise this to everyone on A2, and we have it that:

    For all morally evil choices on world A2, it is possible that they could have been avoided.

    As a crucial consequence of that, however unlikely; on a world like A2, it is possible that humans have free will and always choose the morally good option.

    Now make one final assumption. God prefers his children to have free will than for them to lack free will but have no evil in their lives. Given an even elementary understanding of Christian theology, this assumption is surely desirable.

    Now we have established the premises we need to make the following argument:

    1.The best possible world for an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God is one where free will exists and evil does not occur.

    2. Morally significant free will requires that on every world one has free will, one can choose between a moral and immoral action.

    3. It is impossible for him to actualise a world like A1 where "everyone freely chooses good all the time", because on that world no one can choose evil, and by 2. this world does not contain free will, making it an impossible world.

    4. If God actualises a world like A2, then it is possible but not necessary that everyone freely chooses good.

    5. Given 1, 2 and 3, this is best possible world even an omnipotent God could create.

    6. Therefore, there is no contradiction between evil occurring on a world like A2 and God's omnipotence/omnibenevolence.

    7. Our world is like that of A2 in the relevant respects.

    8. Therefore, and omnibenevolent and omnipotent God can exist in the actual world.


    I hope that explains the core of the argument somewhat.
    Maybe I'm not understanding this properly but I'm failing to be convinced.

    1. Free will has no bearing on the validity of the argument from evil (if so explain), so how is it a refutation?

    2. It's a baseless assumption that God prefers his children to have free will

    3. Any non-superficial definition of free will seems to be incompatible with an omnipotent and omniscient God in the first place. Firstly, God is the source of everything. Secondly, God knows everything. God is the source of all our actions and God has eternally known what all our actions would be, i.e. all our actions are determined by God, whether they be good or evil.
    Therefore there is no possible world where someone could have chosen to do either good or evil, and so Plantinga's entire argument seems to fall apart
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Its through our suffering we become more greatful and strive for greatness and success. Its kinda like if you push someone far enough into a corner they will fight
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toonervoustotalk)
    couldn't have said it any better
    omg this has made my day im profoundly deaf in both ears and i have an implant and tbh i love being deaf and im doing alevels going onto uni, i wouldnt want to be not deaf coz a it boring and b u have to hold ur ears if fire alarm went off where as being deaf i can just take me implant out hahhahah
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hannah5176)
    omg this has made my day im profoundly deaf in both ears and i have an implant and tbh i love being deaf and im doing alevels going onto uni, i wouldnt want to be not deaf coz a it boring and b u have to hold ur ears if fire alarm went off where as being deaf i can just take me implant out hahhahah
    Haha nice
    I am also deaf. I have sensorineural/Severe to profound hearing loss.
    It makes me unique but i find it hard hearing high pitch sounds
    Fire alarms are the worst but once the hearing aide are out it is so much better:yep:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cosmic angel)
    For all arguments along the lines of 'If God exists, why does X bad thing happen. He cannot be both omnipotent and ominbenovelent'.

    My answer to this sort of argument is that religious people believe in two things:
    A) The afterlife
    B) God said that he compensates people for the sufferings that they've endured in this world in the afterlife. Least he does in my religion.

    So the people that suffer, suffer relatively little and for a relatively short period of time, and in exchange, they end up getting a reward that is relatively large and that lasts forever.
    In what way does he compensate
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by keturah)
    Yes, although didn't cause me many problems till I was older. Now I'm pretty much in constant pain 👎

    What is it?
    • Community Assistant
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Popsiclez)
    Its through our suffering we become more greatful and strive for greatness and success. Its kinda like if you push someone far enough into a corner they will fight
    .. and babies who are born with disease that causes them intense pain, suffering and eventual death?

    for example Harlequin Ichthyosis

    ... how much fighting from their corner are they able to do?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    so, you mean that, therefore, no one is going to fail the test ?

    what's the point of this absurd 'test' in the first place ?
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Many, many people would beg to differ, including those who have committed suicide.
    Stop using logic. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hezzlington)
    In what way does he (God) compensate
    couple of virgins here and there, listening to some cool angelical choirs, learning to play the harp, relaxing in beautiful gardens...

    the usual things
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Those born disabled go to heaven more easily.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hannah5176)
    i wouldnt want to be not deaf coz a it boring and b u have to hold ur ears if fire alarm went off where as being deaf i can just take me implant out hahhahah
    Keep trying to convince yourself that.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xobeauty)
    God has nothing to do with that
    Is this a "God doesn't exist" statement or a statement blatantly undermining God's omnipotence?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    Maybe I'm not understanding this properly but I'm failing to be convinced.

    1. Free will has no bearing on the validity of the argument from evil (if so explain), so how is it a refutation?

    2. It's a baseless assumption that God prefers his children to have free will

    3. Any non-superficial definition of free will seems to be incompatible with an omnipotent and omniscient God in the first place. Firstly, God is the source of everything. Secondly, God knows everything. God is the source of all our actions and God has eternally known what all our actions would be, i.e. all our actions are determined by God, whether they be good or evil.
    Therefore there is no possible world where someone could have chosen to do either good or evil, and so Plantinga's entire argument seems to fall apart
    1. You need to wrap your head around transworld depravity.

    2. It's based on Christian belief, in an argument defending a Christian God. Furthermore all the proof needs is for it to be logically possible that God prefers free will.

    3. I cba to get into that issue right now but I've never found the reasoning to be at all convincing here. God know what you evil do because, for him you have already done it. I see no logically convincing proof that him knowing tomorrow's event X causally entail's X. It's just that, as a matter of fact, X happens.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    1. You need to wrap your head around transworld depravity.

    2. It's based on Christian belief, in an argument defending a Christian God. Furthermore all the proof needs is for it to be logically possible that God prefers free will.

    3. I cba to get into that issue right now but I've never found the reasoning to be at all convincing here. God know what you evil do because, for him you have already done it. I see no logically convincing proof that him knowing tomorrow's event X causally entail's X. It's just that, as a matter of fact, X happens.
    1. If our free will is necessary to the Christian God's perfect benevolence as you say in point 2, then free will consequentally does have a bearing on the the argument from evil, and that is so without the need to ever invoke transworld depravity. So what is the purpose of it in that case?

    2. That's fair

    3. "God know what you evil do because, for him you have already done it" Aye, God is omniscient and sees all of time at every instant, as if a movie reel. But-
    "I see no logically convincing proof that him knowing tomorrow's event X causally entail's X. It's just that, as a matter of fact, X happens" I'm not understanding what you're saying here, though. Is it that him knowing an event will happen doesn't cause the event to happen?
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    3. I cba to get into that issue right now but I've never found the reasoning to be at all convincing here. God know what you evil do because, for him you have already done it. I see no logically convincing proof that him knowing tomorrow's event X causally entail's X. It's just that, as a matter of fact, X happens.
    think you may have missed the extra condition(s) where god is the omnipotent source of everything: he is the ultimate cause of everything, and is omniscient so also knew the full consequences of this. i probably agree with you re omniscience alone
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    There are two options:

    1) There is no god.

    2) There is a god, but he is a complete and utter [insert word that rhymes with hunt].
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.