Best of all possible worlds and atheism

Post Reply New Topic

Keith Parson's argument from evil is universally considered to have been a bucket of rubbish. He got absolutely smashed by Craig in a debate (he used the same argument there: Craig debunked it (his own subjective view undercut his argument, then Craig used it to prove the existence of God). He also argued that any punitive punishment could not account for sin (there goes any sense of justice), this almost the exact same mistake as Row. He has been so roundly debunked that he is no longer even publishing on the subject of Philosophy of Religion. My criticism still stands. You and Orwell just don't seem to understand it.



This is quite disingenuous, you know that this falls under the free will defense. How can people come to know God freely without the capacity to make a terrible decision?



Well, I would go a little bit slower if I were you on this one. Possible Worlds, are logical possible worlds. You have yet to prove that God could have more people freely choose salvation, that less people would go to hell and that it could all be done with less suffering without impacting on the overall level of free will.



Big assumption there. You kind of have to ignore John 3:16 to get to your conclusion also.

91 wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
No, even then I don't think that is the case. Further though, despotism, by most moral reasoning is not a good thing.


This is quite disingenuous, you know that this falls under the free will defense. How can people come to know God freely without the capacity to make a terrible decision?

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Not actually relevant, as the idea of "possible worlds" really isn't talking about planets, so much as realities. That is to say that a "possible world" is really talking about entire universes with different facts about them.


Well, I would go a little bit slower if I were you on this one. Possible Worlds, are logical possible worlds. You have yet to prove that God could have more people freely choose salvation, that less people would go to hell and that it could all be done with less suffering without impacting on the overall level of free will.

MCalavera wrote:
The existence of sin doesn't help his purpose at all.


Big assumption there. You kind of have to ignore John 3:16 to get to your conclusion also.

PJW says:

Amen. Argue the substance, not the technicalities. This is the REAL world. And still my unanswered question. Best for whom? And for what?

The existence of sin is unnecessary for God's purpose to be fulfilled. He can get his glory by just creating beings to readily glorify him. God doesn't need man to have free will in order for them to appreciate him and worship him for his goodness.

And John 3:16 is irrelevant.

I don't sense free will in this REAL world, so why argue for it?

And your question has been answered.

Best world for God for his glory and pleasure.

Thank you for proving my point, you are assuming a lot. God can have glory without free will from a box, the creation of a box that is perfect would glorify God about as well as a person without free will.

No, I actually do not need to define "best". I need to look at plausible definitions for the term "best", holding it as a term about the moral quality of the world. This means that moral qualities are really the only relevant qualities, and so, unless we want to have an arbitrary moral quality, a criticism Orwell has made of efforts to question this being the best of all possible worlds, we have to say that this is not the best given that on almost every moral metric, a better possibility can be believed to exist.


Ok, but our universe isn't the only logically possible reality, and arguing that it is, would require more cosmology than I think you, I, or probably anybody knows.


Well, given that free will doesn't really exist, yes. This is one of the areas where Ayn Rand's philosophy outright ignores reality.

"Universally considered"? Hmmm.... interesting. Have you surveyed anybody??? If you have not surveyed EVERYBODY, then your claim could be false. Given that surveying everybody is not possible, and given that Keith Parsons certainly disagrees with you, I would have to say that logically you've made a false claim. Thus given that your claim is self-refuting, I have to ask you for a private retraction and admission of intellectual dishonesty.

As for "he has been so roundly debunked that he is no longer publishing", no, here's what Keith Parsons SAID on the issue:
http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2010 ... -that.html

Now, you might say "oh, this is because he's been so roundly debunked", but frankly if his claim is that he no longer finds this interesting and no longer takes his opponents seriously, seeing them as being completely full of s**t, then I'd say that we have to take his word on that.

Even further, the Craig-Parsons debate is generally considered to be very balanced, if not having Parsons win:
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/Revi ... arsons.htm

Thus saying "smashed" really does not indicate a balanced reviewer.

As for "not getting your point", um.... either you don't have one, or you are presenting it horribly. Both Orwell and I are generally good at understanding ideas and logic.


No, it isn't disingenuous, and the free will defense only works if free will exists, and if transworld depravity exists, and both assumptions are ones that I have criticized.


91, free will doesn't exist. Even further, the notion of free will compatible with God's foreknowledge is prone to God's manipulation, causing it to be possible for God to get any outcome. As well, if there is no reason why earth is necessary for the existence of heaven, the possible success rate is 100%. The Bible also does suggest that there was a logically possible world with 100% salvation of men, that is a world where the Fall did not occur. Finally, there is no real reason why free will means that individuals have to reject salvation, as our free will does not entail us generally rejecting mathematical truths.

Most of these points are points I've already made in this thread, so, I haven't made an error. All of these points outright undermine your case.

My dog shows deep love for me and appreciation also ... and I don't think you believe he has free will. And he's definitely not like a box.

You are trying your best to think that lacking free will is a bad thing when, in fact, it's not and you don't even have free will anyway.

Just to point out something here:

Despite our arguments, Yahweh is definitely not real. That's why we have the kind of world that we're in - a world that can only be reasonably explained by secular perspectives.

AG already stated that you are factually wrong on this point, but even if you weren't, what's the point? Debate formats do a better job of showing who is charismatic and convincing than they do of showing who is right. Craig is widely acknowledged as a talented debater; that does not mean he is correct. There are plenty of creationists who are skilled debaters; they are all, of course, completely wrong.


Um... we are both relatively thoughtful people who are used to dealing with abstract concepts. Further, we are both systematic (or as you would say, pedantic) enough that we aren't extremely likely to make trivial errors.


The Molinist stance on free will is vacuous garbage. It might even be worse than Arminianism. It upholds that people actually DON'T have the capacity to make a terrible decision ("terrible" here defined as "anything God doesn't want them to do") despite their alleged "free will." It somewhat reminds me of Islamic interpretations I have seen on the subject.

@AG

Kirk Durston, despite being somone I disagree with on a number of issues is considered to have totally rebutted Parsons argument. The article is available online.

Kirk K. Durston, (2004) The Failure of Type-4 Arguments from Evil, in the Face of the Consequential Complexity of History



This is where you get into the territory of being academically dishonest. This is what Parsons has said about the debate:

'My main argument was an attack on the historicity of the resurrection.'

In relation to the Problem of Evil, Parsons was crushed, go and listen to the debate, I already listed the reasons why he was defeated in this area. This is Parsons's complaint about Dr. Craig's debating style.

'Dr. Craig, of course, is a fine debater. Having seen some of his other debates, I felt that he occasionally distorted his opponent's position and attacked a straw man.'

I think this describes pretty much what you have just done.



Do you fall for everything he says?



Wrong, the free will defense only requires that we have free will. It is not reliant on transworld depravity.



He calls you, with the fair assertion that you cannot meet the burden of proof of your argument. Both PJW and I have put forward the quite reasonable position (also outlined in part in the resource I posted at the top) that you cannot prove your argument. You claim that this burden of proof cannot apply to the sort of argument you are making. Now you turn it on PJW, you are dishonest in the extreme.

In General

Despite the fact you refuted your own argument and made a logically invalid one. Let me point out some serous falls in your general method.

The evidential argument of evil fails when it does not resort to a probability statement. These arguments in two ways.

1) A broad statement. The problem with the broad statement, like 'x logical possible world would lead to y (usually less) level of evil' is that it cannot be sustained by the burden of proof as being objectively better. It would need to be able to show that it was objectively better than the present world for the purpose God has given for this ones existence. This is the sort of argument you are making. These arguments are considered to fail due to burden of proof issues.

2) Citing a specific evil. These arguments usually cite something like; 'Bambi dying in the forest accomplishes nothing'. The issue is that they are so specific that God only needs a single good reason for it to occur. These arguments are considered to fail also (go check out the Stanford University Philosophy Encyclopedia entry on the subject.

Now the probabilistic argument falls in between these two sorts. They escape the issue in a way that is much more effective. AG I have seriously been telling you how you could argue a good evidential argument from evil. You have however persisted for days in arguing an absolutely terrible one. Your argument about the level of probability being so ridiculously certain that you someone did not make the mistake that even an atheist philosopher has told you you have done, is over. You need to change your basic argument, it self refutes. You are being so pigheaded that you just cannot admit when you are wrong. Your argument fails. At least make a better one so that those of us who disagree with you are not just shooting fish in a barrel.

@Orwell



If you think that AG is extremely unlikely to make a trivial error you have just made a very large one.

The point I made isn't that there is an argument, but rather I was attacking your language in a manner about as silly as the manner in which you attacked mine earlier.

Even further, talking about this universal agreement is generally rather silly. Fields may have a rough consensus, but rarely universal agreement. Regardless of whether there is an article or not, your point is rather dishonest to make. Certainly it is difficult to claim consensus on something published only 6 years ago, as this is still within a time period where people in the field are disseminating and developing the ideas.

Finally, if it is found online, then actually post the link.


I have not distorted anything, but rather my claim that this was a relatively balanced debate is based upon other people watching the debate and claiming that this debate was balanced.

I believe Parsons really was arguing that the Bible gave a moral image that was disturbingly immoral by our basic moral intuitions. And rather than being "crushed" Parsons response, if I recall correctly, was to say that if Craig honestly believed the BS he believed, then he must be living in an entirely different moral universe.(basically saying that Craig's response was so out there in his view that it was downright implausible)


No, Orwell and I disagree with each other and have debated each other on various instances. I've called out Orwell on various issues, even if his support of a position was of a nature that I thought was incorrect. (and I think he would say the same on me) Now, it may be the case that Orwell's opinion and my opinion correlate more than our ability to reason and IQs would indicate, but that does not mean that he is intellectually dishonest.(actually, I wouldn't even know how strong of a correlation there really is) The fact that charges of intellectual dishonesty are now your current favorite to throw at ALL of your opponents suggests that you are the intellectually dishonest one.


Actually, it really is, because the free will defense requires that God not be able to actualize the best of all possible worlds due to free will. If God can still actualize the best of all possible worlds, despite free will, then there is no need for the free will defense.


I am not required to prove every premise of my argument. That criterion is stupid. Rather, I am only required to show that my premise is a lot more reasonable than other premises.

Even further, my argument is not different in nature than Jordan Sobel's argument:
http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives ... its-r.html

If Jordan Sobel is so confident in a roughly similar argument that he would write a book and unleash it on the world, then it is clearly not a dishonest argument. The fact that you claim such of me is ridiculous, as I don't need to reference some other thinker to point out how non-dishonest I am being. You're dishonest. You're the most dishonest arguer I have seen.


Except Sobel's earlier argument was considered reasonable. In fact, the theistic reader actually stated this:
"All this is at the expense of making premise (2) easier to deny, of course, but I think (2) is still prima facie quite plausible: prior to any theoretical commitments, we are strongly tempted to endorse (2). That's enough, in my book, to make the argument pretty strong"

So.... 91, your claim is just being obtuse and ridiculous, and I think I am going to leave you alone again, as you are, as I stated, the most intellectually dishonest human being I have encountered in a very long period of time.


You've focused on literally one argument I've made. I've made that argument well-enough. It's basic kind of argument was presented by a PhD philosopher with a specialization in philosophy of religion. Finally, no self-refutation really exists. As well, even appealing to the guy is just an appeal to authority.

Now, claiming that you are "shooting fish in a barrel" is stupid as you barely show the ability to "use a gun" in that you neither read nor reason, and this is illustrated by various failings to do this throughout the thread.

Here's all I can really offer you at this point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2 ... ger_effect

I really shouldn't have gotten myself lured back in.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 12 Feb 2011, 3:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Um... no. We disagree on plenty of issues, and have debated in the past on several occasions. Further, my point was first, that your claim was being disputed on factual grounds, and second, that even if your claim was correct, it was meaningless. (I noticed you neglected to quote or respond to that portion, which tells me you are more interested in your current cop-out of attacking an opponent's honesty than you are with responding to the relevant points).


1) He did not refute his own argument.
2) You have explicitly accepted the logical validity of the argument.
3) You are full of crap.


You have no idea what you're talking about. I would be willing to bet that you still don't even know what argument was put forward in this thread.


Look, I disagree with AG on a lot of issues. There are a few places where I think he's completely wrong. But he's not a moron, and he's not dishonest. I can make neither of those endorsements for you.

Further, you still need to learn how to read and comprehend basic English. "Not extremely likely" is not equivalent to "extremely unlikely."

Easy now. We do not want newbies thinking that is standard and acceptable fare here.

Logical Positivism, as a philosophical movement, collapsed under the weight of its self-refuting nature. As, one would think, should your argument, also. I challenge you on the objective ground that if this is not the best of all possible worlds, you need to tell me why. Abstruse - I can use big words, too - musings about the relative fundaments of what it means to be this or that when it comes to philosophical alignment, has nothing to do with the fact that you need to define best. Yes you do. Otherwise, what are you arguing? Nothing.

Ayn Rand's philosophy, and I might follow 91's advice and defend her in its own thread, is Objectivism. How can something objectively based, the premise that your life is your own and yours to do with as you will, with its basic adherence captured in the saying "I swear by my life and my love of it that I shall never live my life for another man, nor expect him to live his life for mine", ignore reality? Well? You were right when you said that your life being your own and self-determination of that life being the fundament of Existentialism. But, where I think you need to reread your work, is that this is the fundament set forth by Kierkegaard. A THEISTIC existentialist. Not by Kant, an ATHEISTIC existentialist. A man who, in essence, said you must sacrifice your life for the betterment of everyone else's. No. I adhere, and always will, that selfishness is the highest virtue, and that my achievements are my own. To me, therefore, since this is the world in which I can make the best of my life possible, this is therefore the best of all possible worlds.

My definition. What's yours?

Also, as I probably didn't state as explicitly as you would like, but 91, that intellectual moron as you and Orwell like to dismiss him as, got it. If you only have what YOU state is moral, how do you know it is moral without its compliment? You need the bad to contextualise the good. I thought that was philosophy 101. And if I, as you allude, know nothing about philosophy but can see something so simple, why can't you with your libraries of knowledge and all the reading and relating you've done?

I ask again, the unanswerable question. Best for whom? And for what?

Also, Basic English with caps has a very specific and restricted lexicon; "extremely unlikely"might not work in Basic English - someone must know.

So we need to distinguish basic English from Basic English.

Fortunately, I left "basic" uncapitalized. I was referring to the standard and widely spoken language known as English, not to some odd stunted language known as Basic English.