tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post7469299688581531948..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: The Simulation Hypothesis and the problem of natural evil, part IIIUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-64153272790281190062013-05-12T22:29:47.160-04:002013-05-12T22:29:47.160-04:00I've come up with a counter argument to Planti...I've come up with a counter argument to Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism called the Evolutionary Argument Against God or the EAAG. See below:<br /><br />1. If god chose to use evolution as the method of creating human beings and all other forms of life, then god knowingly chose the method that requires the greatest amount of suffering.<br />2. If humans are the product of gradual evolution guided by god, humans must have acquired souls at some point during the process.<br />3. Once human beings had souls, they could be rewarded in an afterlife for the suffering they endured while they were alive.<br />4. If higher level primates are capable of third order pain awareness (knowing they are experiencing pain) then our pre-human hominid ancestors did too and they did not have souls.<br />5. Therefore god chose to create humans using a method that knowingly would involve conscious suffering that was not logically necessary.<br />6. An all-good, perfectly moral god who is incapable of unwarranted cruelty would not create beings that could consciously suffer in a way that was not logically necessary.<br />7. Therefore, the traditional notion of god who is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good does not exist.<br /><br /><br />Let’s go over the premises to see what objections we might find. <br /><br />Premise one is relatively uncontroversial to most theistic evolutionists, although they certainly wouldn’t like my choice of wording. Some theists like William Lane Craig think of god like an artist who takes pleasure in the method for creating life using evolution. Another theory is that god chose to use evolution as a punishment for original sin. Regardless, god still willingly chose to create man using millions of other species merely as a means, and many of those species contained sentient beings who suffered tremendous ordeals. It seems odd to me that god would choose a method of bringing about man that requires millions of years of suffering.<br /><br />For premise two, even if you believe that fully rational humans appeared at once in a single generation as some theistic evolutionists do, we still have enough evidence that our hominid ancestors and cousins like Neanderthals had language capability and that means they certainly had higher functioning cognitive rational faculties than modern day chimps and gorillas. So they were capable of consciously suffering and knowing they were suffering.<br /><br />If premise 4 is true it logically follows.<br /><br />Premise 5 suggests that god is just a mere utilitarian who uses millions of other species as a means to his end goal of creating human beings, but what makes god different from other utilitarians is that since evolution requires massive amounts of suffering, he actually chooses the greater of two evils rather than the lesser of two evils! It’s kind of odd since he’s supposed to be morally perfect.<br /><br />If this argument is successful this means theists like William Lane Craig and Alvin Pantinga have to accept that god is intentionally cruel and capable of committing unwarranted suffering. Which means of course he cannot exist!<br /><br />What do you think?<br />The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-8658701615043764622012-04-18T12:35:49.255-04:002012-04-18T12:35:49.255-04:00Also,the essay here fails to take the "free w...Also,the essay here fails to take the "free will" theodicy into account. If free will is true, then chance is at play.Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-15454103003054500522012-04-18T12:29:10.241-04:002012-04-18T12:29:10.241-04:00It explains that what we call evil may be serving ...It explains that what we call evil may be serving a greater good.Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-8793037339792405482012-04-18T07:56:10.975-04:002012-04-18T07:56:10.975-04:00Alastair,
and that explains things how, exactly?Alastair,<br /><br />and that explains things how, exactly?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-80522474321790043182012-04-18T00:51:59.264-04:002012-04-18T00:51:59.264-04:00"God allows evil to happen in order to bring ..."God allows evil to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom." - St. Thomas AquinasAlastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-29529048839259641122012-04-16T14:57:51.047-04:002012-04-16T14:57:51.047-04:00I was watching SNL this weekend and realized:
&q...I was watching SNL this weekend and realized: <br /><br />"Adam and Eve's sin and so now we have natural disasters because they corrupted the world" <br /><br />has about the same explanatory power as: <br /><br />"There was a big war, and now cats shoot lasers out of their eyes because of all the radiation." <br /><br />And I realized that Steven Spielberg can be pretty funny.David Kyle Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12507177877147216376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-71572314512494472312012-04-15T20:20:01.200-04:002012-04-15T20:20:01.200-04:00I wonder that you can show me what they must belie...I wonder that you can show me what they must believe, as opposed to what they mistakenly believe already that makes more sense to a lot of them. Computers take away the purposive nature of evil, and that goes against the human instincts from which their Gods arose. On the other hand they don't mind wielding determinism for a purpose, and have easily handled what to us (or me) is a logical contradiction of goals.<br />But hey, if you can do what you say, have at it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07573847127040276949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89708283522475184262012-04-15T19:12:00.221-04:002012-04-15T19:12:00.221-04:00Yeah, that is the line they take. They say that Ad...Yeah, that is the line they take. They say that Adam and Eve's sin corrupted a perfect world--before that, natural disasters were impossible. This evokes a very vague notion of "corruption" that somehow "imperfects" the world. No academic theist takes this seriously, so I didn't mention it here. There are numerous problems with it. <br /><br />(1) It relies on a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is bunk. <br /><br />(2) Is is complete vague and amorphous--there are so specifics. Somehow "sin" magically "corrupts" the world. What exactly does this mean, and how did it happen? How exactly did Adam and Eve eating fruit change the laws of physics? <br /><br />(3) It provides no excuse. Adam and Eve's sin wouldn't change God's character--he's still all good and wouldn't cause evil if he could avoid it. So, even if God changed the laws in response to Adam and Eve's sin, that is not an act of an all loving being. It's not something even the most minimally decent person would do. <br /><br />(4) Even if he does it as punishment, he is not all loving or morally perfect. (a) It's not fair to punish generation of humans for one person's sin (b) killing billions of people in horrendous ways is not a just punishment for "disobedience via fruit consumption." It's like the death penalty for jaywalking. <br /><br />So, if you want something to say to people who make this argument--there you go.David Kyle Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12507177877147216376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-14811786932464674652012-04-15T19:00:32.152-04:002012-04-15T19:00:32.152-04:00You'll see next post. Perhaps you won't ha...You'll see next post. Perhaps you won't have the same wonder once you see the argument.David Kyle Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12507177877147216376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38374115982355276352012-04-15T13:13:00.854-04:002012-04-15T13:13:00.854-04:00so they think things started of good then once the...so they think things started of good then once the fall happened it kinda corrupted the world?sanchillihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13594473904077297441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-85978454071209447482012-04-15T07:18:56.563-04:002012-04-15T07:18:56.563-04:00I have encountered many critical thinking theists ...I have encountered many critical thinking theists who believe that natural evil is a by-product of this 'fallen' world, where "the fall" of course stems from Adam and Eve's choice to sin. This is a deal-breaker for me. Once people start invoking the faith card I let them know it and wish them well.curious cuberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05843349568654480331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-92206018890590543282012-04-14T15:51:32.845-04:002012-04-14T15:51:32.845-04:00" - why such theists must believe that we liv..." - why such theists must believe that we live in a computer simulation."<br />Why wouldn't they instead believe that their God had computational powers in a deterministic universe?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07573847127040276949noreply@blogger.com