The Amstetten Monster Argument

[esquizofrenico]

Hi, guys:

I just thought of an enunciation of the evidential problem of evil argument (I know there is a lot written about this topic and that it will not be revolutionary in any way) which I like, but I want to know if there is any logical fallacies in it, since in that case I will not use it.

The clearly provocative enunciation of this argument is: If you believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient and infinitely good, you are the Amstetten Monster and goes like this.

Imagine this two possible worlds. Both of them start the same, Josef Fritzl, a maniac, builds a dungeon in his garden in which he incarcerates his 18 year old Elisabeth. To stop police from continuing the investigation of his daughters disappearance, Fritzl forces his daughter to write a letter in which she says she has run out and does not wish to be found. Here is where our two worlds diverge:
A) In world A, God supernaturally induces in Elisabeth the idea of using a code in his letter to hide a help message in the letter. God confuses Fritzl mind so he does not realize about it and draws the attention of the policeman that receives the letter about the signal in the code. Making use of the letter, police register Fritzl house and find his daughter, taking him to prison for kidnapping her.
B) In world B, nothing of this happens and Elisabeth remains in the dungeon for 24 years in which she will be repeatedly raped and give birth to seven sons and daughters which will also remain trapped inside the dungeon, until police finally find out about everything.

Now, you are given two buttons, one will actualize world A while the other world B. Which one do you pulse? If you decide to pulse button A, you are undoubtedly stating that you do not believe God is omnipotent, omniscient and infinitely good. If the overall good of world A was greater than the one for world B, God would have chosen it, and we know he didn't. Let's make it clear what it means to take the "skeptical theism" position. It means you are someone that would pulse the B button, even though you don't know why.

It is clear to me that world A is not logically inconsistent (if we need to accept as logically consistent Platinga's heaven's war that brought about all natural evil that preceded humanity, I think it is just fair that mine also is), and that would be the only possible counterargument to my position.

I've seen someone defend that God's need to be impartial, so he cannot help arbitrarily some people and not others. This is a bad response, there is nothing arbitrary, God only has to intervene in those situations in which the overall good would increase. There is no need for God to take general attitudes about how he deals with evil, like "Either I intervene always or I don't intervene at all". If you believe that world A is overall better than world B, God should have selected world B, even if he does not intervene in other cases of evil that would reduce the overall good (like ending world hunger, that way not allowing us the posibility of acting freely and goodly in that aspect).

So anyway, I know there is nothing special about my argument, it is just that I see Christians thinking that the evidential problem if evil is not an strong argument and to me is obvious that they have not thought about what they are saying actually means.

Again, if I made any logical mistake, I would thank you for your corrections.

[brimstoneSalad]

Sorry to say, it doesn't work.

Now, you are given two buttons, one will actualize world A while the other world B. Which one do you pulse?

You, acting as the instrument of God, push button A.

If the overall good of world A was greater than the one for world B, God would have chosen it, and we know he didn't.

Oh but he did, through you.

Let's make it clear what it means to take the "skeptical theism" position. It means you are someone that would pulse the B button, even though you don't know why.

It's God's job to choose the outcome. Whichever one you push is the one God knew you'd push. Although if you push button B that would send you to hell, as per God's plan because you are an evil person due to your free will...

What really gets us into trouble is trying to reconcile free will and foreknowledge as part of omniscience.

The button is easily answerable. The free will to choose the button is not.

It is clear to me that world A is not logically inconsistent (if we need to accept as logically consistent Platinga's heaven's war that brought about all natural evil that preceded humanity, I think it is just fair that mine also is), and that would be the only possible counterargument to my position.

Well, that depends on the limits you put on the god. Can it interfere with free will?

If so, it can make you push button A, and it can make all of those things happen.
If not, then it's logically inconsistent that this god could make you push A or that any of those things could happen, which are interfering with the minds and free wills of the subjects.

So anyway, I know there is nothing special about my argument, it is just that I see Christians thinking that the evidential problem if evil is not an strong argument and to me is obvious that they have not thought about what they are saying actually means.

Again, if I made any logical mistake, I would thank you for your corrections.

I'm an atheist, and I don't think the problem of evil is a very strong argument. It's a very intuitive one, but I don't put much stock in intuition.
Arguments relating to free will and internal logical contradiction are much stronger.

[esquizofrenico]

Thank you, brim, I saw later exactly the same problem you point out. God is the one that pressed the button, but would not be forced to, since he is obviously is making the world A a possibility that depends on your free will, which he should respect. Still I think the point that I want to make stands in that God did not choose that option. Of course the argument "He could have a reason you don't understand to select world B", the one of skeptic theists, works.

The reason why I was thinking about that is that the sort of horrific suffering given to develop the evidential problem of evil is always too complex (the holocaust, an earthquake), which makes it easy to use the "you don't know how the alternative world would be" counterargument. I just wanted a situation in which the two alternative worlds are very similar except for the horrific evil not ocurrying (God does not give actual evidence of its existence, for example, which is also a condition that Christian sometime use).

Of course all this argument is destined to the Christian God, which we know for certain sometimes interferes with free will (he put Jonah in the belly of a whale for not obeying him, for example). So Christians cannot hold at the same time the idea of a God that is alive in History and that of a God respecting always free will. That is why in my opinion the evidential problem of evil argument is strong against orthodox christianism (of course for open theism for example holds no water).

On the other hand, I see no problem between an all knowing God and the existence of free will, in that aspect I think Molinism works. God's knows you so well that he knows perfectly well what you want and therefore knows what you would do given any possible scenario. The fact that your mother knew you loved cookies when offering you one, does not mean you had no free will for the decision to take one. Of course this leads to the question "Did I decided what I wanted?". But this is a problem for the possibility of free will in general. Even if you wanted to want cookies... Did you wanted to want to want cookies? And the regression goes to infinite. I think this is the problem with free will you are talking about. But I think religious scholars interpret free will in a different way. It doesn't matter the universe in which you took no cookies is not a possibility, what matters is that you acted how you wanted. I would disagree in this point.

Whenever I talk about philosophy I feel so embarrased. It's like sending an article to Science saying that I have found a correlation between the age of trees and the amount of rings in their trunks.

[brimstoneSalad]

Still I think the point that I want to make stands in that God did not choose that option.

I don't know what you mean.
If you are ostensibly allowed a choice, and god is in the drivers seat, he chose.

The reason why I was thinking about that is that the sort of horrific suffering given to develop the evidential problem of evil is always too complex (the holocaust, an earthquake), which makes it easy to use the "you don't know how the alternative world would be" counterargument.

That argument always exists unless you specify outcome, in which case it's completely unrealistic and theists could just say such an event would never be allowed by god, so not a possibility.

Of course all this argument is destined to the Christian God, which we know for certain sometimes interferes with free will

Christians differ on that.
One of those contradictions with the Bible and Christian belief that different interpretations try to resolve.

On the other hand, I see no problem between an all knowing God and the existence of free will, in that aspect I think Molinism works. God's knows you so well that he knows perfectly well what you want and therefore knows what you would do given any possible scenario.

Doesn't work, that just removes Free will by making it deterministic.

Of course, free will in itself is a serious problem.

[esquizofrenico]

Sorry, as I said after that I just meant orthodox Christianity. The problem with the free will argument is that there are versions of Christianity that negate free will, like Calvinism. I think that it is very likely that there is at least one version of christianity that is logically consistent. Trying to attack it with just logical arguments is too bold, in my opinion.

[PsYcHo]

I actually made a longer reply focusing on several of your points, but I deleted it before I posted because it seems simpler to condense it.

You can't argue against religion in general with logic. No matter what the religion, they all rely on faith. You can't debate a belief based on accepting something unproveable with any argument.

Learn the Bible if you want to debate Christians, learn the Talmud if you want to debate Jews, learn the Koran if you want to debate Muslims, learn the Guru Granth Sahib if you want to debate Sikhs, learn the the Vedas and the Upanishads if you want to debate Hindu's; you can argue points against all the religions, but you'll never have an argument to win a "Faith Vs. Atheism" battle.

[esquizofrenico]

Nah, I don't want to discuss with religious people, I'm just interested in all these topics because I'm writing a science fiction novel in which Catholicism is the main topic. I used to be a very committed catholic (to the point that until I was about 12 years old I wanted to be a priest), but I grew out of it. Still, you could say I still am a cultural catholic.

[PsYcHo]

Well, that does put a different spin on the topic. You could probably make an interesting thread about the entire Good Vs. Evil question(s).