Arguments Against Syllogism

Through the remainder of this debate please keep in mind that in reference to the syllogism I provided my opponent explicitly agrees that if the premises are true, then the conclusion follows. Miles addresses evil in two types; Moral and Natural. Based on my arguments it seems obvious that the evil in which I am referencing is natural. Indeed, all of the examples I gave were natural. This is important as the word evil in the syllogism I provided is in reference to evil as I argued it. That is to say, natural “intense suffering of the innocent” is evil and is incompatible with a tri-omni God.

Understanding the problem of evil in the context of natural evil is crucial as my opponent’s defense is via Free Will. Concerning the free will defense a professor of philosophy at Duke University Walter Sinnott-Armstrong stated the following; “Probably the most popular response to the problem of evil is that free will is so valuable that God let us have it even though he knew that we would, sometimes at least, misuse it and cause evil. And sure enough a lot of evil in the world is caused by human actions… there’s much evil that cannot be justified in this way. And that’s because it’s natural evil. That means evil that is not brought about as a result of
human actions, but rather through natural processes.” (1) It seems clear as natural evil is not a result of some other moral actor for which free will might cover. Thus we see the bulk of my opponent’s objections miss the mark as they reference free will.

My opponent suggests that perhaps God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil in the world. Again I will turn to Professor Sinnot-Armstrong: “Another response refers to a different compensating good. Evil builds character. The child suffers and dies, but the parents become more courageous and observers become more compassionate. Again, just think about it. God is omnipotent. God can make these people compassionate by showing them movies or making them dream about evil and learn things in other ways. You don’t have to have people actually going through it. Also, it’s unfair to make this child suffer so that somebody else will learn something. We would certainly not praise a parent who let their child die in a horrible way just to teach that child’s sibling some kind of lesson because it wouldn’t be fair to the child who suffered. And that means God is not fair if he’s doing the same thing.” (1)

It seems to me that my opponent will have to do more than just claim that there may be sufficient reasoning or some compensating good to justify the evil I have pointed to.

“If your neighbor had a child who was suffering horrendously, and they could save that child but they didn’t, and you had to decide is that neighbor a good person or not? Maybe it’ll send a ripple through history, but if you have no reason to believe that it will, then you have to work with the evidence that you have. And the evidence that you have is that this person is not a good person. And it seems to me it’s the same with God. We have to work from the evidence that we have. We can’t always be saying might, might, might, might or we could believe anything.”(1)

Finally, Let us address a minor claim my opponent made.
He asserted that the view that evil and a tri-omni God are compatible “stands comfortably within the mainstream of philosophy.” It seems to me that if the bar for a convincing argument is this low, or rather, if my opponent feels this to be a sufficient argument perhaps Miles should consider that in the modern world of philosophy 72.8% are atheist, 14.6% are theist, and 12.6% are classified as other. (2) I don’t think he or anyone reading this should consider the issue of a God’s possible existence solved simply because atheism stands “comfortably within the mainstream of philosophy.” Likewise, all ought to dismiss the idea that the logical problem of evil is
solved.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lfkb10i2S9I
(2) http://io9.gizmodo.com/what-percentage-of-philosophers-believe-in-god-485784336