Things to Come
I’m working on several projects.
On the philosophy front, different articles are getting written up. One worth mentioning addresses the logical problem of evil, presenting a master argument for why a successful logical arguments from evil is impossible to make. This does not make use of any free will defense.
Of course, many philosophers already assume the logical argument from evil is dead. However, thinkers like Graham Oppy disagree. While he admits there is no currently successful variant, he also contends there is no reason to think there couldn’t be one. My article seeks to provide that reason.
I have another article in the pipeline, one arguing for the existence of God *without* the principle of sufficient reason. I have long been interested to see what philosophical paths to God are available without the PSR and that could deliver a theistic result that ultimately secures the PSR. After many failed attempts, I believe I have finally found a successful PSR-free approach to God, inspired by a certain thinker that many of my readers know I admire. Fingers crossed, I hope to share something about that soon.
What else?
Philosophy for the People was slower this week, and that’s partly because I’m getting ready to launch two new YouTube channels. Both are a little ways off, but I’ve finally decided to pay attention to what “the algorithm” wants, to see if I can build something that grabs a bit more attention. These new channels won’t alter the content of Philosophy for the People — that will stay deep and (I pray) awesome.
I’ll announce more about these channels soon. One, I can say, is about skill development and meta-learning.
OK.
Here’s me playing Eruption again.
And if you need a last minute Christmas gift, my book The Best Argument for God is just $10 on Kindle, though I much prefer the paperback : )
I will comment here instead of on the YouTube video on the logical problem of evil.
I believe you have it backward. Your discussion is an example of the logical fallacy of "begging the question."
The first argument should always be “is there a creator?”
If true, the creator at this point has no characteristics other than it must have knowledge and power. You assume a certain type of creator without justifying whether there is any creator to begin with. That is the begging the question.
The second argument is what is this creator's nature. Here, the question of what the creator actually creates is raised. And is it evil? And why is it evil?
As I have written here before, I believe the argument for evil falls apart because there is no coherent definition of "evil." (once the privation definition is applied, everything is not optimal and thus everything is evil. So it is a useless definition.)
Here is how the argument should proceed.
First, there is a creator of the universe.
Did some entity create the universe? Is there another explanation? There can be no appeal to eternity or infinity because if either of these terms applied to an existence of time and place, we would have absurdities. Nothing physically possible would be off the table, including an infinite number of entities capable of creating a universe like ours.
Therefore, there is no infinite series of determined outcomes to explain our observed universe. This leaves only a creator, an entity that must exists outside of time and space.
Leave the term "God" out of it, and only when one investigates the nature of this creator can God be assigned to it.
Second, once a creator becomes the only option, can the nature of this creator be examined? Yes!!
Whether what this entity can create is termed "evil" is certainly possible. But then we are into a definition game and a why game. Here, the nature of the entity becomes a topic of discussion.
This provides a logical way of discussing creation and the nature of the entity behind this creation.