NonContradiction

If you will indulge me for a moment, I will try to make my point in a different way, in an attempt to persuade you to consider the deductive AfE from a different perspective.

The deductive AfE purports itself to be an a priori argument, but upon closer examination, we find that it's anything but a priori. A reductio ad absurdum, such as Euclid's argument that there are an infinite number of prime numbers, is a good example of an apriori argument, whereas the AfE is not. The AfE is a moral argument, and as we all know, moral propositions are neither true nor false in the same way as a priori or empirical propositions are. Therefore, the AfE doesn't lead to a "necessary" logical contradiction in the same way that Euclid's argument for an infinite number of prime numbers does.

The minute we start to compare Euclid's argument, which is a true reductio ad absurdum, with the Afe, we will see where the AfE breaks down. If the two arguments are truly reductio ad absurdums, then they should be analogous arguments. It's my contention that they are not. Defining a prime number isn't analogous to defining what is good and evil because good and evil are metaphysical constructs, whereas prime numbers are not.

Wiploc

> The PoE: If
> 1. God knew everything, including that humans suffer, and
> 2. God were absolutely able to do anything he wanted, and
> 3. What he wanted more than anything else (or at least as
> much as anything else) was to prevent human suffering, then
> 4. There would be no suffering.
> 5. Since there is suffering, such a god does not exist.

The "since there is suffering" part of the last line is the only part that involves opening your eyes and looking around. The rest is pure deduction. And you aren't about to challenge the observation that there is suffering, are you? If it would satisfy your esthetic sense of how a deductive argument ought to be styled, I could change #5 to "Therefore: if there is suffering, then there is no such god." Would that satisfy you?

I'm not familiar with this example. I could go look up "apriori" if you want, but I assume it just refers to deduction as opposed to induction. The PoE is deductive, and the Evidential PoE is inductive.



I'd be happy to have you point out any part of this that is either false or neither true nor false.

> The PoE: If
> 1. God knew everything, including that humans suffer, and
> 2. God were absolutely able to do anything he wanted, and
> 3. What he wanted more than anything else (or at least as
> much as anything else) was to prevent human suffering, then
> 4. There would be no suffering.
> 5. Since there is suffering, such a god does not exist.


Mine does. Just look at it. There is no way around it.

There are people who get in trouble by trying to work their way from "god is good," to "god wants to prevent suffering." But that's just about defining terms. If what you mean when you say that god is perfectly good is that god absolutely (as first order priority) wants to prevent suffering, then the PoE (the way I write it) is ironclad. If you don't mean that; if you believe god is "good" in some sense, but don't necessarily believe that his "goodness" involves preventing suffering, then the PoE doesn't apply to your situation.

But even if the PoE doesn't apply to your situation, the logic is impeccable. You can't point out any part that is wrong or lacks a truth value. The conclusion follows necessarily, inescapably, from the premises. It is a sound deductive argument.


Again, I don't know anything about the prime number proof, but I do know what I mean when I say, "God is good." If you know what you mean, then you can tell whether the PoE applies to you. The PoE is certainly not an attempt to prove what you mean when you say "good." That would be silly.
crc

rainbow walking

Hi wiploc,
You've made some interesting assertions about PoE that I should like to challenge...if you're up to it.

For instance, you say: But even if the PoE doesn't apply to your situation, the logic is impeccable. You can't point out any part that is wrong or lacks a truth value. The conclusion follows necessarily, inescapably, from the premises. It is a sound deductive argument.

And what if I say: You are mistaken (no offense intended), PoE is fraught with unwarranted and unsupportable assumptions. But let me just ask you a simple question. I can tell that you are an intelligent person so this question should be right down your alley.

Let us say, for the sake of argument, this being grants you your desire for such a world as PoE envisions sans evil and suffering...a noble and well intentioned, and completely understandable desire, to be sure...could you describe such a world for me in the first person, meaning from your own perspective. You don't have to be exhaustive, just cover some basics like what kind of employment you'd have and why, what would you do in your spare time, what kind of woman, or man, (since I don't know your gender), would appeal to you and why, what would your aspiritions be? That sort of thing should suffice.

You see, I could spend a great deal of time going over the structure of PoE with you on a line by line basis, but I think, for economy's sake, that we can arrive at a resolution much quicker this way, simply because, even if PoE seems ironclad to you, all we really have to do is examine the ramifications of its premises to demonstrate the utter bankruptcy of PoE as a valid argument. Are you game?

Wiploc

Please point out the assumptions in the following:

1. If a god knew everything, including that we suffer, and
2. If that god could do anything, including stop our suffering, and
3. If that god more than anything else really wanted to prevent our suffering, then
4. He would prevent our suffering.
5. Therefore, if we do suffer, therefore there is no such god.


Thanks for calling me an intelligent person, but I'm afraid it's going to backfire on you already. You see, I'm too intelligent to write you an essay for no known reason. Why make me guess what you want me to say? If you have a point, just make your point.


That's a false economy. The PoE is flawless and perfect. We don't have to go over it line by line (all of five lines!) since you can destroy it entire by pointing out even a single flaw.
crc

rainbow walking

wiploc: That's a false economy. The PoE is flawless and perfect. We don't have to go over it line by line (all of five lines!) since you can destroy it entire by pointing out even a single flaw.

rw: (sigh) Very well then...

rw: For starters, Line 5, your conclusion, does not follow from lines 3 and 4, which is based on the assumption that our suffering should have automatically compelled an omnibenevolent being to create a different state of affairs where suffering couldn't obtain.

Some things we derive from suffering directly:

1. Childbirth
2. Medical treatment
3. Emotional maturity
4. Opportunities to express our own benevolence toward others

Some things we derive from suffering indirectly:

1. Science
2. Technology
3. industry
4. Medicine

All of the above cut across a wide section of humanity. They engender relationships, employment opportunities, scientific advancements, medical advancements, procreation of the species, and are just the tip of the iceburg.

And all of them represent my reason for requesting some detail on how this alternate state of affairs would obtain. If all you can obtain in such an alternate state is something less than human then you have not made a case that an omnibenevolent being should have created such a world. Thus, you have an argument riding on an assumption that you seem unwilling to accept the burden to nullify.

And this is just the tip of the iceburg. No matter how you argue PoE it doesn't obtain, is not ironclad and resides on unsupported assumptions all the way thru. Its premises are not true, its postulates inaccurate, its terms ill-defined and its conclusion unwarrented. It is invalid...period.

Wiploc

So is it that he doesn't want to prevent us from suffering, or that he can't do it? It's one of the two, right? Otherwise we wouldn't be suffering.

crc

rainbow walking

Hi wiploc,

If such a being existed and one of his ascribed attributes was omniscience...

and evolution is a valid theory...

then this being would know what would best facitiltate our evolution and act consistent to that knowledge.


Now, if his actions or inactions are deemed by us, at any point in our evolution, as inconsistent with his attributes and or existence, obviously such a being would be impervious to our judgments.

If evolution is a viable theory then we are clearly not a finished product. If historical precedent is any indication, we still have a lot of maturation to complete.

In asmuch as this incurs some degree of suffering along the way, it also incurs a great many benefits as well, as I've outlined in my previous reply.

And again, I encourage you to extrapolate every such instance of hypothetical intervention you assert this being "should have" effected, and see if you arrive at a conclusion that this hypothetical world, sans evil and suffering, genuinely represents your perception of omni-benevolence.

If you do so in a spirit of dedication to truth I think you'll find that PoE's conclusion does not, nor can be made, to follow from its premises.

Philosoft

Rainbow walking,

You are making the same mistake as NonContradiction, namely, conflating the deductive AfE and the evidential AfE. Your claim that wiploc's conclusion does not follow assumes a limitation on omnipotence that you haven't supported. It's not enough that you claim an apparent absurdity would obtain - you have to explain why an absurdity would obtain for a being that can cause any state-of-affairs to obtain.

Wiploc

You lack cogency, beating around the bush so that I have to guess at your point.

Here's my guess: Is it your point that even a miracle-throwing god could not actually prevent all suffering? Because if that's your point, all you have to do is admit that you agree with me.

I'm pointing out that since god does not prevent all suffering, he either doesn't want to or he can't. If you are saying he can't, then we in agreement.
crc

Wiploc

See, I thought maybe that was what he was saying too. But as far as I'm concerned, he doesn't have to support the claim that god can't really do anything so much as admit that this is what he believes. If he believes god can't eliminate suffering, he has accepted the very thing which the PoE proves.

crc