rainbow walking

Hi Rick,



Rick: Only those things that are logically impossible are logically impossible. Everything else is logically possible

There is no logical reason that evil must contrast good; therefore, it is logically possible that good can stand alone without evil as a contrasting background unless it is logically proven that good cannot stand stand alone without evil as a contrasting background.

rw: Good and evil are assigned normative values, therefore they must have someone to assign them, enter man. Were a man to exist in a world without evil, with no knowledge of evil as a normative value, how could he recognize anything in that world as good? That's the question apprapos to PoE. In order for PoE to overcome the FWD it has to describe how this being can eliminate evil consequences without eliminating evil from the field of normative values. Good luck.

For a complete understanding of my position go here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=45676




Rick: I recognize evil in part because it exists; I might otherwise not if it didn't.


rw: Exactly, so if an omni max god created a state of affairs where no evil existed, how would you know that this state of affairs was good and preferable without your knowledge of evil as a contrast from which to assess normative value and assign this state of affairs as a good state?

Rick: On the other hand, an omniscient god would recognize evil or else he would not know it. If a god did not know evil, then he would not be omniscient.

rw: I'm not arguing that this god doesn't know evil. I'm arguing that man must, in order to know good.

Now, this is the logical contradiction that you appealed to:



To which I now respond by saying: That is not the basis of PoE, nor could be, since it totally ignores omnibenevolence.




Obviously, you've misunderstood why I said what I said about appealing to a logical contradiction. It's a logical contradiction to posit an omnibenevolent god as the anti-thesis of good. So, to further respond to your contention that this god could be the anti-thesis of good, such a contention is a contradiction to this god as an omnibenevolent deity. He cannot logically be all good and all evil simultaneously. Man therefore requires an objective field of choices that include access to evil choices in order to recognize the good else self determination is negated. Eliminate self determination and you turn man into a congenital dependent. This is not a good state of affairs in any man's world.

rem

RW,
Yes, it is true that if an omnimax god did exist you would expect to see no atheists. This is also an accepted argument which can be applied to the PoE, but it usually outlined as its own separate argument.

You are just pulling out one specific consequense of an omnimax god's existence and ignoring many others, though I'm still not sure how this is a weakness in the PoE argument. All the PoE argument says is that for an omnimax god to exist the world would be expected to behave in a certain way. The world does not exhibit this expected behavior, thus and omnimax god does not exist.

Note, that the PoE only addresses an omnimax god, not any other type of god. One does not even have to be an atheist to use the PoE argument... You can believe in Zeus or a non-omnimax Christian god and still show that the omnimax god (the way many Christians describe him) cannot exist in our world.

Please explain your 'altered state' theory and how it makes the PoE contradictory. I've restated the argument several times to address your 'altered state' problem and you have not yet responded to those. Is there a logical principle you can point to that supports your claim that this is a contradictory argument?

rem

Dr Rick

This is an claim that contradicts Western Theism. Christianity attributes the determination of these values to its god, not man. It is the Christian god that is purported to assign these values.



No, my response to this question was "huh?" That quote was in response to an entirely different question.

I never asserted that an omnibenevolent god must or can be all evil, or that such an assumption is part of the PoE; you introduced this strawman.

If you had asked for my opinion, I would have told you that there's no logical reason gods couldn't know and define evil without being evil, and that this is what the Christian god is purported to do. He is supposed to be all good and also supplies the definitions or sin and evil. Men do not.

That's another strawman; nothing in the PoE requires that he does.

The PoE does not argue that god cannot know evil, nor have you demonstrated that free-will is dependent upon man's knowledge of it. You have no rationale to assert any of this, and I certainly have no reason to argue a position that you made up for me.

*sigh*

RW, I have no desire to refute out-of-context quotes and strawmen; I wish you well.

Rick

Dr. Retard

I just want to register my conviction that rainbow walking has gone utterly insane.

Either that or he's joking.

rainbow walking

Dr Retard: I just want to register my conviction that rainbow walking has gone utterly insane.

Either that or he's joking.

rw: I would like to say the latter but since I can think of no relevant punch line it would be dishonest of me to choose the latter.

The only thing I can think is that I've spent too much time in front of this computer wrestling with this issue and started hallucinating an argument. It wasn't until I started trying to formulate it into a formal argument that the hallucination vanished and I was confronted with the insanity of what I was trying to prove. I hope the condition is only temporary

So anyone who feels the urge can now start railing on me. You can't possibly say anything that I haven't already said to myself twice anyway.

Ah...what the hel...it was fun while it lasted

Ensign Steve

I had a blast! I got some headaches, but that's a side-effect of thinking hard, and I like thinking hard. I hate to use that old patronizing comment, but it is true: You Made Me Think!

Have a great day, rainbow.

rainbow walking

Thanks Jen, that makes me feel better to know it wasn't a complete waste...and you made me think also.

Take care and see ya in my next hallucination

rainbow walking

In spite of having conceded the argument I've decided to post my efforts anyway in case any proponents of PoE encounter it again in the future. Ignore the assertive language because, by the time I went for the closing arguments I realized that it was, at best, only mildly interesting and had no power to actually damage the force of PoE on its own.




In this argument I intend to demonstrate that PoE entails an inherent contradiction and is an illogical argument for an atheist to utilize; that PoE inherently contradicts atheism and implies that it is associated with evil/suffering, in a desperate attempt to accomplish its objective, and is therefore an illogical argument for an atheist to initiate.

In order to do this I need only make a logical connection between the consequences incurred when postulating an alternate state of affairs Y and the residual effect of those consequences that accrue upon this present state of affairs Z. Implication is a logical connection when properly supported. I will directly support the claim that PoE incurs a contradiction to atheism. I will show, from this support, an additional detriment to our world view (atheism) that also incurs as a consequent of this contradiction. From this I will demonstrate the implication that constitues a logical connection between altered state of affairs Y and current state of affairs Z.







1. IS PoE A BAIT AND SWITCH GAME?

Based on the fact that PoE uses evil/suffering as BAIT and then SWITCHES to an alternate state of affairs to lure this omnimax god into weilding his attributes to show that he COULD, how productive is it as an argument?



2. WILL THE REAL TARGET PLEASE STAND UP

Let me be very clear on this. PoE's primary aim is NOT to negate evil and suffering. PoE's primaryaim is to negate the existence of an omnimax god as a logical possibility. It is easy to see through PoE in this respect but I digress... let's follow the trail of bodies that PoE does manage to produce along the way in getting to its intended victim.



3. SETTING THE TRAP

Having established evil/suffering as the bait, PoE then prepares an alternate state of affairs to show that this god COULD have used his omnimax attributes to eliminate evil and suffering. Let's call this alternate state of affairs Y..


4. THE TRAP IS SPRUNG
Every such alternate state of affairs enacted by PoE depend entirely on this god weilding his attributes in an interventionist manner to eradicate evil and suffering. This is done to show that such an omnimax being COULD have. From this point it is assumed that he SHOULD have, pointed out that he HASN'T and concluded that he DOESN'T therefore exist. It's a very clever argument but it is a sword that cuts both ways with a residual side effect that you should be aware of.


5. THE UNINTENTIONED, (PERHAPS HERETOFOR UNNOTICED), CONSEQUENCES

In every such alternate state of affairs, one of the consequences of invoking an interventionist god is the negation of atheism. Having entered this alternate state of affairs and being witness to these special events of this god's intervention to eliminate evil/suffering, you can no longer claim that you see no evidence to support the contention that a god exists. YOU have created it. YOU have created the terms of your own conversion. Now, in this alternate state of affairs, YOU are a THEIST. Thus your world view is negated. I've yet to see PoE argued in such a way as to avoid this contradiction.

6. SO WHAT?! IT'S ONLY IN THAT ALTERED STATE, NOT IN THIS ONE.

Before you take that position, consider this. Not only have you sacrificed our world view, but if atheism is negated during the process of negating evil/suffering, our world view is now equated with evil and suffering. Our world view is first drug through the mud along side evil/suffering on its way to the sacrificial alter YOU'VE erected, then promptly NEGATED, rendered non sequitur, all in one smooth stroke...as a means of negating the logical possibility of an ominmax god existing in this current state Z. Sound logical?


7. BUT IT'S STILL ONLY IN THAT ALTERED STATE OF AFFAIRS, NOT IN THIS ONE!


Yet the net effect is that it carries over to this one. If I enter an alternate state Y and am destroyed along side evil and suffering, I am thereby implicated in having a part in evil and suffering, hence my destruction. If I return to this state Z, along with evil and suffering, the implication follows me such that it still looks like I'm part of the evil/suffering. Evil and suffering exist in this state of affairs Z. Our world view exists in this state of affairs Z. PoE originates in this state of affairs Z. The implication is carried over because it is our world view that exists in this state Z, that is being drug through the mud of association with evil that exists in this state Z, and negated together in alternate state Y, in order to negate the existence of an omnimax god in this state Z.

Look at it this way: In this state Z you have your world view to sustain, evil and suffering, a god to negate, and PoE.
In that altered state Y, evil and suffering and your world view are negated together. This god is not.

Back in this state Z you have your world view and evil/suffering. Your world view was equated with evil and suffering in that stateY .

Your world view and evil/suffering are resurrected together again in this state Z. Atheism thence becomes equated with evil/suffering in this state Z.

The implication carries over and exposes the achilles heel of PoE. From this it can be seen that arguing PoE is detrimental to our world view and produces consequential side effects that are impossible to avoid.

8. IS THAT LOGICAL?

No! It's a contradiction of our world view, by proxy, that is carried back across the gulf between that altered state Y and this one. It is not logical to sacrifice our own world view and have it associated with evil, to negate god. Evil/suffering and atheism are not co-conspirators. Our world view shouldn't be forced to succomb to such collateral damage because it happens to be the only way PoE can find it's primary target. Is it logical to shoot our own world view in the face and then drag the polluted carcass back across into this state Z just to have access to an argument that appears logical?

9. SO WHAT?! YOU STILL HAVEN'T SHOWN A DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN STATES.

It's a logical implication and a very real one. If I can see it, so can the theist (and probably already has). The carry over is very subtle but it is there nonetheless.

10. WHO CARES? WHAT MORE CAN THE THEIST SAY THAT THEY HAVEN'T ALREADY IMPLIED? TO MANY OF THEM, WE'RE ALREADY EVIL ATHEISTS.

Thank you for providing the final nail in the coffin, so to speak. Since you concede that our world view has already engendered this sort of connection in this state, we now have a clear, independent confirmation of the connection between these states.

Are you content to support that connotation? To proffer an argument that leaves such a residual effect? To sacrifice the high ground? I'm not. It's quite simple to follow the consequences of a god's intervention to arrive at the contradiction inherent in PoE. But its proponents argue that it only applies to the alternate state Y and thus, is inconsequential. Now I've shown the net effect of the contradiction along side the implication and how it carries over to present state Z. Arguing PoE, on this basis, both contradicts and diminishes our world view.

rainbow walking

Now that I've conceded that the argument is, at best, only mildly interesting and doesn't actually prevent PoE from obtaining, I would say that the way to falsify it is to create an alternate state Y where an omnimax deity could eliminate evil/suffering without restricting a person's capacity to choose that he doesn't exist. I based the argument entirely on the discussions I've had in this forum and the various examples that have been profferred in these discussions, so my postulate that Y negates atheism hasn't really been thoroughly tested. If anyone can produce an example of Y where atheism isn't negated then my argument is falsified. Not that that is the only way to falsify it, but probably the most direct and convincing way. Such an alternate state Y would also be a more powerful argument from PoE as it would negate a great deal of the FWD's position also.