tergiversant

Definition: "God" is a perfectly moral being powerful enough to affect any empirical or physical possibility.

1) It is invariably moral to prevent rape whenever one may do so without inflicting undue harm. (premise)

2) God can prevent rape in this way (definition)

3) God always acts morally (definition)

4) If God existed, then he would act morally and prevent all rapes. (1-3)

5) Not all rapes are prevented. (observation)

6) God does not exist. (4-5, modus tollens)

Premises (2) and (3) follow from my stipulative definition of God. Theists may reject that this defintion describes the God in which the believe, but to do so is in effect to accept (6) for the concept of God which I have presented here. Premise (4) is an intermediate conclusion, and premise (5) is an incontrovertible fact.

Therefore, the only disputable premise here is the first one. I am interested in hearing whether theists deny premise (1), and if so, on what grounds they do so.

tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.org

<a href="http://www.OklahomaAtheists.org" target="_blank">ATHEISTS of OKLAHOMA</a>

"Atheists are OK."

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: tergiversant ]</p>

wildernesse

I think that morality is a human construct that may not apply to God. Morals are subjective based on culture and since there isn’t a universal culture, there aren’t really universal moral standards. Therefore, there can’t be a perfectly moral standard—and if there was would it apply to God?

Why in #1 do you include “without inflicting undue harm”? Undue harm to whom? Wouldn’t a being able to prevent rape be able to also always prevent any other harm?

Sorry if I’m denying your premise and you think that I’m also saying that rape is sometimes moral. In the way that I view the world, rape is a violent immoral act. Always. If I had been raised in another culture, would that be different? I don’t know.

--tiba

tergiversant

It seems that you accept my conclusion (6) that a perfectly moral God does not exist.

Morals based on culture would be culturally relative rather than personally subjective.

Semantic quibbles aside, your conclusion does not follow. Merely because there is no monolithic global culture does not imply that all cultures cannot share certain fundamental moral norms, possibly derived from the nature of humanity itself and our shared desires to live long and prosper.

Had I written simply that it is always moral to prevent rape, some wisearse (like myself) could reply with a hypothetical scenario in which the only possible way to prevent a rape is to do something even worse, e.g. murdering a whole slew of people.

AtlanticCitySlave

This is just an offshoot of the problem of evil, only taking a specific example of evil.

Grumpy

Tergiversant, have you visited the II Library? <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/rape.html" target="_blank">Michael Martin</a> has a paper on this very subject. Actually, it's a form of a Moral Argument, rather than an Argument from Evil (or "Superman To The Rescue"), but it could be informative for this thread.

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Grumpy ]</p>

luvluv

This was discussed extensively in a thread titled "Has anyone read The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis?" a few months ago, although I can't find the thread now.

How do you search for old threads again?

tergiversant

Indeed so. The specificity of the example is quite intentional. It is intended to undermine attempts at free-will or hidden-purposes defenses. While many people will agree that we are not morally obliged to intervene in all cases, there are some in which intervention seems invariably morally obligatory.

Synaesthesia

1)Logically valid arguments from sound premises can only apply to a system bound by presupposed logical constraints.
2)God's ability to squirm out of human moral responsibility is not bound by any logical constraint.

ergo

3)Logical arguments from a morally good God's failure to act as a moral human cannot establish his non-existence.

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]</p>

Pomp

Why, by using the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=search&search_forum=50" target="_blank">search</a> link at the upper right hand of this page, of course!

For any interested parties, the thread in question is in the Moral Foundations & Principles forum, not Existence of God, and features luvluv's discussion with several &lt;ahem&gt; intelligent, good-humoured, and attractive Infidels.

Synaesthesia

Although it fails to philsophically resolve the problem, one of the most fascinating and moving examinations of Evil is G. K. Chesterton's The Man Who Was Thursday.

Here's a review of the book by Martin Gardner, worth reading unto itself:

<a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2000/003/10.30.html" target="_blank">http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2000/003/10.30.html</A>