Freethought & Rationalism Archive

xorbie · 07-19-2003, 11:24 PM

I was reading a bit on the Problem of Evil (PoE) attack against the existence of God from both a logical and evidential point of view. The latter of these states that most likely , God does not exist.

Now, I may be a neophyte to the crazy field of logic and philosophy, but how can one speak of probability concerning God? What probability essentially means, as far as I know, is that, given X outcomes, outcome A, will happen Y times, and the probability P is Y/X. Fine. But then would we need to take an infinite number of universes and see how many were created by God and then say "well then, the probability of God existing in any one of these is .14%" It seems to me that this is rather silly, and that probability can not be rigourously and formally applied to God.

So is it just me, or is speaking of the probability of God's existence a rather informal way of speaking only of one's own "sureness"... which would be totally independent of God's actual existence?

(note, I am not concerned with whether or not God exists for the sake of this argument)

07-20-2003, 11:38 AM

Most of the time in ordinary speech we can talk about likelihood without meaning something quite as formal as probability. My position on the EoG (the xian one anyway) is that I find the existence of such a being extremely unlikely. It's not possible to put a number to this conclusion and I don't think anyone could come up with a statement to the effect that there is a probability of 0.000065 that such a god exists.

Jobar · 07-20-2003, 02:47 PM

Welcome, xorbie.

I would say that the PoE argument demonstrates the self-contradictory nature of the supposedly omnibenevolent God. This means that logically, such a God in a world where there is suffering and evil *cannot* exist.

Evidentially... well, my take on it is that we must accept the logical argument as evidence. Especially since there is no concrete evidence which can demonstrate ineluctably that there is no god(s), and certainly none which demonstrates existence.

In short, if there is a god of any sort, it can NOT be the one described by Christian apologists.

Tristan Scott · 07-20-2003, 04:48 PM

Quote:

It's not possible to put a number to this conclusion and I don't think anyone could come up with a statement to the effect that there is a probability of 0.000065 that such a god exists.

But, if they did and assuming there is an infinite number of universes, then it would be almost a certainty than such a god exists, yes?

xorbie · 07-20-2003, 09:48 PM

First off, I was not speaking about the logical argument against God. Secondly, I think that the logical argument against God is easily refutable, as is one for God. This applies not just to the PoE but to all other examples (which is pretty much why I am agnostic).
I was speaking stricly about the evidentiary (sp?) argument against God, which basically goes like this:

(1) most likely, some utterly pointless suffering occurs
(2) with the xian God, no utterly pointless suffering would occur
(3) xian God does not exist

Thus, my question was... how can you say "most likely"... such a thing is impossible to calculate and either it does or does not happen, which is why I think that any argument against God would HAVE to be logical (and as I already stated, I believe these all fail).

Hugo Holbling · 07-20-2003, 11:17 PM

You are quite correct that the logical problem has been conceded to the theists in the scholarly literature, xorbie. With regard to the probabilistic argument from evil, the proposition that evil exists is claimed to count against the proposition that God exists and is good, etc. However, and as Plantinga pointed out, to say that the former counts probabilistically against the latter depends on the theory of probability you are using. Since it seemed that none of the available options were satisfactory, thinkers like Flew instead went on to claim that the existence of God is not properly basic; hence the theist claim is not probable unless a proof of sorts is forthcoming. Of course, the reformed epistemologists disagreed that this belief could not be properly basic and the problem does not seem to have clearly gone one way or the other in academia - hence Plantinga's quip that the evidential argument is "messier".

xorbie · 07-21-2003, 01:05 AM

Mucho gracias

Llyricist · 07-21-2003, 01:11 AM

xorbie,

I think you have the "most likely" in the wrong place. The way I usually see it, it is most likely that an omnimax, personal, and interfering god (the only god that the argument even addresses)wouldn't allow the amount of suffering that exists.

And the probability comes from the only direct and verified experience we have with sentient beings, that is, with humans. That most often, by a wide margin, people with good intentions and the capability to actualize their intentions would not allow so much suffering to occur. Therefore, since this god is defined as having supremely good intentions and the capability to actualize ANYTHING, it is unlikely that such a god would allow what we see.

The unknown purpose defense provides the logical possibility that god COULD allow the suffering we see and still be omnimax, but the evidence still makes it unlikely. It is NOT held out as proof positive, just a "beyond a reasonable doubt" sort of proof.

Eric H · 07-21-2003, 03:32 AM

If there is no God then it seems logically probable that humanity will find their own moral code, some people will do good and others evil. This explanation of no God seems to fit in well with life as we see it.

But if there is a God with an absolute moral good, how can he pass his absolute morality on to billions of people over thousands of generations?

If humanity had this absolute morality from God then there would probably be peace on Earth.

It seems that peace on Earth is not an agenda that humanity really wants by choice; we have always known about peace, but there seems to be too much self-interest.

Probably the only way an all-loving God could create peace on Earth is to impose his will on humanity by force in some way, but this would take away our freedom.

Maybe the question of good and evil is not a logical and rational argument but a moral one.

Would it be morally greater for an omni everything God to create billions of people over thousands of generations to live in peace with each other.

Or would it be morally greater if there were a God, and he created humanity to have freedom.

Which is greater peace or freedom?

How does this argument influence the probability of God and the answer seems that on rational grounds there is no God, but on moral grounds I believe there is an argument for the existence of God.

Peace

Eric

scumble · 07-21-2003, 05:02 AM

You still end up in the same place, so God is essentially superfluous. We're theoretically free in any case, so why do you need God to provide this freedom? Why is it morally greater, exactly?

07-19-2003, 11:24 PM	#1
xorbie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Champaign, IL or Boston, MA Posts: 6,360	Probablity and God I was reading a bit on the Problem of Evil (PoE) attack against the existence of God from both a logical and evidential point of view. The latter of these states that most likely , God does not exist. Now, I may be a neophyte to the crazy field of logic and philosophy, but how can one speak of probability concerning God? What probability essentially means, as far as I know, is that, given X outcomes, outcome A, will happen Y times, and the probability P is Y/X. Fine. But then would we need to take an infinite number of universes and see how many were created by God and then say "well then, the probability of God existing in any one of these is .14%" It seems to me that this is rather silly, and that probability can not be rigourously and formally applied to God. So is it just me, or is speaking of the probability of God's existence a rather informal way of speaking only of one's own "sureness"... which would be totally independent of God's actual existence? (note, I am not concerned with whether or not God exists for the sake of this argument)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-20-2003, 11:38 AM	#2
DMB Guest Posts: n/a	Most of the time in ordinary speech we can talk about likelihood without meaning something quite as formal as probability. My position on the EoG (the xian one anyway) is that I find the existence of such a being extremely unlikely. It's not possible to put a number to this conclusion and I don't think anyone could come up with a statement to the effect that there is a probability of 0.000065 that such a god exists.

07-20-2003, 02:47 PM	#3
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Welcome, xorbie. I would say that the PoE argument demonstrates the self-contradictory nature of the supposedly omnibenevolent God. This means that logically, such a God in a world where there is suffering and evil cannot exist. Evidentially... well, my take on it is that we must accept the logical argument as evidence. Especially since there is no concrete evidence which can demonstrate ineluctably that there is no god(s), and certainly none which demonstrates existence. In short, if there is a god of any sort, it can NOT be the one described by Christian apologists.

07-20-2003, 09:48 PM	#5
xorbie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Champaign, IL or Boston, MA Posts: 6,360	First off, I was not speaking about the logical argument against God. Secondly, I think that the logical argument against God is easily refutable, as is one for God. This applies not just to the PoE but to all other examples (which is pretty much why I am agnostic). I was speaking stricly about the evidentiary (sp?) argument against God, which basically goes like this: (1) most likely, some utterly pointless suffering occurs (2) with the xian God, no utterly pointless suffering would occur (3) xian God does not exist Thus, my question was... how can you say "most likely"... such a thing is impossible to calculate and either it does or does not happen, which is why I think that any argument against God would HAVE to be logical (and as I already stated, I believe these all fail).

07-20-2003, 11:17 PM	#6
Hugo Holbling Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Self-banned in 2005 Posts: 1,344	You are quite correct that the logical problem has been conceded to the theists in the scholarly literature, xorbie. With regard to the probabilistic argument from evil, the proposition that evil exists is claimed to count against the proposition that God exists and is good, etc. However, and as Plantinga pointed out, to say that the former counts probabilistically against the latter depends on the theory of probability you are using. Since it seemed that none of the available options were satisfactory, thinkers like Flew instead went on to claim that the existence of God is not properly basic; hence the theist claim is not probable unless a proof of sorts is forthcoming. Of course, the reformed epistemologists disagreed that this belief could not be properly basic and the problem does not seem to have clearly gone one way or the other in academia - hence Plantinga's quip that the evidential argument is "messier".

07-21-2003, 01:05 AM	#7
xorbie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Champaign, IL or Boston, MA Posts: 6,360	Mucho gracias

07-21-2003, 01:11 AM	#8
Llyricist Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Fort Lauderale, FL Posts: 5,390	xorbie, I think you have the "most likely" in the wrong place. The way I usually see it, it is most likely that an omnimax, personal, and interfering god (the only god that the argument even addresses)wouldn't allow the amount of suffering that exists. And the probability comes from the only direct and verified experience we have with sentient beings, that is, with humans. That most often, by a wide margin, people with good intentions and the capability to actualize their intentions would not allow so much suffering to occur. Therefore, since this god is defined as having supremely good intentions and the capability to actualize ANYTHING, it is unlikely that such a god would allow what we see. The unknown purpose defense provides the logical possibility that god COULD allow the suffering we see and still be omnimax, but the evidence still makes it unlikely. It is NOT held out as proof positive, just a "beyond a reasonable doubt" sort of proof.

07-21-2003, 03:32 AM	#9
Eric H Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Hampshire U.K. Posts: 1,027	If there is no God then it seems logically probable that humanity will find their own moral code, some people will do good and others evil. This explanation of no God seems to fit in well with life as we see it. But if there is a God with an absolute moral good, how can he pass his absolute morality on to billions of people over thousands of generations? If humanity had this absolute morality from God then there would probably be peace on Earth. It seems that peace on Earth is not an agenda that humanity really wants by choice; we have always known about peace, but there seems to be too much self-interest. Probably the only way an all-loving God could create peace on Earth is to impose his will on humanity by force in some way, but this would take away our freedom. Maybe the question of good and evil is not a logical and rational argument but a moral one. Would it be morally greater for an omni everything God to create billions of people over thousands of generations to live in peace with each other. Or would it be morally greater if there were a God, and he created humanity to have freedom. Which is greater peace or freedom? How does this argument influence the probability of God and the answer seems that on rational grounds there is no God, but on moral grounds I believe there is an argument for the existence of God. Peace Eric

07-21-2003, 05:02 AM	#10
scumble Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: UK Posts: 279	You still end up in the same place, so God is essentially superfluous. We're theoretically free in any case, so why do you need God to provide this freedom? Why is it morally greater, exactly?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.