Philosoft

This is Thomas Metcalf's territory, but I'm going to give it a shot.

The deductive PoE goes something like this:

1) If a tri-omni God exists, then evil does not exist.
2) Evil exists.
C) Therefore, a tri-omni God does not exist.

A common defeater is the Greater Good Defense, wherein premise 1 is denied on the grounds that God can use evil to bring about a greater good. The reason this works is that God is defined as omnibenevolent, which can be construed to mean that God brings about the most overall good. It does not say God will prevent all evil, just that God will bring about the most good, and it is logically possible that a greater good can result from some particular evil.

This, I think, is the gist of ghost's objection to the deductive PoE, RW. And it is generally taken to be sound, which is why the evidential PoE is a much more popular argument.

rainbow walking

rw: I won't allow that to be construed. All such good that is derived from evil is derived by man...not god.

Such a stance is a redefinition of omnibenevolence or an introduction of another attribute.

Omnibenevolence is a specific attribute that means, in practice, anything done must be good at the outset...(not evil or incompetent or irrational), something that works towards a good with a probability of falling either way is not a reflection of all-good. There is no wiggle room in omnibenevolence for a misconstrued application.

You either drop all-good or add an additional attribute that facilitates the use of less than good tactics. Omni-benevolence, all-good, morally perfect...all these equivalents must be reflected from inception to finish in any act undertaken by such a being. And if such a god has chosen to introduce his existence to mankind via religion, the untold suffering created by the ambiguity in revelation and the zealousness in practice has been anything but a reflection of this attribute...nor does it appear to be leading man to any greater good.

Allowing such a misconstruence is tantamount to mass confusion in anything god has declared to be moral, righteous or obedient. These qualities may be a cleverly disguised formula to facilitate more evil for all we know, under such a misconstruence. In using religion as his means of perpetual introduction to mankind he has failed to bring about any over-all good but has, in stead, brought about an over-all detriment to humanity through-out the ages.

The definitions of the attributes are not negotiable. The factuality of the evidence is not questionable. The conclusion is as solid as Mt. Rushmore.

theghostinthemachine

This will be decided in the debate, not here Rainbow.

Evidential arguments are inductive because the premises are claimed to support the conclusion in such a way as to make it improbable that the the premsies be true, and the conclusion false, making the argument both strong and cogent. Deductive arguments, if the premises are true, and conclusion true, then the argument is both valid and sound

You provided a deductive argument:

If p, then q
~q
therefore, ~P

Rainbow, there is a difference between a deductive argument and a inductive argument. This has already been explained to you. And we did agree to debate the evidential problem of evil, otherwise my opening would have been on the logical problem of evil. Be that as it may, you have presented a deductive argument, and that is the argument that I will contend with.

I did not say that when evidence is factual is ceases to be evidence. I said that when a argument is deductive, it is no longer based on probablity. And I pointed out that your argument was valid. However, I do not think that it is sound.


My objection is that your conditional statement does not express a necessary condition. Hence, your 'if, then' is bogus. But again, this will be settled in the debate.

I am hoping this clears things up for you, or that someone else here will clear this up for you. I wish you luck in the debate, expect my rebuttal in a few days.

Regards,

~ The Ghost In The Machine

jpbrooks

Without commenting on the merits of any of the arguments provided above. rw's statement above seems to reveal a possible basis for the disagreement in this thread. That is, if man rather than God is to be the ultimate arbiter of "good". then the existence of "evil" can cogently be held to be a fact (beyond question) that counts against any claim that God is "omnibenevolent". But if, on the other hand, man is not (necessarily) (held to be) the ultimate arbiter of "good", then it can be meaningful to question the "evidence" (of "evil") against God's "omnibenevolence".

rainbow walking

This will be decided in the debate, not here Rainbow.

rw: Indeed, and nothing would have been said about it here had YOU not brought it up in the first place...here.

And, just for the record, I know the difference between an evidential and logical argument of evil. That wasn't the issue here at all. The issue was why an evidential argument had to be argued from induction and could not also be argued as a deductive conditional. That was the question I was here to verify. It seems that no one has any clue why, other than it has just been assumed on the basis of probability. But probability was introduced in the first place because of theistic responses introducing possible reasons why a god might be able to incorporate evil into a state of affairs and still retain all-goodness. There is no good reason why I am governed by such probability when I use a factual evidence and defined attributes. With those two weapons I will more than establish the deductive inference all the way to the hoop.

theghostinthemachine

Nevermind, this will all be settled in the debate

rainbow walking

[QUOTE]Originally posted by theghostinthemachine
No Rainbow, I explained what you were leaving out. You on the other hand, made the bare assertion that I had not supported my case.

rw: In response to this bare assertion:

rw: Thus I reiterate my earlier stance. If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen.






I don't think you do know the difference between the evidential and logical problem of evil.

rw: Keep on thinking that.





I have it explained this to you numerous times,a nd quite frankly, it is getting old really quick Rainbow.


rw: I don't need you to explain anything to me.


The Evidential Problem of Evil is an inductive argument! You gave a deductive argument. Is it that hard for you to understand? Why can't the evidential problem of evil be argued deductively? Because it would not be the evidential problem of evil any longer, it would be the logical problem of evil - as has been pointed out to you numerous times.

rw: Flat out wrong! Just because the convention has been to call the inductive argument of evil "The Evidential Argument" does not mean that a deductive argument cannot also be an "Evidential Argument". Both are logical arguments. Why can't you understand that?

What bothers me here, is that you refuse to admit the difference. Probability, Rainbow, is what the evidential problem of evil concerns itself with - the atheist concludes that probably, God does not exist.


rw: And this is just flat out nonsense. Probability is what the inductive argument concerns itself with, whether it's an evidential argument or not. I am not concerned with probability so I am not obligated by a convention to argue inductively. I am reaching for soundness in an evidential argument...do you understand that?

ghost: The theist does not introduce probability in the evidential argument from evil.

rw: What?! The theist doesn't even argue the evidential argument of evil...he defends against it. So what does this have to do with anything?




ghost: And as such, the evidential argument from evil cannot be argued deductively. If it was, it would be the logical problem of evil. Is that part in bold hard for you to understand?

rw: All arguments of evil are logical arguments. It is mere convention and the lack of imagination that has forced the inductive argument to be associated with the evidential argument. You can call my argument what ever you want to but it is an evidential argument and it is deductive.

Ghost: If you are going to argue the logical problem of evil, fine. But state that it is teh logical problem of evil. And it only makes my job less because the deductive problem of evil is much easier to refute.

rw: Promises, promises.

[b]ghost: I would hope that there are some atheists on these forums trained in logic that can explain the difference to you.

rw: So far I've heard nothing that renders my argument illigetimate. I am not bound by convention to offer an inductive evidential argument.

ghost: Consider this my last response to you on this matter. I will point out your obvious flaws in the debate, and will cite several sources to demonstrate your obvious mistakes.

rw: And I will rip them to shreds in short order...as I have done thusfar.

Anyone interested in this debate can find it here:

http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard...pics&forum=125

theghostinthemachine

I of course said that the last response would be my last, so forgive me for going against my word here, but Rainbow Walking has apparently decided to put his own spin on the matter...

Wrong Rainbow. Your bare assertion was here:

"And ghost has yet to support any of these claims...of course."

Be that as it may, the heat is not what is starting to bother me. I have been polite with you, I have attempted to explain the difference between the evidential problem of evil and the logical problem of evil to no avail, and I am a little confused as to why you are starting to act like a baby with statements like "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" and "...I will rip them to shreds in short order, as I have done thusfar." This is immature Rainbow, and touting yourself as the winner is as well. I obviously do not agree with your assesment of the debate, but I am willing to leave the rhetoric out and let the arguments speak for themselves; something you apparently cannot, or will not do.


OK.


You need someone to explain it to you then, because you are failing to see the difference. Why is it, Rainbow, that there is a evidential problem, and a logical problem? And why is it Rainbow, that there are deductive arguments and inductive arguments? And why is it Rainbow, that every single philosopher I have read when arguing the evidential problem of evil states that it is an inductive argument? And why Rainbow, is every logic textbook that I have read, quick to point out that Modus Tollens is a deductive form?


Just because the convention huh? I guess just because the convention has been to use reason and logic to argue, it does not mean that we must use reason and logic to argue. I guess just because the convention has been to use deductions in mathmatics, does not mean that mathmatics must use deductions. If you use a deductive argument, you are no longer arguing evidentially Rainbow, you are deducing a logical conclusion that is guaranteed! But I guess Rainbow can just make up his own conventions as we go along. I am glad you never debated Greg Bahnsen!

Rainbow...have you checked your batteries in the carbon dioxide detector? Of course I am just joking, but you are not making sense Rainbow, and I am trying to point you in the right direction.

Please read the thread before you respond and cut my quote Rainbow.

This is what you said:

"But probability was introduced in the first place because of theistic responses introducing possible reasons why a god might be able to incorporate evil into a state of affairs and still retain all-goodness. There is no good reason why I am governed by such probability when I use a factual evidence and defined attributes."

You said that probability was introduced in the first place because of theistic responses.

I responded that:

No, the theist does not introduce probability...


Yes, and it is the case that A is both A and ~A. Wink, wink. You made a better Christian than you do an atheist Rainbow. Can you cite one reliable source that states that the evidential problem of evil is deductive as you claim?

I have not promised anything Rainbow, but it is almost universally agreed upon by philosophers, both atheist and theist, that the logical problem of evil no longer poses a problem for the theist, and that it is much easier to refute than the evidential problem of evil.



No, you can make up your own rules...but I am sure that even your atheist friends would think that was dishonest.

Quote:

ghost: Consider this my last response to you on this matter. I will point out your obvious flaws in the debate, and will cite several sources to demonstrate your obvious mistakes. rw: And I will rip them to shreds in short order...as I have done thusfar.

I am sure you will, you can't win when rules are made up.

Quote:

Anyone interested in this debate can find it here: http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard...pics&forum=125

Yes, please come and see how well your atheist friend argues his case.

jpbrooks

I probably should have posted this information earlier in this thread. Here is some reference material on the Evidential PoE.

rainbow walking

I of course said that the last response would be my last, so forgive me for going against my word here, but Rainbow Walking has apparently decided to put his own spin on the matter...

rw: Listen dude, you are the one who followed me here and decided to interfere in my attempt to clarify a technical question. I made every effort to do so as discretely as possible but you decided to jump in and state your position and include things like this:

rw: This was entirely inappropriate. I was very respectful in my inquiry and stated only the fact that my opponent was insisting the evidential argument had to be inductive. I mentioned no names or details. Had your intent only been to assist me in this clarification, rather than to argue your entire position again with the obvious insult at the end, we wouldn't be at odds as we now are. But perhaps you have a blind spot and are genuinely unaware of the line you crossed here. Almost all of us do and I'm certainly no exception.

ghost: Be that as it may, the heat is not what is starting to bother me. I have been polite with you, I have attempted to explain the difference between the evidential problem of evil and the logical problem of evil to no avail, and I am a little confused as to why you are starting to act like a baby with statements like "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" and "...I will rip them to shreds in short order, as I have done thusfar." This is immature Rainbow, and touting yourself as the winner is as well. I obviously do not agree with your assesment of the debate, but I am willing to leave the rhetoric out and let the arguments speak for themselves; something you apparently cannot, or will not do.

rw: No sir, you have not been polite. Polite would have been to stay out of this thread, call your technical foul in the debate and take your two point shot if it was warranted. Calling me names is adding injury to insult.







ghost: You need someone to explain it to you then, because you are failing to see the difference. Why is it, Rainbow, that there is a evidential problem, and a logical problem?


rw: Because theists have been successful at instilling some probable doubt via arguments based on greater good, unknown purposes, necessity of learning, etc. etc. Because most, if not all, of the evidences argued are probablistic in nature and because most, if not all, of the deductive arguments presented have erred in being grounded in alternate states of affairs that were too exclusive. I'm sure there are other reasons as well.

ghost: And why is it Rainbow, that there are deductive arguments and inductive arguments?


rw: Because deductive arguments draw stronger conclusions than inductive arguments which is why I chose the deductive form. But they are more exacting.


ghost: And why is it Rainbow, that every single philosopher I have read when arguing the evidential problem of evil states that it is an inductive argument?

rw: Is it your contention that all the philosophers you've read are infallible? That they know the nature of every single argument of evil that can be raised? That there are no exceptions to the rule? Hell...is there even a rule? That's all I've been asking all along. Conventional opinions are not rules.

ghost: And why Rainbow, is every logic textbook that I have read, quick to point out that Modus Tollens is a deductive form?

rw: Never said it wasn't.




ghost: Just because the convention huh? I guess just because the convention has been to use reason and logic to argue, it does not mean that we must use reason and logic to argue. I guess just because the convention has been to use deductions in mathmatics, does not mean that mathmatics must use deductions. If you use a deductive argument, you are no longer arguing evidentially Rainbow, you are deducing a logical conclusion that is guaranteed! But I guess Rainbow can just make up his own conventions as we go along. I am glad you never debated Greg Bahnsen!

rw: I'm not challenging every convention under the sun. It use to be conventional thinking that the earth was flat and the center of the universe also. Neither am I making up a convention but presenting an exception.









ghost: Yes, and it is the case that A is both A and ~A. Wink, wink. You made a better Christian than you do an atheist Rainbow. Can you cite one reliable source that states that the evidential problem of evil is deductive as you claim?

rw: I never said the evidential problem of evil is deductive. I said my evidential argument is deductive. I'm still a better christian than you are, even though I'm an atheist...so what's the point?



Ghost: I have not promised anything Rainbow, but it is almost universally agreed upon by philosophers, both atheist and theist, that the logical problem of evil no longer poses a problem for the theist, and that it is much easier to refute than the evidential problem of evil.

rw: Then you should have no trouble trouncing me in the debate. But I must say, you seem to be getting off to a rather slow start. In fact, if you get any slower you'll be in reverse.



ghost: No, you can make up your own rules...but I am sure that even your atheist friends would think that was dishonest.

rw: Sure. That's why I came here to solicit their expert advice...to help me be dishonest. I've made up no rule because there is no official rule that I've yet to see. There is only conventional opinions.






ghostYes, please come and see how well your atheist friend argues his case.


rw: They already know how well I argue my case...and so will you...soon enough. In fact, I argue my position so well that I have very few atheist friends...and even fewer theistic ones. I have forgotten more about being a smartass than you'll ever learn...and that, too, is why I have few atheist friends. But, unlike you, my worldview does not depend on surrounding myself with people who believe and think exactly as I do. Practically the only thing I have in common with the rest of the denizens here is a lack of belief in any God or gods.