rainbow walking

RW, are you essentially saying that to argue against the existence of something, you must first assume that it exists?

Only if you argue from the position that IF that something existed it would entail other things. In order to get at what those other things are, you'd have to approach it from this direction. Can't be avoided.

rainbow walking

RW, I think this is where Rick, PoE, and I agree, and you disagree. PoE only says "let's assume god exists." It then sets out to prove that said god could not possibly be omniscient and benevolent at the same time, as long as evil exists. It does not start by assuming an omnimax god. The difference is more than semantics.

rw: Well Jen, where did it get these attributes you use to prove this god doesn't exist? They are part and parcel of this god and come with the assumption, do they not?

PoE starts with "if an omnimax god existed...and then proceeds to weild those attributes to show the inconsistencies in such a god with such attributes co-existing with evil and suffering.

Ensign Steve

See my above two posts (and Dr. Rick's one) about the difference.



But the freewill defense asserts that if I lived in X, I would have no freewill (and that would be bad). But the FWD does not prove what it asserts. Hense the original topic of this thread.



What do you mean "if it's only a fantasy land."? It is only a fantasy land. It does not exist in reality. My argument is not diffused if X and god are both fantasy, and I assert that they both are. In said fantasy world where god exists, god would do X. In reality, god has not done X. If blurring the line between fantasy and reality is the only way to diffuse my argument, I am confident to stand by my argument.

Jen

rainbow walking

Jen: But the freewill defense asserts that if I lived in X, I would have no freewill (and that would be bad). But the FWD does not prove what it asserts. Hense the original topic of this thread.


rw: But we haven't gotten to the point of asserting the FWD until you get beyond the contradiction inherent in PoE that got us to this point.


Jen:What do you mean "if it's only a fantasy land."? It is only a fantasy land. It does not exist in reality. My argument is not diffused if X and god are both fantasy, and I assert that they both are. In said fantasy world where god exists, god would do X. In reality, god has not done X. If blurring the line between fantasy and reality is the only way to diffuse my argument, I am confident to stand by my argument.

rw: It's my understanding that X's are presented as logically possible states, not fantasies. If we are to remain consistent to the logic they have to entail the same force as reality as it now stands. If we're going to resort to fantasyland's I can checkmate you in one move. Perhaps I've inadvertantly engendered this line of argumentation when I incorporated imagination in my attempt to clarify my position. My bad. It was a weak attempt at best.

Ensign Steve

No, it doesn't matter how you define X. That's why we have left it as the abstract concept X instead of defining it. Still:

1: If god then X.
2: X
C: Therefore god.

This argument form is affirmation of the consequent, and it is a fallacy.

rem

I can imagine the existence of a gloob colored zebra. If gloob colored zebras existed it would entail the existence of the color gloob. The color gloob does not exist, therefore gloob colored zebras do not exist.

Gloob colored Zebras did not just pop into existence because I conceptualized one for the sake or argument.

Here is a slight tweak to Rick's argument:

rem

Ensign Steve

We are going backward. This thread was started as an argument against the FWD. We're 7 pages into this topic, so how is it that we "haven't gotten to the point of asserting the FWD" when the thread was started in response to the FWD?

Oops, okay I see the confusion. When I say fantasy, I mean something that does not in fact exist. I don't mean something that is not logically possible. Keep in mind I personally have not asserted what god could/should do in that reality. It may be my opinion that a benevolent god would have never created man in the first place in order to avoid suffering. That does not conflict with any laws of logic. It doesn't even conflict with any physical laws.

I still don't see how a reality in which there is no evil automatically means no free will. That's what a freewill defense against the PoE must show.

Jen

rainbow walking

Clutch has said: This is a valid form of counterfactual argument: If X were the case, then we would see evidence Y.


When a proponent of PoE then launches into an argument to define the Y he claims we would see, he postulates a number of interventions or out right eradications of current states of affairs. He does so in such a way as to make it obvious to even the most illiterate person that only an omnimax deity could do this. Of course, his purpose is to demonstrate that if such a deity existed this is what we should see as a result. But the outcome turns out to be quite different.


Unless you would argue that a theist denying the existence of a god, a god who has performed the magical act of eliminating all evil and suffering, is a logical possibility.

Now Clutch says, “we don’t see evidence Y” Which is true, in our current state of affairs. Let’s call this current state of affairs Z. So we have an argument that says if X then Y not Z. Not Y therefore Z. If Z therefore not X.

But when Clutch makes the argument from Z to Y his own state of affairs change so drastically in Y that he has no means of returning to Z. Thus he loses his way to Not X, nor has any logical reason to return to Z.

Z is a state of affairs that accommodate his arguing PoE.

Y is a state of affairs where he loses this accommodation for PoE.

The problem with this argument is in the effect it has on the atheist’s position that follows PoE like a heat seeking missile. In such an altered state the atheist can no longer logically argue that such a being doesn’t exist. He’s created the events that have led to his own conversion. The contradiction inherent in PoE is revealed at this point because it is consummately illogical for a theist to argue against the existence of this god. The FWD is not required to argue the ludicrousness of this contradiction. All that’s required is to point out the obvious consequence of defining state of affairs Y in such a manner.

rem

RW,
I'm sorry but the ludicrous contradiction is not so 'obvious' and you have yet to explain it clearly.
How so?
To use your terminology, the 'theist' is only a theist in this 'altered state', not in the real world. The 'theist' in this 'altered state' is not arguing against this god - he is just describing the universe he exists in where this omnimax god exists. The atheist outside of the 'altered state' (i.e. the real world) is arguing that the 'theist's' observations in the 'altered state' (which are a consequence of said omnimax god) do not match the atheist's observations of the real world, thus the omnimax god that 'exists' in the 'altered state' does not exist in the real world.

Note, I do not accept that such omnimax god actually exists in any form other than a concept. I'm just using your own terminology. There is no obvious contradiction here, even with your own terminology.

rem

rainbow walking

rem: I'm sorry but the ludicrous contradiction is not so 'obvious' and you have yet to explain it clearly.


rw: The contradiction is in an atheist-converted-to-theist arguing against the existence of a god. The atheist, in postulating Y sets up his own conversion in describing the mammoth interventions that only an omnimax deity could bring to pass.

How so?


rw: By defining state of affairs Y in such a way as to preclude the notion of atheism. His descriptions ultimately turn to this god defying natural laws that obtain in the state
of affairs Z, in such a way as to make it virtually impossible in state of affairs Y to deny the existence of said deity. Thus he has staged his own conversion.



rem: To use your terminology, the 'theist' is only a theist in this 'altered state', not in the real world.


rw: Yes, the "theist" in this case, being the atheist in the current state of affairs Z. But if he's going to postulate logically possible worlds, they must apply equally to him as to everyone else. He cannot exempt himself from the consequences of erecting Y, else he cancels out logical possibility.

rem: The 'theist' in this 'altered state' is not arguing against this god - he is just describing the universe he exists in where this omnimax god exists.


rw: No, the atheist is describing this altered state where he ultimately becomes a theist.

rem: The atheist outside of the 'altered state' (i.e. the real world) is arguing that the 'theist's' observations in the 'altered state' (which are a consequence of said omnimax god) do not match the atheist's observations of the real world, thus the omnimax god that 'exists' in the 'altered state' does not exist in the real world.

rw: The atheist in the current state Z is trying to prove his conclusion that a god does not exist in his current state of affairs Z. Arguing from PoE he has conjured up Y as an alternate state where god intervenes to eliminate evil and suffering. The only thing he can say as to his current state is that this god does not intervene to satisfy the PoE. Resorting to PoE forces him to pass through altered state Y to get to his conclusion Not X. But he gets stuck in Y by virtue of defining it such that he loses his atheistic foundation from which he initially launched his argument for PoE.