Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rainbow walking · 02-19-2003, 02:59 PM

Well I'm POE agnostic...I have no knowledge that a problem of evil exists.

In what way can you 'breath life back into' it?

Now come on twitch. If you're not comprehensive of one problem who am I to further complicate your life?

rainbow walking · 02-19-2003, 03:01 PM

I don't know about that. You'd think that in a world where an alleged god does absolutely no intervening (our world) you'd be hard pressed to find a theist, yet this isn't the case.

rw: Ha! Good point. Then I guess we could possibly anticipate atheist churches popping up everywhere in this altered state.

Ensign Steve · 02-19-2003, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rainbow walking
Let's say you and I are the only two people who exist in this current state of affairs. Now you approach me with the intention of launching an argument proving that a specific god with specific attributes couldn't possibly logically exist.

I am with you so far.

Quote:

You begin by assuming this god exists, for the sake of argument.

No, I begin by assuming some god exists, for the sake of argument. I then attempt to prove that is is logically impossible for that god (or any god) to be the specific god with the specific attributes.

Quote:

Then you create, using his attributes, an alternate state of affairs.

We'll call this X

Now here we both are in this alternate state of affairs where you've described all these wonderful things this god, you've assumed exists, has done to alleviate our evil and suffering.

Now, trapped in X, as we are, one of the consequences of your defining X is that you now have no way to get us back to our original state of affairs where the question of his existence remains speculative. You are forced to move forward, only now, in this altered state of affairs YOU are a theist and have no reason to move in any direction in opposition to this god.

I'm okay with this. I would be happy to exist in X, where there is no evil, where people don't suffer, and where I have no (or little) reason to doubt the existence of god. Would I still have free will? I think I would. The job of the FWD is to prove otherwise.

Quote:

Why?

Because you've taken your assumption to a level beyond assumption, where the evidence is now conclusive that such a being exists. If god can do this, as you assert, it must be a state of affairs as real as our original, else your claim that god can do this fails. Now we're trapped in this altered state of affairs with the conclusive evidence that this god, you set out to prove doesn't exist, has demonstrated, thanks to you, that he does and can do this.

With the consequence of undeniable proof of his existence, you can no longer argue against a verifiable fact. You're stuck in X along with a proven god which negates the thrust of your original intent...to prove otherwise. It was your original contention that this god doesn't exist that started us on this journey to erewhon. Now, here we are in erewhon with a real live existing god, and you're just as stuck as I am, because you've created an alternate state of affairs that attains sans evil and suffering, along with the consequences of brazenly using his attributes to accomplish your original purpose. But your original purpose can't obtain if YOU are a theist. Why would a theist launch such an argument?

You are starting to lose me again. I am capable of imagining an alternate state of afairs X. That does not mean that state of affairs exists. When you say I "create" a state of affairs, I do so only in theory, not in reality. I agree, within the fantasy of X, I would have to concede to you that PoE does not stand. But as long as we are in our reality, and not X, then I can still assert that PoE stands.

Besides, X would still not be undeniable proof of god's existence. It would just make it so that PoE does not stand. Just because the argument fails, that does not necessarily mean the conclusion is false. Fate, or probability, or nature, or chance, or what-have-you, could have created X, too.

Jen

Dr Rick · 02-19-2003, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rainbow walking
It's my understanding that PoE, in its argumentation, does indeed assume an omnimax god's existence to gain access to its attributes.

The PoE is an argues against the existence of the god of traditional Western theism by showing that the concept is internally inconsistent:

1) If an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good (omnibenevolent) God (ooog) existed, then there would be no limits to what he could do, no limits to knowing the outcomes of anything he could do, and no limits to the good he would want to do.

2) Good is opposed to evil in such a way that a good being always eliminates evil as far as it can.

3) An ooog would not allow evil because it would be able to not allow it,, would know how not to allow it, and would want not to allow it.

4) Evil exists.

5) Therefore, an ooog cannot exist.

The argument does not presuppose the existence of an ooog.

Rick

Wiploc · 02-19-2003, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JenniferD
I think what I meant to say is: What do PoE's internal inconsistencies have to do with a freewill defense?

It has internal inconsistencies?
crc

rainbow walking · 02-19-2003, 03:21 PM

Hi Rick,

I think this is getting semantical.

1) If an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good (omnibenevolent) God (ooog) existed, then there would be no limits to what he could do, no limits to knowing the outcomes of anything he could do, and no limits to the good he would want to do.

Is no different than saying "Assuming an oooog existed."

additionally, when you get to point 3, you're going to have to argue that point from that same assumption to show its veracity.

Dr Rick · 02-19-2003, 03:28 PM

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

Rick

Ensign Steve · 02-19-2003, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wiploc
It has internal inconsistencies?
crc

No, I don't think it does, but that was being asserted. Just my attempt to get the thread somewhat back on topic.

Ensign Steve · 02-19-2003, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rainbow walking
Hi Rick,

I think this is getting semantical.

1) If an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good (omnibenevolent) God (ooog) existed, then there would be no limits to what he could do, no limits to knowing the outcomes of anything he could do, and no limits to the good he would want to do.

Is no different than saying "Assuming an oooog existed."

additionally, when you get to point 3, you're going to have to argue that point from that same assumption to show its veracity.

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.

Jen

rainbow walking · 02-19-2003, 03:31 PM

Hi Jen,

No, I begin by assuming some god exists, for the sake of argument. I then attempt to prove that is is logically impossible for that god (or any god) to be the specific god with the specific attributes.

It's my understanding that this "some" god is the omnimax one. Or am I missing something here?

I'm okay with this. I would be happy to exist in X, where there is no evil, where people don't suffer, and where I have no (or little) reason to doubt the existence of god. Would I still have free will? I think I would. The job of the FWD is to prove otherwise.

rw: Why would I wish to upset your happiness by questioning your freewill? If you're happy, I'm happy

You are starting to lose me again. I am capable of imagining an alternate state of afairs X. That does not mean that state of affairs exists. When you say I "create" a state of affairs, I do so only in theory, not in reality. I agree, within the fantasy of X, I would have to concede to you that PoE does not stand. But as long as we are in our reality, and not X, then I can still assert that PoE stands.

rw: Then state of affairs X can only be attained as a fantasy? Does this not diffuse your argument that god could do X? If it's only a fantasy land there's no argument. Logic and fantasy have little in common.

Besides, X would still not be undeniable proof of god's existence.

rw: That depends on how you define X.

It would just make it so that PoE does not stand. Just because the argument fails, that does not necessarily mean the conclusion is false.

rw: Agreed, only from the perspective of PoE would it be false.

Fate, or probability, or nature, or chance, or what-have-you, could have created X, too.

rw:

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

02-19-2003, 02:59 PM	#161
rainbow walking Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Erewhon Posts: 2,608	Well I'm POE agnostic...I have no knowledge that a problem of evil exists. In what way can you 'breath life back into' it? Now come on twitch. If you're not comprehensive of one problem who am I to further complicate your life?

02-19-2003, 03:01 PM	#162
rainbow walking Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Erewhon Posts: 2,608	I don't know about that. You'd think that in a world where an alleged god does absolutely no intervening (our world) you'd be hard pressed to find a theist, yet this isn't the case. rw: Ha! Good point. Then I guess we could possibly anticipate atheist churches popping up everywhere in this altered state.

02-19-2003, 03:21 PM	#166
rainbow walking Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Erewhon Posts: 2,608	Hi Rick, I think this is getting semantical. 1) If an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good (omnibenevolent) God (ooog) existed, then there would be no limits to what he could do, no limits to knowing the outcomes of anything he could do, and no limits to the good he would want to do. Is no different than saying "Assuming an oooog existed." additionally, when you get to point 3, you're going to have to argue that point from that same assumption to show its veracity.

02-19-2003, 03:28 PM	#167
Dr Rick Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,393	RW, are you essentially saying that to argue against the existence of something, you must first assume that it exists? Rick

02-19-2003, 03:31 PM	#170
rainbow walking Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Erewhon Posts: 2,608	Hi Jen, No, I begin by assuming some god exists, for the sake of argument. I then attempt to prove that is is logically impossible for that god (or any god) to be the specific god with the specific attributes. It's my understanding that this "some" god is the omnimax one. Or am I missing something here? I'm okay with this. I would be happy to exist in X, where there is no evil, where people don't suffer, and where I have no (or little) reason to doubt the existence of god. Would I still have free will? I think I would. The job of the FWD is to prove otherwise. rw: Why would I wish to upset your happiness by questioning your freewill? If you're happy, I'm happy You are starting to lose me again. I am capable of imagining an alternate state of afairs X. That does not mean that state of affairs exists. When you say I "create" a state of affairs, I do so only in theory, not in reality. I agree, within the fantasy of X, I would have to concede to you that PoE does not stand. But as long as we are in our reality, and not X, then I can still assert that PoE stands. rw: Then state of affairs X can only be attained as a fantasy? Does this not diffuse your argument that god could do X? If it's only a fantasy land there's no argument. Logic and fantasy have little in common. Besides, X would still not be undeniable proof of god's existence. rw: That depends on how you define X. It would just make it so that PoE does not stand. Just because the argument fails, that does not necessarily mean the conclusion is false. rw: Agreed, only from the perspective of PoE would it be false. Fate, or probability, or nature, or chance, or what-have-you, could have created X, too. rw:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.