Ensign Steve

Sincere question: Can you give me an example of an internal contradiction in the PoE? Besides that it assumes the existence of god, which I'll address.


Yes, it does assume the existence of god in the first step. Then it goes on to conclude that if evil exists, then said god cannot be both omnicient and benevolent. Then it asks if a being that is neither omnicient nor omnibenevolent should be considered god. FWD doesn't try to answer the last question, though. It tries to mantain that said god can remain omnicient and omnibenevolent while evil remains in the world. Assuming the existence of god in the first step is equivalent to saying "Let's say for the sake of argument that god does exist." The fact that it does that and still proves its point doesn't weaken it, it strengthens it.

"But god didn't do X." = Statement A.
"We still have no reason to believe that god exists." = Statement B.

I said A and B. I did not say B because A.

Methinks you have no idea how close I have been listening. Methinks you have no idea how much attention I have paid to the steps PoE must take. I mean, there are only 4 of them, they aren't that difficult to remember.

Jen

rainbow walking

Clutch: My point is that "There goes free thought right out the door" simply fails to follow. Believing something on the basis of evidence is an exercise of free thought, not an abandonment of it. End of story.

rw: Exactly. At some point your freedom of thinking leads you to a conclusion. End of story, except when the conclusion is contested, as in the case of whether such a being exists or no.

Now, along comes this being and begins intervening in your state of affairs by the methods outlined by Dr. Retard.

Now the end of the story has to change or someone is not thinking freely.

Now, in the case of PoE we have an argument that enlists a specific set of steps to arrive at a conclusion. To arrive at said conclusion the argument begins by assuming this being exists. Step one.

It then asserts an alternate state of affairs that such an existent being OUGHT to entail. Step two.

At precisely this point, based specifically on the enlistment of that alternate state of affairs, it introduces, or allows into its argument, strong evidence that supports its initial assumption, that this being actually exists, because, to instantiate such a state of affairs would indeed require said being to exist.

Once this is allowed the very foundation from which it was launched is ripped out from under it. The whole edifice crumbles BEFORE it reaches step three, which is the precise point a FWD begins to assimilate its list of arguments. Therefore, if PoE has ripped out its own foundation before a FWD needs to be launched, freewill or free thought, ceases to be relevant to the discussion.

Clutch: Now you're talking about something else, though. You seem now to be arguing something like this:

A) If a benevolent god intervened to reduce suffering, that intervention would make it more reasonable to believe in a benevolent god.

B) If it were more reasonable to believe in a benevolent god, there would be less atheism around -- perhaps none at all.

Therefore,

C) If a benevolent god intervened to reduce suffering, there would be less atheism around -- perhaps none at all.

Therefore,

D) It is self-defeating for an atheist to argue from the absence of intervention to the absence of a benevolent god.

Rw: I think PoE is self defeating but this doesn’t mean I translate that particular defeat into a belief that such a being exists. I’m only showing the contradictions in this one particular argument.

Clutch: Again, my apologies if this does not capture your reasoning, but it's the best I can do given what you've provided.

Rw: Well, I’m not the world’s best at formulating an argument clearly, so I apologize for my mental deficiencies in this respect.

Clutch: This argument is no better than the earlier one, though. In fact, it's even worse. The inference from C to D is truly baffling. Consider:

Ted: I'm an anti-X-ist, because there's no evidence that X. But if X were true, there probably would be evidence that X. So I conclude that X probably isn't true.

Fred: Aha, but if there were evidence that X is true, you wouldn't be an anti-X-ist. So your argument is self-defeating.

This is absurd no matter what you put in for X.

Rw: It would be if that were my assertion. Remember, I’m not the one launching PoE as an argument. PoE incorporates EVIDENCE into its second step when it defines X. It seems to be blind to the immediate consequence to its initial position when it does this. It’s one thing to assume the existence of a god for the sake of argument. But when you take hold of that god’s attributes to re-create a specific state of affairs you must not forget to consider ALL the consequences of such an act. One of the consequences is that the claim, “I see no evidence to support the claim that such a god exists” ceases to be the END OF THE STORY. You’ve introduced it yourself with your own argument…the evidence, I mean.

I hope this clarifies things, somewhat.

Ensign Steve

It does? Are we looking at the same PoE? Sincerely, I have never seen a version of the PoE that asserts what ought to be, only what is. If you have, can you point me to it?

Are you saying that for the universe to exist, it had to have a creator? That is a pretty hot topic, but there are better places for that assertion than in a FWD thread. Or are you saying that for an alternate state of affairs to exist, a being would have to exist in order to change our current state of affairs? But that change has not happened. We cannot conclue from the change that a being exists that is able or willing to make that change, because that change did not happen (note: That is not the same as asserting that the lack of change proves the lack of existense of that being). What is more likely, that a universe that has evil in it is the creation of an omnicient and benevolent god, or that happened into being another way (maybe by accident, maybe by a malevelent "god")?

That's interesting, but if that is the case, why bother with a FWD in the first place? Why don't you make the above your assertion/argument instead?

Jen

rainbow walking

Hi Jen,
first let me clear the air...(rw clasps both hands around his throat):

rw: I'm sorry Jen, I did not mean to offend you with that remark. Upon a second reading I can see where you're coming from and I apologize.

Jen: Sincere question: Can you give me an example of an internal contradiction in the PoE? Besides that it assumes the existence of god, which I'll address.

rw: Sincere answer. PoE, in assuming the existence of said being, then proceeds to wield said beings attributes to show how it COULD or SHOULD have done things differently. Let's call this X.

Contradiction: When PoE postulates god would do X and incorporates details as to what X means, one of the unintentioned consequences is that it has just presented clear and undeniable proof that god exists. It has moved from a level of assumption for the sake of argument to the level of creating a state of affairs that leave no room for argument. In doing so it commits suicide before a FWD need even be incorporated.







Jen: Yes, it does assume the existence of god in the first step. Then it goes on to conclude that if evil exists, then said god cannot be both omnicient and benevolent. Then it asks if a being that is neither omnicient nor omnibenevolent should be considered god. FWD doesn't try to answer the last question, though. It tries to mantain that said god can remain omnicient and omnibenevolent while evil remains in the world. Assuming the existence of god in the first step is equivalent to saying "Let's say for the sake of argument that god does exist." The fact that it does that and still proves its point doesn't weaken it, it strengthens it.

rw: Unfortunately, in postulating X it creates a state of affairs that take the initial assumption to a whole nuther level.






Jen: "But god didn't do X." = Statement A.
"We still have no reason to believe that god exists." = Statement B.

I said A and B. I did not say B because A.

rw: Then I mis-understood you. My bad. What exactly are you saying then?

Ensign Steve

rainbow,

We are obviously looking at 2 different PoE's. I'm relatively new here, so if there is a standard one we should be using I missed it. This is the one I use:

The Riddle of Epicurus
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Can you show me the one you use, so I can continue with less confusion. Thanks!

Jen

Edited to add credit: I got that Riddle of Epicurus from www.positiveatheism.org

rainbow walking

Hi Jen,
The riddle of Epicurus is indeed the basis of PoE. If you look at it carefully you'll see that one can reach for any number of conclusions, dependent upon how you formulate the argument.

It's been my experience here that most proponents argue from 3 to 4 utilizing various aspects of 1 and 2. But in all cases they must show that he is able. ABLE is the crux of the argument. Notice its utilization in all four propositions?

And to substantiate their assertions they ultimately lean towards inserting some alternate state of affairs that would logically incur to support his ABILITY.

Now there are an ad infinitum number of alternate states of affairs one can orchestrate to show ability, but, once one incorporates this into PoE, calling it X, and begin defining X, they've shot themselves in the foot because of the consequences to the state of mind in that alternate state of affairs that entails. You no longer have reason to doubt his existence and hence PoE fails to progress any further. It begins on doubt, then invents its own demise before freewill entails. In fact it off handedly entails freewill in the consequences, as Clutch has pointed out.

I'm not arguing against a different PoE, just a more sophisticated version.

You also asked why I bother to argue freewill. For the sake of argument, the same reason PoE assumes the existence of god.

Hope this helps.

rainbow walking

Now if anyone wants to know how to breath life back into PoE, I'm able and willing to show you the way...

Clutch

It's just a mystery why you think this is true. I've tried to reconstruct an argument based on your comments, but that argument was dreadful. You really do seem to have the dreadful argument in mind. Compare:

Me: If the government was good, it would make efforts towards universal health care. But it hasn't, so it isn't.

RW: How could it do this, though?

Me: It could tax corporations at a rate equal to or lower than their employee insurance costs, and use economies of scale to provide broader access than the current system provides.

RW: Gotcha! See, "you've shot yourself in the foot, because of the consequences to your state of mind in the alternate state of affairs that entails. You'd no longer have reason to doubt" the goodness of the government in that situation. Therefore you can't use this argument in this situation, either.

Me: er...

Why should anyone take any argument of this form seriously?

Ensign Steve

Okay, that totally answered my question. But I am still not following you to your conclusion. Suppose I argue that if an omnimax god exists, he would have done X. I can define X, based upon definitions of malevolence, benevolence, omniscience, etc. How is that shooting myself in the foot? Defining what god would do if he existed is not the same as saying he exists.

I could say that if there was a Santa Claus, he would wear red and fly in a sleigh and climb down my chimney. But saying what he would do if he existed is not the same as saying he exists.

I regretted asking that. There are always reasons to have all kinds of different arguments for your positions. I think what I meant to say is: What do PoE's internal inconsistencies have to do with a freewill defense? But since I'm the one who brought it up, I guess I should be asking myself that.

Jen

rainbow walking

Er,,,Clutch, there's a world of difference between arguing over the normative value of a god or government and arguing over the existence of either. Change your operative term of "good" to "exists" and you'll see what I mean. Again, PoE isn't reaching for a final conclusion that this god is not omnibenevolent, but for the ultimate conclusion that he doesn't exist.