anonymousj

???

anonymousj

SRB

For all your rhetoric, you haven't actually given any reason to think that Plantinga failed to do what he claimed: to have shown that the existence of God and evil are logically compatible for all we know.

You are misrepresenting the guy. Plantinga's argument only requires that it is possible that every possible person has transworld depravity. That is something quite different to what you claim he said.

SRB

Wiploc

Well, try this argument, it's called the Problem of Evil:

1. If god has the power to prevent us from suffering, and
2. If he absolutely 100% wants to save us from suffering,
3. Then we would not suffer.
4. We do suffer.
5. Therefore, such a god does not exist.

Cool, huh?
crc

SRB

You apparently aren't aware of Plantinga's critique of logical versions of the argument from evil. You certainly haven't addressed it. I doubt, for example, that (2) is a necessary truth. God could well have some morally sufficient reason to allow some suffering.

That's not to say, of course, that I think evidential forms of the argument from evil are unsound. I think that some atheists need to get up to speed with developments in this area.

SRB

anonymousj

I said it in response to Volker's response to my post, but then deleted it. Along comes wiploc,...

JFU-- Just... Unbelieveable!

anonymousj

diana

I certainly am not.

Since you've read up, why don't you share?

d

Wiploc

You're probably right. The Plantinga book by my bed and the one coming in the mail, they are probably some kind of fluke.
[Hey, I'm back in here editing because parts of this post look pretty snide. I'm not going to change them; I'm just going to ask that you imagine me smiling. The tone is meant to be bantering, not hostile.]


Curious. The PoE is a valid sylogism. Since the conclusion is known to be false, this proves that the premises (at least one of them) are false too. This is the very point of the PoE, proving that the premeses are not true. So it hardly makes sense to criticize it on the grounds that the thing it proves not to be true may not be true.



Therein lies the crux. Could a scorpion god have a morally sufficient reason to create men for the fun of stinging them to death with his tail?



I absolutely agree with you. And I assume the evidential argument works. All I ask is that users of the evidential argument not sabotage users of the logical argument by saying that the PoE doesn't prove anything logically.

I don't sabotage them by saying, "Hey, the evidential form of the PoE doesn't work, but come look at this deductive form." I'll ask them not to say the deductive form doesn't work. For people engaged in a cooperative effort, it seems to me better to say, "That's not my argument," or, "I'm not defending that position," or even just, "No, here's what I was talking about."

(Of course, those who are convinced the deductive PoE doesn't work (not just that they can't defend it themselves, but that nobody can defend it) are free to say what they will.)
crc

Clutch

If the Logical PoE purports to show that observable suffering is logically inconsistent with a 3-omni god, it has to fail. The standards for logical inconsistency are too high; remember, "Judas hanged himself" and "Judas fell and his insides burst open" are logically compatible.

In the PoE case, one need only postulate unknown factors to explain the appearance of evil. Ie, for all we know, it's for the best.

While this leaves it unclear how we are to apply our moral concepts, it dissolves any inconsistency.

Dr Rick

Then whatever is "best" cannot be obtained by gods without suffering, which limits potency to something less than omnipotence, or could be obtained without suffering but was allowed anyways, limiting the gods' benevolence.

Rick

Wiploc

Exellent point. Anything could be for the best if we don't know what "best" means. If we don't know what "good" means when we say, "god is good," then there are no testable implications that flow from god's goodness.

But, on the other hand, suppose that words do have meaning. Then we can test. Then the PoE does work.

The point of the PoE is that it makes the Christians admit that they don't really mean "good" when they say god is good. Or they don't really mean all-powerful when they mean god is all-powerful. Or (in at least one case that I'm running across on these boards) that they don't mean he knows all that much.

It is not a refutation of the PoE to say that god isn't really good.
crc