Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dr. Retard · 02-19-2003, 08:42 AM

Lemme get this straight. Take this argument form (call it POE):

1. If God existed, he'd have done X.
2. But it's not the case that he's done X.
3. So God doesn't exist.

This is a valid argument form. So is this one:

1. If God existed, he'd have done X.
2. If it were the case that God had done X, atheism would be false.
3. So, if God existed, atheism would be false.
4. If atheism were false, all arguments for atheism would have a false conclusion.
5. So, if God existed, all arguments for atheism would have a false conclusion.

Are we supposed to conclude something interesting from this? I'm not following.

Clutch · 02-19-2003, 08:43 AM

Well, I don't know what to make of your suggestion that it doesn't matter whether your argument is good or bad, but only whether its conclusion is true. In general, our way of knowing whether non-obvious statements are true or false is whether the reasoning supporting them is good or bad.

In this case, there is no reason to believe (3) is true. And this is precisely because there are all sorts of cases in which we believe things for good reasons, without seeming to become robotic or enslaved -- because, in short, (2) is false.

Indeed, the assessment of such evidence seems as clear an example of the exercise of freedom as one could ask for.

tw1tch · 02-19-2003, 09:36 AM

Philosoft,

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
Suppose there is world C with properties P, Q and R and world D with properties P, Q and T. Per your last quote, both these worlds are equally Free. However, your "robot" quote indicates that you would consider a metaphysical change from some values of R to some other values of T a violation of Freedom. So then, what qualifies? If we make R='gravitation that prevents humans from flying' and T='gravitation that allows humans to fly,' would that be a violation of Freedom?

Ah...I think I see the disconnect. When I make the off-hand comment 'robots' (or 'hampering of Freedom') I am referring to a situation in which we have our given universe with physical laws P and logical laws L AND some restriction is placed upon me such that I no longer 'can do anything P and L allow (Freedom)'. This is a restriction of Freedom.

I think your position is: Well, if God is omnipotent...couldn't He make a universe with physical laws P* that hamper me from doing really bad things? This is evident in your comment here

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft

What about R='children raped at rate X' and T='children raped at rate X-1'?

The main problem I see with your position is that God need not alter physical law P to reduce child rape to X-1. In fact all that is needed to reduce child rape to X-1 is mankind using his Freedom to choose to rape less children. This is a fact you don't seem to be acknowledging. I'm sure you don't disagree with this, correct?

Your argument is analogous to 9/11 victims(mankind) sueing Boeing(God) because terrorists flew plans into buildings(evil).

The second problem I see with your position is that the worlds you propose like your anti-child rape universe quickly become incoherent. How would the sub-atomic particles know you are raping a child? What if some cultures age of consent was different then other cultures? Exactly how does this anti-child-rape particle interact with the other particles? Saying...well God can figure all that stuff out assumes that God should and would choose to alter the universe this way. This is a bizzare assumption to make about God for someone who supposedly doesn't believe in God.

Perhaps your assumption is incorrect and God made the universe U with physical laws P and logical laws L, gave man Freedom (as defined above) and left the issue of how much evil mankind would allow to man.

This seems a far more reasonable situation...even if you are an atheist.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

rainbow walking · 02-19-2003, 09:38 AM

Hi Dr. Retard,
Sorry 'bout the confusion in names. Now let's clarify the conclusion you're struggling to see.

1. If god existed, he'd have done X.

Sounds good...until you define X. What follows from defining X is:

2. Had god done X, the residual consequence would be the falsification of atheism.

3. PoE is an argument from atheism, thus PoE is falsified.

Conclusion. Initiating an argument that defines X is a suicide demise for PoE. Going any further to articulate a FWD is not necessary, as the argument never gets off the ground.

rainbow walking · 02-19-2003, 09:49 AM

Hi Clutch,

In this case, there is no reason to believe (3) is true. And this is precisely because there are all sorts of cases in which we believe things for good reasons, without seeming to become robotic or enslaved -- because, in short, (2) is false.

Indeed, the assessment of such evidence seems as clear an example of the exercise of freedom as one could ask for.

rw: I concur, however, with PoE having committed suicide in its initial assertion, the issue of freewill never comes into the picture because...well, it becomes a moot issue.

Had god done X, atheism would not exist, hence PoE would never have arisen as an argument and FWD as a response to that argument.

Ensign Steve · 02-19-2003, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rainbow walking
Had god done X, atheism would not exist, hence PoE would never have arisen as an argument and FWD as a response to that argument.

That's the whole point. PoE is an argument against the existence of god. It says that the qualities we atribute to god (omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc) are internally contradictory, making the existence of god a logical impossiblity. If god had done X, and doing X nullifies the PoE argument, then yes, the PoE argument would fail, and understandably so, since if god has to exist in order to do anything. But god didn't do X. We still have no reason to believe that god exists, and that atheism is false.

Basicially what I hear you saying is: "if god exists, then atheists are wrong." Um, yeah, I agree. That's what atheism means.

Jen

Clutch · 02-19-2003, 10:07 AM

RW,

Quote:

Clutch wrote: This appears to the be the substance of your position. It's approaching an argument. Let's help it along:

(1) In the circumstance described, there would be excellent grounds for believing in at least a very powerful, quite benevolent unseen agent.

(2) If one has excellent reasons for believing something, one's free will vanishes.

Therefore,

(3) In the circumstance described, one's free will vanishes.

The thing is, (2) is not only unwarranted, but seems straightforwardly false. So I can make an argument out of your comments, but only a very bad one.

There is no reason to believe (3) is true. And this is precisely because there are all sorts of cases in which we believe things for good reasons, without seeming to become robotic or enslaved -- because, in short, (2) is false.

Indeed, the assessment of such evidence seems as clear an example of the exercise of freedom as one could ask for.

RW wrote: I concur, however, with PoE having committed suicide in its initial assertion, the issue of freewill never comes into the picture because...well, it becomes a moot issue.

Had god done X, atheism would not exist, hence PoE would never have arisen as an argument and FWD as a response to that argument.

HUH?!

You seem to have lost track of things.

What you needed was an argument for your claim that "Had god done X, atheism would not exist". Asserting it repeatedly was not sufficient.

Your argument for this claim, or the nearest thing I could construct out of your comments, was (1)-(3) above.

But that argument fails.

Now you're saying you agree that the argument fails, but that this doesn't matter because, after all... "Had god done X, atheism would not exist".

Are you now of the view that asserting this repeatedly is sufficient?

rainbow walking · 02-19-2003, 10:13 AM

Hi Clutch,
The reason I didn't argue the point is because you seemed to concur:

Quote:

(1) In the circumstance described, there would be excellent grounds for believing in at least a very powerful, quite benevolent unseen agent.

I took this to mean that such a state of affairs would naturally lead to the abandonment of atheism so I just assumed you were concurring with my rationale.

Are you now recanting this statement?

rainbow walking · 02-19-2003, 10:27 AM

Hi Jen,

You said: That's the whole point. PoE is an argument against the existence of god. It says that the qualities we atribute to god (omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc) are internally contradictory, making the existence of god a logical impossiblity.

rw: Yes, this is what it basically says, but, in the process of saying so, it exposes its own set of internal contradictions which creates its own still born death.

If god had done X, and doing X nullifies the PoE argument, then yes, the PoE argument would fail, and understandably so, since if god has to exist in order to do anything.

rw: PoE assumes the existence of god to demonstrate the inconsistencies it claims are inherent in his attributes, in order to conclude he doesn't exist. The problem arises immediately in the assumption and thus PoE's further argumentation fails to obtain due to having cancelled itself out at the first assumption and PoE's initial defining of what this assumed existing god would or should have done. The argument entails a series of steps, but stumbles on the first step.

But god didn't do X. We still have no reason to believe that god exists, and that atheism is false.

rw: And no reason to assume that he didn't do X because he doesn't exist.

Basicially what I hear you saying is: "if god exists, then atheists are wrong." Um, yeah, I agree. That's what atheism means.

rw: Methinks you might want to consider listening a little closer. Pay particular attention to the steps PoE must take to arrive at the conclusion that such a being doesn't exist.

Clutch · 02-19-2003, 10:37 AM

RW,

Look again; I was addressing the following, which you offered as your reasoning.

Quote:

No more doubt about the existence of said deity. Atheism must pack up all its arguments, including PoE, and vacate the premises. There goes free thought right out the door. The PoE suffers dramatic setbacks if you go here.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

02-19-2003, 08:42 AM	#131
Dr. Retard Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA Posts: 735	Lemme get this straight. Take this argument form (call it POE): 1. If God existed, he'd have done X. 2. But it's not the case that he's done X. 3. So God doesn't exist. This is a valid argument form. So is this one: 1. If God existed, he'd have done X. 2. If it were the case that God had done X, atheism would be false. 3. So, if God existed, atheism would be false. 4. If atheism were false, all arguments for atheism would have a false conclusion. 5. So, if God existed, all arguments for atheism would have a false conclusion. Are we supposed to conclude something interesting from this? I'm not following.

02-19-2003, 08:43 AM	#132
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	Well, I don't know what to make of your suggestion that it doesn't matter whether your argument is good or bad, but only whether its conclusion is true. In general, our way of knowing whether non-obvious statements are true or false is whether the reasoning supporting them is good or bad. In this case, there is no reason to believe (3) is true. And this is precisely because there are all sorts of cases in which we believe things for good reasons, without seeming to become robotic or enslaved -- because, in short, (2) is false. Indeed, the assessment of such evidence seems as clear an example of the exercise of freedom as one could ask for.

02-19-2003, 09:38 AM	#134
rainbow walking Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Erewhon Posts: 2,608	Hi Dr. Retard, Sorry 'bout the confusion in names. Now let's clarify the conclusion you're struggling to see. 1. If god existed, he'd have done X. Sounds good...until you define X. What follows from defining X is: 2. Had god done X, the residual consequence would be the falsification of atheism. 3. PoE is an argument from atheism, thus PoE is falsified. Conclusion. Initiating an argument that defines X is a suicide demise for PoE. Going any further to articulate a FWD is not necessary, as the argument never gets off the ground.

02-19-2003, 09:49 AM	#135
rainbow walking Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Erewhon Posts: 2,608	Hi Clutch, In this case, there is no reason to believe (3) is true. And this is precisely because there are all sorts of cases in which we believe things for good reasons, without seeming to become robotic or enslaved -- because, in short, (2) is false. Indeed, the assessment of such evidence seems as clear an example of the exercise of freedom as one could ask for. rw: I concur, however, with PoE having committed suicide in its initial assertion, the issue of freewill never comes into the picture because...well, it becomes a moot issue. Had god done X, atheism would not exist, hence PoE would never have arisen as an argument and FWD as a response to that argument.

02-19-2003, 10:27 AM	#139
rainbow walking Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Erewhon Posts: 2,608	Hi Jen, You said: That's the whole point. PoE is an argument against the existence of god. It says that the qualities we atribute to god (omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc) are internally contradictory, making the existence of god a logical impossiblity. rw: Yes, this is what it basically says, but, in the process of saying so, it exposes its own set of internal contradictions which creates its own still born death. If god had done X, and doing X nullifies the PoE argument, then yes, the PoE argument would fail, and understandably so, since if god has to exist in order to do anything. rw: PoE assumes the existence of god to demonstrate the inconsistencies it claims are inherent in his attributes, in order to conclude he doesn't exist. The problem arises immediately in the assumption and thus PoE's further argumentation fails to obtain due to having cancelled itself out at the first assumption and PoE's initial defining of what this assumed existing god would or should have done. The argument entails a series of steps, but stumbles on the first step. But god didn't do X. We still have no reason to believe that god exists, and that atheism is false. rw: And no reason to assume that he didn't do X because he doesn't exist. Basicially what I hear you saying is: "if god exists, then atheists are wrong." Um, yeah, I agree. That's what atheism means. rw: Methinks you might want to consider listening a little closer. Pay particular attention to the steps PoE must take to arrive at the conclusion that such a being doesn't exist.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.