Dr Rick

Huh?

RW, I've been following this thread, and you really lost me on that first paragraph.

Besides, the PoE does not assume the existence of gods; it is an argument against an omnimax one.

Rick

Clutch

It makes no difference at all.

This is a valid form of counterfactual argument: If X were the case, then we would see evidence Y. We don't see Y; therefore, X is not the case.

Your reply: If we saw evidence Y, though, that would change our state of mind. We wouldn't have reason to say that X is not the case.

Well, yeah. That is indeed the point: Because we don't see Y, we do have reason to say that X is not the case.

Your belief that there's some problem here cannot be rationally recovered.

tw1tch

Rainbow,
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?



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Ensign Steve

Nuh-uh! The ultimate conclusion of PoE is that an omnimax god does not exist. It then asks the question, is a non-omnimax god a god? FWD doesn't answer that question, though. It tries to tear down the part of PoE that proves that an omnimax god doesn't exist.

Jen

rainbow walking

Hi Jen,

Let me see if I can explain it a different way.

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.

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

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.

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?

rem

RW,

Um, so according to your logic the fact that atheists exist is evidence that there is no god. You are also saying that the existence of the FWD is proof that god does not exist. Interesting defense for the FWD.

rem

rainbow walking

The problem here Clutch is that you're reducing the argument in such a way as to omit the supporting arguments that have been offered to justify the "then we would see evidence Y".

My argument doesn't surface until you offer up a reason why we would see evidence Y. Once you posit evidence Y as an altered state of affairs incorporating all these miraculous changes, you also introduce evidence and consequences that diffuses your "we don't see Y".

rainbow walking

Hi Rick,
Sorry about the confusion earlier over names.

Besides, the PoE does not assume the existence of gods; it is an argument against an omnimax one.


rw: It's my understanding that PoE, in its argumentation, does indeed assume an omnimax god's existence to gain access to its attributes.

rainbow walking

Hi rem,


Um, so according to your logic the fact that atheists exist is evidence that there is no god. You are also saying that the existence of the FWD is proof that god does not exist. Interesting defense for the FWD.

rw: It's only evidence that, if there is, he's not doing anything to alter our current state of affairs. The logical conclusion you've proffered only entails iff such a being were to alter our current state of affairs, as my argument only surfaces once this altered state is introduced. Unfortunately, in such an altered state, with this god doing all this intervening, you'd be hard pressed to find an atheist.

rem

RW,

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.

rem