Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

One Cannot Use the Problem of Evil To...

Clovis
Posts: 191
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 11:40:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
...universally dispute the existence of god without subscribing to a belief in moral absolutes.

We have two distinct options while looking at the problem of evil:
a) their is objective evil in the world
b) their is subjective evil in the world

If you subscribe to a relativist viewpoint on morality then you cannot employ the problem of evil as an attack on the existence of god due to the fact that if you rely on a subjective view on morality you are relying on a subjective view of evil. In that case, you cannot say that this is evil or that is evil in such a way because it will be subjective. You can only use a subjective view of morality to prove or disprove a subjective view of God which therefore cannot be universally applied and is useless when talking about theology as a whole.

If you subscribe to the idea that there are objective evils in the world you are then also subscribing to the idea that there is an objective good. In what are you comparing our objectively evil world to if not some higher ideal of an objective good. An ideal and objective vision of good contrasted with what you percieve as evil naturally must lead to a set of objective moral truths that must be used to bring about this objective good that you are implicitly contrasting our allegedly evil world to.

I wanted to draw this distinction because those who use the problem of evil to dispute the existence of god, in my experience, also claim to be moral relativists when these two positions are incompatible.

Thoughts?
Words are wind.

A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 11:49:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 11:40:11 AM, Clovis wrote:
...universally dispute the existence of god without subscribing to a belief in moral absolutes.

We have two distinct options while looking at the problem of evil:
a) their is objective evil in the world
b) their is subjective evil in the world

If you subscribe to a relativist viewpoint on morality then you cannot employ the problem of evil as an attack on the existence of god due to the fact that if you rely on a subjective view on morality you are relying on a subjective view of evil. In that case, you cannot say that this is evil or that is evil in such a way because it will be subjective. You can only use a subjective view of morality to prove or disprove a subjective view of God which therefore cannot be universally applied and is useless when talking about theology as a whole.

If you subscribe to the idea that there are objective evils in the world you are then also subscribing to the idea that there is an objective good. In what are you comparing our objectively evil world to if not some higher ideal of an objective good. An ideal and objective vision of good contrasted with what you percieve as evil naturally must lead to a set of objective moral truths that must be used to bring about this objective good that you are implicitly contrasting our allegedly evil world to.

I wanted to draw this distinction because those who use the problem of evil to dispute the existence of god, in my experience, also claim to be moral relativists when these two positions are incompatible.

Thoughts?

I once presented the Problem of Evil once in reducio ad absurdum form:

A: God exists (assumption)
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. Evil does not exist (A&1)
4. Evil exists (A&3)
C. A entails a contradiction (3&4), therefore A is false

The difference here is one does not have to subscribe to objective morals or moral realism for the argument to become valid, as it only shows the notion of God is incoherent. I.e. by assuming the position of theism is correct (as defined in this case), then we end up with absurd consequences (a contradiction), thus theism must be incorrect.
Clovis
Posts: 191
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 11:54:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 11:49:32 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:40:11 AM, Clovis wrote:
...universally dispute the existence of god without subscribing to a belief in moral absolutes.

We have two distinct options while looking at the problem of evil:
a) their is objective evil in the world
b) their is subjective evil in the world

If you subscribe to a relativist viewpoint on morality then you cannot employ the problem of evil as an attack on the existence of god due to the fact that if you rely on a subjective view on morality you are relying on a subjective view of evil. In that case, you cannot say that this is evil or that is evil in such a way because it will be subjective. You can only use a subjective view of morality to prove or disprove a subjective view of God which therefore cannot be universally applied and is useless when talking about theology as a whole.

If you subscribe to the idea that there are objective evils in the world you are then also subscribing to the idea that there is an objective good. In what are you comparing our objectively evil world to if not some higher ideal of an objective good. An ideal and objective vision of good contrasted with what you percieve as evil naturally must lead to a set of objective moral truths that must be used to bring about this objective good that you are implicitly contrasting our allegedly evil world to.

I wanted to draw this distinction because those who use the problem of evil to dispute the existence of god, in my experience, also claim to be moral relativists when these two positions are incompatible.

Thoughts?

I once presented the Problem of Evil once in reducio ad absurdum form:

A: God exists (assumption)
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. Evil does not exist (A&1)
4. Evil exists (A&3)
C. A entails a contradiction (3&4), therefore A is false

The difference here is one does not have to subscribe to objective morals or moral realism for the argument to become valid, as it only shows the notion of God is incoherent. I.e. by assuming the position of theism is correct (as defined in this case), then we end up with absurd consequences (a contradiction), thus theism must be incorrect.

I was driving at a completely different notion. I was merely pointing out that one cannot fully employ the Problem of Evil without, by necessity, inherently believing in moral absolutes. A completely different point altogether. I was not making a point to gods existence or not but rather about those who employ a certain tactic while discussing this possibility.

As for what you laid out... I don't understand how premise 2. makes sense nor why it is a necessary premise.

Any argument can be structured to show a contradiction.

1. If I am a duck God exists.
2. If God exists I am not a duck.
3. God exists.
4. I am a duck. (1,3)
5. I am not a duck. (2,3)

We have derived a contradiction but that in no way means that the argument is sound. Similarly I don't understand why you claim your argument is sound.
Words are wind.

A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 11:58:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 11:40:11 AM, Clovis wrote:
...universally dispute the existence of god without subscribing to a belief in moral absolutes.

We have two distinct options while looking at the problem of evil:
a) their is objective evil in the world
b) their is subjective evil in the world

If you subscribe to a relativist viewpoint on morality then you cannot employ the problem of evil as an attack on the existence of god due to the fact that if you rely on a subjective view on morality you are relying on a subjective view of evil. In that case, you cannot say that this is evil or that is evil in such a way because it will be subjective. You can only use a subjective view of morality to prove or disprove a subjective view of God which therefore cannot be universally applied and is useless when talking about theology as a whole.

If you subscribe to the idea that there are objective evils in the world you are then also subscribing to the idea that there is an objective good. In what are you comparing our objectively evil world to if not some higher ideal of an objective good. An ideal and objective vision of good contrasted with what you percieve as evil naturally must lead to a set of objective moral truths that must be used to bring about this objective good that you are implicitly contrasting our allegedly evil world to.

I wanted to draw this distinction because those who use the problem of evil to dispute the existence of god, in my experience, also claim to be moral relativists when these two positions are incompatible.

Thoughts?

I don't know of any atheist who used the problem of evil to dispute God. But many use the problem of suffering to dispute God.
Is sex evil?...even the angels enjoyed it.
Is killing evil? ....even God committed mass murders.
Is stealing bad? ....even God stole Mary's virginity, stole Jesus's life.
We can go on.
Clovis
Posts: 191
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 12:00:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 11:58:18 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:40:11 AM, Clovis wrote:
...universally dispute the existence of god without subscribing to a belief in moral absolutes.

We have two distinct options while looking at the problem of evil:
a) their is objective evil in the world
b) their is subjective evil in the world

If you subscribe to a relativist viewpoint on morality then you cannot employ the problem of evil as an attack on the existence of god due to the fact that if you rely on a subjective view on morality you are relying on a subjective view of evil. In that case, you cannot say that this is evil or that is evil in such a way because it will be subjective. You can only use a subjective view of morality to prove or disprove a subjective view of God which therefore cannot be universally applied and is useless when talking about theology as a whole.

If you subscribe to the idea that there are objective evils in the world you are then also subscribing to the idea that there is an objective good. In what are you comparing our objectively evil world to if not some higher ideal of an objective good. An ideal and objective vision of good contrasted with what you percieve as evil naturally must lead to a set of objective moral truths that must be used to bring about this objective good that you are implicitly contrasting our allegedly evil world to.

I wanted to draw this distinction because those who use the problem of evil to dispute the existence of god, in my experience, also claim to be moral relativists when these two positions are incompatible.

Thoughts?

I don't know of any atheist who used the problem of evil to dispute God. But many use the problem of suffering to dispute God.
Is sex evil?...even the angels enjoyed it.
Is killing evil? ....even God committed mass murders.
Is stealing bad? ....even God stole Mary's virginity, stole Jesus's life.
We can go on.

I'm not sure what point you're driving at here.
Words are wind.

A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 12:03:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 11:54:23 AM, Clovis wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:49:32 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:40:11 AM, Clovis wrote:
...universally dispute the existence of god without subscribing to a belief in moral absolutes.

We have two distinct options while looking at the problem of evil:
a) their is objective evil in the world
b) their is subjective evil in the world

If you subscribe to a relativist viewpoint on morality then you cannot employ the problem of evil as an attack on the existence of god due to the fact that if you rely on a subjective view on morality you are relying on a subjective view of evil. In that case, you cannot say that this is evil or that is evil in such a way because it will be subjective. You can only use a subjective view of morality to prove or disprove a subjective view of God which therefore cannot be universally applied and is useless when talking about theology as a whole.

If you subscribe to the idea that there are objective evils in the world you are then also subscribing to the idea that there is an objective good. In what are you comparing our objectively evil world to if not some higher ideal of an objective good. An ideal and objective vision of good contrasted with what you percieve as evil naturally must lead to a set of objective moral truths that must be used to bring about this objective good that you are implicitly contrasting our allegedly evil world to.

I wanted to draw this distinction because those who use the problem of evil to dispute the existence of god, in my experience, also claim to be moral relativists when these two positions are incompatible.

Thoughts?

I once presented the Problem of Evil once in reducio ad absurdum form:

A: God exists (assumption)
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. Evil does not exist (A&1)
4. Evil exists (A&3)
C. A entails a contradiction (3&4), therefore A is false

The difference here is one does not have to subscribe to objective morals or moral realism for the argument to become valid, as it only shows the notion of God is incoherent. I.e. by assuming the position of theism is correct (as defined in this case), then we end up with absurd consequences (a contradiction), thus theism must be incorrect.

I was driving at a completely different notion. I was merely pointing out that one cannot fully employ the Problem of Evil without, by necessity, inherently believing in moral absolutes.

Not in the reducio I presented. In the reducio I can just assume the theist's position of morals (most of whom believe evil exists anyway), or refer to their own religion and argue that they believe evil exists within the context of their reoligion, which fulfils premise 2 of the reducio ad absurdum.

Evil doesn't have to exist within a secular context, and even I as a moral nihilist would coherently employ it, since it assumes the opponent's position to work.

A completely different point altogether. I was not making a point to gods existence or not but rather about those who employ a certain tactic while discussing this possibility.

Well the OP says:
"One Cannot Use the Problem of Evil To...universally dispute the existence of god without subscribing to a belief in moral absolutes. "

I have just shown how that this is false when employing the reducio.

As for what you laid out... I don't understand how premise 2. makes sense nor why it is a necessary premise.

Because it's a premise that is widely believed by believers. Remember, the point of this argument is to change the minds of theists. Given that many theists are already committed to the idea evil exists within their religious context (for example Christianity posits evil exists within both the OT and NT) it follows that this premise is valid.

If the Christian God exists, then we can make the argument that the Bible is essentially true, and thus evil exists. Arguments like that.

Any argument can be structured to show a contradiction.

1. If I am a duck God exists.
2. If God exists I am not a duck.
3. God exists.
4. I am a duck. (1,3)
5. I am not a duck. (2,3)

We have derived a contradiction but that in no way means that the argument is sound. Similarly I don't understand why you claim your argument is sound.

Premises require support. It's rather easy to support P1 and P2 of my reducio, good luck supporting P1 nd P2 of yours (yours isn't even logically valid).

A logically valid argument has it's conclusion follow necessarily from the premises if they are true. For many theists, P2 is true, and P1 is rather easily defended, thus the Problem of Evil is useful.
Clovis
Posts: 191
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 12:09:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 12:03:45 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:54:23 AM, Clovis wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:49:32 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:40:11 AM, Clovis wrote:
...universally dispute the existence of god without subscribing to a belief in moral absolutes.

We have two distinct options while looking at the problem of evil:
a) their is objective evil in the world
b) their is subjective evil in the world

If you subscribe to a relativist viewpoint on morality then you cannot employ the problem of evil as an attack on the existence of god due to the fact that if you rely on a subjective view on morality you are relying on a subjective view of evil. In that case, you cannot say that this is evil or that is evil in such a way because it will be subjective. You can only use a subjective view of morality to prove or disprove a subjective view of God which therefore cannot be universally applied and is useless when talking about theology as a whole.

If you subscribe to the idea that there are objective evils in the world you are then also subscribing to the idea that there is an objective good. In what are you comparing our objectively evil world to if not some higher ideal of an objective good. An ideal and objective vision of good contrasted with what you percieve as evil naturally must lead to a set of objective moral truths that must be used to bring about this objective good that you are implicitly contrasting our allegedly evil world to.

I wanted to draw this distinction because those who use the problem of evil to dispute the existence of god, in my experience, also claim to be moral relativists when these two positions are incompatible.

Thoughts?

I once presented the Problem of Evil once in reducio ad absurdum form:

A: God exists (assumption)
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. Evil does not exist (A&1)
4. Evil exists (A&3)
C. A entails a contradiction (3&4), therefore A is false

The difference here is one does not have to subscribe to objective morals or moral realism for the argument to become valid, as it only shows the notion of God is incoherent. I.e. by assuming the position of theism is correct (as defined in this case), then we end up with absurd consequences (a contradiction), thus theism must be incorrect.

I was driving at a completely different notion. I was merely pointing out that one cannot fully employ the Problem of Evil without, by necessity, inherently believing in moral absolutes.

Not in the reducio I presented. In the reducio I can just assume the theist's position of morals (most of whom believe evil exists anyway), or refer to their own religion and argue that they believe evil exists within the context of their reoligion, which fulfils premise 2 of the reducio ad absurdum.

Evil doesn't have to exist within a secular context, and even I as a moral nihilist would coherently employ it, since it assumes the opponent's position to work.

A completely different point altogether. I was not making a point to gods existence or not but rather about those who employ a certain tactic while discussing this possibility.

Well the OP says:
"One Cannot Use the Problem of Evil To...universally dispute the existence of god without subscribing to a belief in moral absolutes. "

I have just shown how that this is false when employing the reducio.

As for what you laid out... I don't understand how premise 2. makes sense nor why it is a necessary premise.

Because it's a premise that is widely believed by believers. Remember, the point of this argument is to change the minds of theists. Given that many theists are already committed to the idea evil exists within their religious context (for example Christianity posits evil exists within both the OT and NT) it follows that this premise is valid.

If the Christian God exists, then we can make the argument that the Bible is essentially true, and thus evil exists. Arguments like that.

Any argument can be structured to show a contradiction.

1. If I am a duck God exists.
2. If God exists I am not a duck.
3. God exists.
4. I am a duck. (1,3)
5. I am not a duck. (2,3)

We have derived a contradiction but that in no way means that the argument is sound. Similarly I don't understand why you claim your argument is sound.

Premises require support. It's rather easy to support P1 and P2 of my reducio, good luck supporting P1 nd P2 of yours (yours isn't even logically valid).

A logically valid argument has it's conclusion follow necessarily from the premises if they are true. For many theists, P2 is true, and P1 is rather easily defended, thus the Problem of Evil is useful.

Oh okay right I see what you mean now. Sorry, I brain farted on the structure of an ad absurdum argument for a moment.

In response though I would say that the premise that if God exists then evil cannot is the one that I personally would attack and is the one that is most easily refuted out of your original structure but I know what you're point is now.
Words are wind.

A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 12:13:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 12:09:04 PM, Clovis wrote:
At 1/9/2015 12:03:45 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:54:23 AM, Clovis wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:49:32 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:40:11 AM, Clovis wrote:
...universally dispute the existence of god without subscribing to a belief in moral absolutes.

We have two distinct options while looking at the problem of evil:
a) their is objective evil in the world
b) their is subjective evil in the world

If you subscribe to a relativist viewpoint on morality then you cannot employ the problem of evil as an attack on the existence of god due to the fact that if you rely on a subjective view on morality you are relying on a subjective view of evil. In that case, you cannot say that this is evil or that is evil in such a way because it will be subjective. You can only use a subjective view of morality to prove or disprove a subjective view of God which therefore cannot be universally applied and is useless when talking about theology as a whole.

If you subscribe to the idea that there are objective evils in the world you are then also subscribing to the idea that there is an objective good. In what are you comparing our objectively evil world to if not some higher ideal of an objective good. An ideal and objective vision of good contrasted with what you percieve as evil naturally must lead to a set of objective moral truths that must be used to bring about this objective good that you are implicitly contrasting our allegedly evil world to.

I wanted to draw this distinction because those who use the problem of evil to dispute the existence of god, in my experience, also claim to be moral relativists when these two positions are incompatible.

Thoughts?

I once presented the Problem of Evil once in reducio ad absurdum form:

A: God exists (assumption)
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. Evil does not exist (A&1)
4. Evil exists (A&3)
C. A entails a contradiction (3&4), therefore A is false

The difference here is one does not have to subscribe to objective morals or moral realism for the argument to become valid, as it only shows the notion of God is incoherent. I.e. by assuming the position of theism is correct (as defined in this case), then we end up with absurd consequences (a contradiction), thus theism must be incorrect.

I was driving at a completely different notion. I was merely pointing out that one cannot fully employ the Problem of Evil without, by necessity, inherently believing in moral absolutes.

Not in the reducio I presented. In the reducio I can just assume the theist's position of morals (most of whom believe evil exists anyway), or refer to their own religion and argue that they believe evil exists within the context of their reoligion, which fulfils premise 2 of the reducio ad absurdum.

Evil doesn't have to exist within a secular context, and even I as a moral nihilist would coherently employ it, since it assumes the opponent's position to work.

A completely different point altogether. I was not making a point to gods existence or not but rather about those who employ a certain tactic while discussing this possibility.

Well the OP says:
"One Cannot Use the Problem of Evil To...universally dispute the existence of god without subscribing to a belief in moral absolutes. "

I have just shown how that this is false when employing the reducio.

As for what you laid out... I don't understand how premise 2. makes sense nor why it is a necessary premise.

Because it's a premise that is widely believed by believers. Remember, the point of this argument is to change the minds of theists. Given that many theists are already committed to the idea evil exists within their religious context (for example Christianity posits evil exists within both the OT and NT) it follows that this premise is valid.

If the Christian God exists, then we can make the argument that the Bible is essentially true, and thus evil exists. Arguments like that.

Any argument can be structured to show a contradiction.

1. If I am a duck God exists.
2. If God exists I am not a duck.
3. God exists.
4. I am a duck. (1,3)
5. I am not a duck. (2,3)

We have derived a contradiction but that in no way means that the argument is sound. Similarly I don't understand why you claim your argument is sound.

Premises require support. It's rather easy to support P1 and P2 of my reducio, good luck supporting P1 nd P2 of yours (yours isn't even logically valid).

A logically valid argument has it's conclusion follow necessarily from the premises if they are true. For many theists, P2 is true, and P1 is rather easily defended, thus the Problem of Evil is useful.

Oh okay right I see what you mean now. Sorry, I brain farted on the structure of an ad absurdum argument for a moment.

In response though I would say that the premise that if God exists then evil cannot is the one that I personally would attack and is the one that is most easily refuted out of your original structure but I know what you're point is now.

Well, the structure of my argument is logically valid, so it can only be refuted by hitting the premises.

For me it's the other way around. It's easy to prove premise 1, but premise 2 is very conditional. I never use the 'traditional' problem of evil myself since I don't think evil is a coherent concept.
Clovis
Posts: 191
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 12:15:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 12:13:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/9/2015 12:09:04 PM, Clovis wrote:
At 1/9/2015 12:03:45 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:54:23 AM, Clovis wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:49:32 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:40:11 AM, Clovis wrote:
...universally dispute the existence of god without subscribing to a belief in moral absolutes.

We have two distinct options while looking at the problem of evil:
a) their is objective evil in the world
b) their is subjective evil in the world

If you subscribe to a relativist viewpoint on morality then you cannot employ the problem of evil as an attack on the existence of god due to the fact that if you rely on a subjective view on morality you are relying on a subjective view of evil. In that case, you cannot say that this is evil or that is evil in such a way because it will be subjective. You can only use a subjective view of morality to prove or disprove a subjective view of God which therefore cannot be universally applied and is useless when talking about theology as a whole.

If you subscribe to the idea that there are objective evils in the world you are then also subscribing to the idea that there is an objective good. In what are you comparing our objectively evil world to if not some higher ideal of an objective good. An ideal and objective vision of good contrasted with what you percieve as evil naturally must lead to a set of objective moral truths that must be used to bring about this objective good that you are implicitly contrasting our allegedly evil world to.

I wanted to draw this distinction because those who use the problem of evil to dispute the existence of god, in my experience, also claim to be moral relativists when these two positions are incompatible.

Thoughts?

I once presented the Problem of Evil once in reducio ad absurdum form:

A: God exists (assumption)
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. Evil does not exist (A&1)
4. Evil exists (A&3)
C. A entails a contradiction (3&4), therefore A is false

The difference here is one does not have to subscribe to objective morals or moral realism for the argument to become valid, as it only shows the notion of God is incoherent. I.e. by assuming the position of theism is correct (as defined in this case), then we end up with absurd consequences (a contradiction), thus theism must be incorrect.

I was driving at a completely different notion. I was merely pointing out that one cannot fully employ the Problem of Evil without, by necessity, inherently believing in moral absolutes.

Not in the reducio I presented. In the reducio I can just assume the theist's position of morals (most of whom believe evil exists anyway), or refer to their own religion and argue that they believe evil exists within the context of their reoligion, which fulfils premise 2 of the reducio ad absurdum.

Evil doesn't have to exist within a secular context, and even I as a moral nihilist would coherently employ it, since it assumes the opponent's position to work.

A completely different point altogether. I was not making a point to gods existence or not but rather about those who employ a certain tactic while discussing this possibility.

Well the OP says:
"One Cannot Use the Problem of Evil To...universally dispute the existence of god without subscribing to a belief in moral absolutes. "

I have just shown how that this is false when employing the reducio.

As for what you laid out... I don't understand how premise 2. makes sense nor why it is a necessary premise.

Because it's a premise that is widely believed by believers. Remember, the point of this argument is to change the minds of theists. Given that many theists are already committed to the idea evil exists within their religious context (for example Christianity posits evil exists within both the OT and NT) it follows that this premise is valid.

If the Christian God exists, then we can make the argument that the Bible is essentially true, and thus evil exists. Arguments like that.

Any argument can be structured to show a contradiction.

1. If I am a duck God exists.
2. If God exists I am not a duck.
3. God exists.
4. I am a duck. (1,3)
5. I am not a duck. (2,3)

We have derived a contradiction but that in no way means that the argument is sound. Similarly I don't understand why you claim your argument is sound.

Premises require support. It's rather easy to support P1 and P2 of my reducio, good luck supporting P1 nd P2 of yours (yours isn't even logically valid).

A logically valid argument has it's conclusion follow necessarily from the premises if they are true. For many theists, P2 is true, and P1 is rather easily defended, thus the Problem of Evil is useful.

Oh okay right I see what you mean now. Sorry, I brain farted on the structure of an ad absurdum argument for a moment.

In response though I would say that the premise that if God exists then evil cannot is the one that I personally would attack and is the one that is most easily refuted out of your original structure but I know what you're point is now.

Well, the structure of my argument is logically valid, so it can only be refuted by hitting the premises.

For me it's the other way around. It's easy to prove premise 1, but premise 2 is very conditional. I never use the 'traditional' problem of evil myself since I don't think evil is a coherent concept.

I don't know. There's nothing that says or supposes that for God to exist that there must not be any evil whatsoever. But I know the arguments that are made to support that premise in length so we don't need to get into them here.
Words are wind.

A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 12:33:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 11:40:11 AM, Clovis wrote:
...universally dispute the existence of god without subscribing to a belief in moral absolutes.

We have two distinct options while looking at the problem of evil:
a) their is objective evil in the world
b) their is subjective evil in the world

If you subscribe to a relativist viewpoint on morality then you cannot employ the problem of evil as an attack on the existence of god due to the fact that if you rely on a subjective view on morality you are relying on a subjective view of evil. In that case, you cannot say that this is evil or that is evil in such a way because it will be subjective. You can only use a subjective view of morality to prove or disprove a subjective view of God which therefore cannot be universally applied and is useless when talking about theology as a whole.

If you subscribe to the idea that there are objective evils in the world you are then also subscribing to the idea that there is an objective good. In what are you comparing our objectively evil world to if not some higher ideal of an objective good. An ideal and objective vision of good contrasted with what you percieve as evil naturally must lead to a set of objective moral truths that must be used to bring about this objective good that you are implicitly contrasting our allegedly evil world to.

I wanted to draw this distinction because those who use the problem of evil to dispute the existence of god, in my experience, also claim to be moral relativists when these two positions are incompatible.

Thoughts?

I think it's more about a tri omni God being able to exist. Not so much proof that no God exists.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 12:46:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 12:00:23 PM, Clovis wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:58:18 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:40:11 AM, Clovis wrote:
...universally dispute the existence of god without subscribing to a belief in moral absolutes.

We have two distinct options while looking at the problem of evil:
a) their is objective evil in the world
b) their is subjective evil in the world

If you subscribe to a relativist viewpoint on morality then you cannot employ the problem of evil as an attack on the existence of god due to the fact that if you rely on a subjective view on morality you are relying on a subjective view of evil. In that case, you cannot say that this is evil or that is evil in such a way because it will be subjective. You can only use a subjective view of morality to prove or disprove a subjective view of God which therefore cannot be universally applied and is useless when talking about theology as a whole.

If you subscribe to the idea that there are objective evils in the world you are then also subscribing to the idea that there is an objective good. In what are you comparing our objectively evil world to if not some higher ideal of an objective good. An ideal and objective vision of good contrasted with what you percieve as evil naturally must lead to a set of objective moral truths that must be used to bring about this objective good that you are implicitly contrasting our allegedly evil world to.

I wanted to draw this distinction because those who use the problem of evil to dispute the existence of god, in my experience, also claim to be moral relativists when these two positions are incompatible.

Thoughts?

I don't know of any atheist who used the problem of evil to dispute God. But many use the problem of suffering to dispute God.
Is sex evil?...even the angels enjoyed it.
Is killing evil? ....even God committed mass murders.
Is stealing bad? ....even God stole Mary's virginity, stole Jesus's life.
We can go on.

I'm not sure what point you're driving at here.

You missed my point.

The problem is not evil or morality subjective or objective that proves the existence of God. It is human suffering caused by natural forces out of their control that makes us question the existence of God and why he lets it happen. Natural disasters, diseases, deformities, droughts,, famine etc.etc.
It was believed if you broke Gods moral law you would die or had to be punished by death. That is no longer true . Gays,masturbators, adulterers and even blasphemers go on to live full and happy lives.
Even the Jews after killing Jesus/God are still around still creating mischief. Our notion of God is archaic and serves no useful purpose except to enslave us to beliefs that should be replace by reason and scientific objectivity.
Clovis
Posts: 191
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 12:47:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 12:46:29 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/9/2015 12:00:23 PM, Clovis wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:58:18 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:40:11 AM, Clovis wrote:
...universally dispute the existence of god without subscribing to a belief in moral absolutes.

We have two distinct options while looking at the problem of evil:
a) their is objective evil in the world
b) their is subjective evil in the world

If you subscribe to a relativist viewpoint on morality then you cannot employ the problem of evil as an attack on the existence of god due to the fact that if you rely on a subjective view on morality you are relying on a subjective view of evil. In that case, you cannot say that this is evil or that is evil in such a way because it will be subjective. You can only use a subjective view of morality to prove or disprove a subjective view of God which therefore cannot be universally applied and is useless when talking about theology as a whole.

If you subscribe to the idea that there are objective evils in the world you are then also subscribing to the idea that there is an objective good. In what are you comparing our objectively evil world to if not some higher ideal of an objective good. An ideal and objective vision of good contrasted with what you percieve as evil naturally must lead to a set of objective moral truths that must be used to bring about this objective good that you are implicitly contrasting our allegedly evil world to.

I wanted to draw this distinction because those who use the problem of evil to dispute the existence of god, in my experience, also claim to be moral relativists when these two positions are incompatible.

Thoughts?

I don't know of any atheist who used the problem of evil to dispute God. But many use the problem of suffering to dispute God.
Is sex evil?...even the angels enjoyed it.
Is killing evil? ....even God committed mass murders.
Is stealing bad? ....even God stole Mary's virginity, stole Jesus's life.
We can go on.

I'm not sure what point you're driving at here.

You missed my point.

The problem is not evil or morality subjective or objective that proves the existence of God. It is human suffering caused by natural forces out of their control that makes us question the existence of God and why he lets it happen. Natural disasters, diseases, deformities, droughts,, famine etc.etc.
It was believed if you broke Gods moral law you would die or had to be punished by death. That is no longer true . Gays,masturbators, adulterers and even blasphemers go on to live full and happy lives.
Even the Jews after killing Jesus/God are still around still creating mischief. Our notion of God is archaic and serves no useful purpose except to enslave us to beliefs that should be replace by reason and scientific objectivity.

That is the problem of suffering not the problem of evil.

A tsunami is not evil, though it does cause suffering. In my mind these are two separate issues.
Words are wind.

A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 1:07:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 12:47:51 PM, Clovis wrote:
At 1/9/2015 12:46:29 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/9/2015 12:00:23 PM, Clovis wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:58:18 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:40:11 AM, Clovis wrote:
...universally dispute the existence of god without subscribing to a belief in moral absolutes.

We have two distinct options while looking at the problem of evil:
a) their is objective evil in the world
b) their is subjective evil in the world

If you subscribe to a relativist viewpoint on morality then you cannot employ the problem of evil as an attack on the existence of god due to the fact that if you rely on a subjective view on morality you are relying on a subjective view of evil. In that case, you cannot say that this is evil or that is evil in such a way because it will be subjective. You can only use a subjective view of morality to prove or disprove a subjective view of God which therefore cannot be universally applied and is useless when talking about theology as a whole.

If you subscribe to the idea that there are objective evils in the world you are then also subscribing to the idea that there is an objective good. In what are you comparing our objectively evil world to if not some higher ideal of an objective good. An ideal and objective vision of good contrasted with what you percieve as evil naturally must lead to a set of objective moral truths that must be used to bring about this objective good that you are implicitly contrasting our allegedly evil world to.

I wanted to draw this distinction because those who use the problem of evil to dispute the existence of god, in my experience, also claim to be moral relativists when these two positions are incompatible.

Thoughts?

I don't know of any atheist who used the problem of evil to dispute God. But many use the problem of suffering to dispute God.
Is sex evil?...even the angels enjoyed it.
Is killing evil? ....even God committed mass murders.
Is stealing bad? ....even God stole Mary's virginity, stole Jesus's life.
We can go on.

I'm not sure what point you're driving at here.

You missed my point.

The problem is not evil or morality subjective or objective that proves the existence of God. It is human suffering caused by natural forces out of their control that makes us question the existence of God and why he lets it happen. Natural disasters, diseases, deformities, droughts,, famine etc.etc.
It was believed if you broke Gods moral law you would die or had to be punished by death. That is no longer true . Gays,masturbators, adulterers and even blasphemers go on to live full and happy lives.
Even the Jews after killing Jesus/God are still around still creating mischief. Our notion of God is archaic and serves no useful purpose except to enslave us to beliefs that should be replace by reason and scientific objectivity.

That is the problem of suffering not the problem of evil.

A tsunami is not evil, though it does cause suffering. In my mind these are two separate issues.
But that is the whole point. God wants to deal with morality and evil. Humans want to end suffering. That is why man has applied science, medicine, engineering, technology , education to improve his living conditions. God had very little to offer in those fields.
Mankind would have starved to death praying to God for fish..
Clovis
Posts: 191
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 1:10:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 1:07:29 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/9/2015 12:47:51 PM, Clovis wrote:
At 1/9/2015 12:46:29 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/9/2015 12:00:23 PM, Clovis wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:58:18 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:40:11 AM, Clovis wrote:
...universally dispute the existence of god without subscribing to a belief in moral absolutes.

We have two distinct options while looking at the problem of evil:
a) their is objective evil in the world
b) their is subjective evil in the world

If you subscribe to a relativist viewpoint on morality then you cannot employ the problem of evil as an attack on the existence of god due to the fact that if you rely on a subjective view on morality you are relying on a subjective view of evil. In that case, you cannot say that this is evil or that is evil in such a way because it will be subjective. You can only use a subjective view of morality to prove or disprove a subjective view of God which therefore cannot be universally applied and is useless when talking about theology as a whole.

If you subscribe to the idea that there are objective evils in the world you are then also subscribing to the idea that there is an objective good. In what are you comparing our objectively evil world to if not some higher ideal of an objective good. An ideal and objective vision of good contrasted with what you percieve as evil naturally must lead to a set of objective moral truths that must be used to bring about this objective good that you are implicitly contrasting our allegedly evil world to.

I wanted to draw this distinction because those who use the problem of evil to dispute the existence of god, in my experience, also claim to be moral relativists when these two positions are incompatible.

Thoughts?

I don't know of any atheist who used the problem of evil to dispute God. But many use the problem of suffering to dispute God.
Is sex evil?...even the angels enjoyed it.
Is killing evil? ....even God committed mass murders.
Is stealing bad? ....even God stole Mary's virginity, stole Jesus's life.
We can go on.

I'm not sure what point you're driving at here.

You missed my point.

The problem is not evil or morality subjective or objective that proves the existence of God. It is human suffering caused by natural forces out of their control that makes us question the existence of God and why he lets it happen. Natural disasters, diseases, deformities, droughts,, famine etc.etc.
It was believed if you broke Gods moral law you would die or had to be punished by death. That is no longer true . Gays,masturbators, adulterers and even blasphemers go on to live full and happy lives.
Even the Jews after killing Jesus/God are still around still creating mischief. Our notion of God is archaic and serves no useful purpose except to enslave us to beliefs that should be replace by reason and scientific objectivity.

That is the problem of suffering not the problem of evil.

A tsunami is not evil, though it does cause suffering. In my mind these are two separate issues.
But that is the whole point. God wants to deal with morality and evil. Humans want to end suffering. That is why man has applied science, medicine, engineering, technology , education to improve his living conditions. God had very little to offer in those fields.
Mankind would have starved to death praying to God for fish..

God never said sit around and do nothing and I'll give you a perfectly lovely existence...
Words are wind.

A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 1:39:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 1:10:45 PM, Clovis wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:07:29 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/9/2015 12:47:51 PM, Clovis wrote:
At 1/9/2015 12:46:29 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/9/2015 12:00:23 PM, Clovis wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:58:18 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:40:11 AM, Clovis wrote:
...universally dispute the existence of god without subscribing to a belief in moral absolutes.

We have two distinct options while looking at the problem of evil:
a) their is objective evil in the world
b) their is subjective evil in the world

If you subscribe to a relativist viewpoint on morality then you cannot employ the problem of evil as an attack on the existence of god due to the fact that if you rely on a subjective view on morality you are relying on a subjective view of evil. In that case, you cannot say that this is evil or that is evil in such a way because it will be subjective. You can only use a subjective view of morality to prove or disprove a subjective view of God which therefore cannot be universally applied and is useless when talking about theology as a whole.

If you subscribe to the idea that there are objective evils in the world you are then also subscribing to the idea that there is an objective good. In what are you comparing our objectively evil world to if not some higher ideal of an objective good. An ideal and objective vision of good contrasted with what you percieve as evil naturally must lead to a set of objective moral truths that must be used to bring about this objective good that you are implicitly contrasting our allegedly evil world to.

I wanted to draw this distinction because those who use the problem of evil to dispute the existence of god, in my experience, also claim to be moral relativists when these two positions are incompatible.

Thoughts?

I don't know of any atheist who used the problem of evil to dispute God. But many use the problem of suffering to dispute God.
Is sex evil?...even the angels enjoyed it.
Is killing evil? ....even God committed mass murders.
Is stealing bad? ....even God stole Mary's virginity, stole Jesus's life.
We can go on.

I'm not sure what point you're driving at here.

You missed my point.

The problem is not evil or morality subjective or objective that proves the existence of God. It is human suffering caused by natural forces out of their control that makes us question the existence of God and why he lets it happen. Natural disasters, diseases, deformities, droughts,, famine etc.etc.
It was believed if you broke Gods moral law you would die or had to be punished by death. That is no longer true . Gays,masturbators, adulterers and even blasphemers go on to live full and happy lives.
Even the Jews after killing Jesus/God are still around still creating mischief. Our notion of God is archaic and serves no useful purpose except to enslave us to beliefs that should be replace by reason and scientific objectivity.

That is the problem of suffering not the problem of evil.

A tsunami is not evil, though it does cause suffering. In my mind these are two separate issues.
But that is the whole point. God wants to deal with morality and evil. Humans want to end suffering. That is why man has applied science, medicine, engineering, technology , education to improve his living conditions. God had very little to offer in those fields.
Mankind would have starved to death praying to God for fish..

God never said sit around and do nothing and I'll give you a perfectly lovely existence...

You should read your bible.

Matthew 6:25 "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes?
26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?
27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life[e]?

28 "And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin.
29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you"you of little faith?
31 So do not worry, saying, "What shall we eat?" or "What shall we drink?" or "What shall we wear?"
32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them.
33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
Clovis
Posts: 191
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 1:41:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 1:39:03 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:10:45 PM, Clovis wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:07:29 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/9/2015 12:47:51 PM, Clovis wrote:
At 1/9/2015 12:46:29 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/9/2015 12:00:23 PM, Clovis wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:58:18 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:40:11 AM, Clovis wrote:
...universally dispute the existence of god without subscribing to a belief in moral absolutes.

We have two distinct options while looking at the problem of evil:
a) their is objective evil in the world
b) their is subjective evil in the world

If you subscribe to a relativist viewpoint on morality then you cannot employ the problem of evil as an attack on the existence of god due to the fact that if you rely on a subjective view on morality you are relying on a subjective view of evil. In that case, you cannot say that this is evil or that is evil in such a way because it will be subjective. You can only use a subjective view of morality to prove or disprove a subjective view of God which therefore cannot be universally applied and is useless when talking about theology as a whole.

If you subscribe to the idea that there are objective evils in the world you are then also subscribing to the idea that there is an objective good. In what are you comparing our objectively evil world to if not some higher ideal of an objective good. An ideal and objective vision of good contrasted with what you percieve as evil naturally must lead to a set of objective moral truths that must be used to bring about this objective good that you are implicitly contrasting our allegedly evil world to.

I wanted to draw this distinction because those who use the problem of evil to dispute the existence of god, in my experience, also claim to be moral relativists when these two positions are incompatible.

Thoughts?

I don't know of any atheist who used the problem of evil to dispute God. But many use the problem of suffering to dispute God.
Is sex evil?...even the angels enjoyed it.
Is killing evil? ....even God committed mass murders.
Is stealing bad? ....even God stole Mary's virginity, stole Jesus's life.
We can go on.

I'm not sure what point you're driving at here.

You missed my point.

The problem is not evil or morality subjective or objective that proves the existence of God. It is human suffering caused by natural forces out of their control that makes us question the existence of God and why he lets it happen. Natural disasters, diseases, deformities, droughts,, famine etc.etc.
It was believed if you broke Gods moral law you would die or had to be punished by death. That is no longer true . Gays,masturbators, adulterers and even blasphemers go on to live full and happy lives.
Even the Jews after killing Jesus/God are still around still creating mischief. Our notion of God is archaic and serves no useful purpose except to enslave us to beliefs that should be replace by reason and scientific objectivity.

That is the problem of suffering not the problem of evil.

A tsunami is not evil, though it does cause suffering. In my mind these are two separate issues.
But that is the whole point. God wants to deal with morality and evil. Humans want to end suffering. That is why man has applied science, medicine, engineering, technology , education to improve his living conditions. God had very little to offer in those fields.
Mankind would have starved to death praying to God for fish..

God never said sit around and do nothing and I'll give you a perfectly lovely existence...

You should read your bible.

Matthew 6:25 "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes?
26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?
27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life[e]?

28 "And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin.
29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you"you of little faith?
31 So do not worry, saying, "What shall we eat?" or "What shall we drink?" or "What shall we wear?"
32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them.
33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

Yes I am aware of these verses... It says that those who first seek the kingdom of god and reside in righteousness will be free from nakedness, hunger and worry. Which is something that is true.
Words are wind.

A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one.
Amoranemix
Posts: 521
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 2:20:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The PoE does not require objective morality to work. It only requires a claim of a very powerful, wise and benevolent deity.

Such a claim implies the existence of a moral standard. God cannot be benevolent without a moral standard and so 'God is benevolent' would be false because the attribute benevolence would be impossible.

Let us consider the subjective moral standard called Amoranemix' morality. That standard describes my feelings about what is right and wrong.

Let us now consider the claim God exists, where God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolent means having the unimpaired desire to adhere to Amoranemix' moral standard.

1. Evil exists.
(Things that Amoranemix feels bad about happen.)
2. God wants to prevent evil.
(Evil is wrong by definition and omnibenevolence implies desiring what is right and disliking what is wrong.)
3. God is able to prevent evil.
(God is omnipotent and omniscient.)
C. God does not exist.
(From P1, P2 and P3)

Envisage 2
A: God exists (assumption)
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. Evil does not exist (A&1)
4. Evil exists (A&3)
C. A entails a contradiction (3&4), therefore A is false
Why don't you simplify the argument to
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. God does not exist

Harikrish 4
I don't know of any atheist who used the problem of evil to dispute God. But many use the problem of suffering to dispute God.
The problem of suffering is a variation of the problem of evil.

Clovis 12
That is the problem of suffering not the problem of evil.
A tsunami is not evil, though it does cause suffering. In my mind these are two separate issues.
A tsunami is evil because it causes suffering and loss of life. However, a tsunami is not malevolent.
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
Clovis
Posts: 191
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 2:37:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 2:20:06 PM, Amoranemix wrote:
The PoE does not require objective morality to work. It only requires a claim of a very powerful, wise and benevolent deity.

Such a claim implies the existence of a moral standard. God cannot be benevolent without a moral standard and so 'God is benevolent' would be false because the attribute benevolence would be impossible.

Let us consider the subjective moral standard called Amoranemix' morality. That standard describes my feelings about what is right and wrong.

Let us now consider the claim God exists, where God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolent means having the unimpaired desire to adhere to Amoranemix' moral standard.

1. Evil exists.
(Things that Amoranemix feels bad about happen.)
2. God wants to prevent evil.
(Evil is wrong by definition and omnibenevolence implies desiring what is right and disliking what is wrong.)
3. God is able to prevent evil.
(God is omnipotent and omniscient.)
C. God does not exist.
(From P1, P2 and P3)

Envisage 2
A: God exists (assumption)
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. Evil does not exist (A&1)
4. Evil exists (A&3)
C. A entails a contradiction (3&4), therefore A is false
Why don't you simplify the argument to
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. God does not exist

Harikrish 4
I don't know of any atheist who used the problem of evil to dispute God. But many use the problem of suffering to dispute God.
The problem of suffering is a variation of the problem of evil.

Clovis 12
That is the problem of suffering not the problem of evil.
A tsunami is not evil, though it does cause suffering. In my mind these are two separate issues.
A tsunami is evil because it causes suffering and loss of life. However, a tsunami is not malevolent.

Definition of evil: profoundly immoral and malevolent.

A tsunami is neither immoral or malevolent. It just is.
Words are wind.

A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 2:42:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 2:20:06 PM, Amoranemix wrote:
The PoE does not require objective morality to work. It only requires a claim of a very powerful, wise and benevolent deity.

Such a claim implies the existence of a moral standard. God cannot be benevolent without a moral standard and so 'God is benevolent' would be false because the attribute benevolence would be impossible.

Let us consider the subjective moral standard called Amoranemix' morality. That standard describes my feelings about what is right and wrong.

Let us now consider the claim God exists, where God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolent means having the unimpaired desire to adhere to Amoranemix' moral standard.

1. Evil exists.
(Things that Amoranemix feels bad about happen.)
2. God wants to prevent evil.
(Evil is wrong by definition and omnibenevolence implies desiring what is right and disliking what is wrong.)
3. God is able to prevent evil.
(God is omnipotent and omniscient.)
C. God does not exist.
(From P1, P2 and P3)

I would argue that your subjective sense of evil is not the same as evil according to God, thus the two concepts of evil are different, and the argument becomes logically invalid. Since evil refers to two different concepts (equivocation).

Envisage 2
A: God exists (assumption)
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. Evil does not exist (A&1)
4. Evil exists (A&3)
C. A entails a contradiction (3&4), therefore A is false
Why don't you simplify the argument to
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. God does not exist

Can you stop grouping your replies and reply to me with the reply button. The people you dont press the reply button on don't get the notification that you have replied.

Mm... I don't know about simplifying it. The argument is no longer logically complete. I mean yes the conclusion is trivially obvious, but it seems like we are leaving the sentence incomplete.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 3:51:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 2:42:54 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:20:06 PM, Amoranemix wrote:
The PoE does not require objective morality to work. It only requires a claim of a very powerful, wise and benevolent deity.

Such a claim implies the existence of a moral standard. God cannot be benevolent without a moral standard and so 'God is benevolent' would be false because the attribute benevolence would be impossible.

Let us consider the subjective moral standard called Amoranemix' morality. That standard describes my feelings about what is right and wrong.

Let us now consider the claim God exists, where God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolent means having the unimpaired desire to adhere to Amoranemix' moral standard.

1. Evil exists.
(Things that Amoranemix feels bad about happen.)
2. God wants to prevent evil.
(Evil is wrong by definition and omnibenevolence implies desiring what is right and disliking what is wrong.)
3. God is able to prevent evil.
(God is omnipotent and omniscient.)
C. God does not exist.
(From P1, P2 and P3)

I would argue that your subjective sense of evil is not the same as evil according to God, thus the two concepts of evil are different, and the argument becomes logically invalid. Since evil refers to two different concepts (equivocation).

Envisage 2
A: God exists (assumption)
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. Evil does not exist (A&1)
4. Evil exists (A&3)
C. A entails a contradiction (3&4), therefore A is false
Why don't you simplify the argument to
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. God does not exist

Can you stop grouping your replies and reply to me with the reply button. The people you dont press the reply button on don't get the notification that you have replied.

Mm... I don't know about simplifying it. The argument is no longer logically complete. I mean yes the conclusion is trivially obvious, but it seems like we are leaving the sentence incomplete.

The law of non contridiction only applies if both p and not-p logically exist at the same time in the same sense.

2 and 3 don.t exist at the same time.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 3:56:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 3:51:50 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:42:54 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:20:06 PM, Amoranemix wrote:
The PoE does not require objective morality to work. It only requires a claim of a very powerful, wise and benevolent deity.

Such a claim implies the existence of a moral standard. God cannot be benevolent without a moral standard and so 'God is benevolent' would be false because the attribute benevolence would be impossible.

Let us consider the subjective moral standard called Amoranemix' morality. That standard describes my feelings about what is right and wrong.

Let us now consider the claim God exists, where God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolent means having the unimpaired desire to adhere to Amoranemix' moral standard.

1. Evil exists.
(Things that Amoranemix feels bad about happen.)
2. God wants to prevent evil.
(Evil is wrong by definition and omnibenevolence implies desiring what is right and disliking what is wrong.)
3. God is able to prevent evil.
(God is omnipotent and omniscient.)
C. God does not exist.
(From P1, P2 and P3)

I would argue that your subjective sense of evil is not the same as evil according to God, thus the two concepts of evil are different, and the argument becomes logically invalid. Since evil refers to two different concepts (equivocation).

Envisage 2
A: God exists (assumption)
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. Evil does not exist (A&1)
4. Evil exists (A&3)
C. A entails a contradiction (3&4), therefore A is false
Why don't you simplify the argument to
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. God does not exist

Can you stop grouping your replies and reply to me with the reply button. The people you dont press the reply button on don't get the notification that you have replied.

Mm... I don't know about simplifying it. The argument is no longer logically complete. I mean yes the conclusion is trivially obvious, but it seems like we are leaving the sentence incomplete.

The law of non contridiction only applies if both p and not-p logically exist at the same time in the same sense.

2 and 3 don.t exist at the same time.

They don't? You're saying God's omnibenevolence turns on and off like a switch? Because it seems pretty obvious that God's omnibenevolence is a blanket effect.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 3:58:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 3:51:50 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:42:54 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:20:06 PM, Amoranemix wrote:
The PoE does not require objective morality to work. It only requires a claim of a very powerful, wise and benevolent deity.

Such a claim implies the existence of a moral standard. God cannot be benevolent without a moral standard and so 'God is benevolent' would be false because the attribute benevolence would be impossible.

Let us consider the subjective moral standard called Amoranemix' morality. That standard describes my feelings about what is right and wrong.

Let us now consider the claim God exists, where God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolent means having the unimpaired desire to adhere to Amoranemix' moral standard.

1. Evil exists.
(Things that Amoranemix feels bad about happen.)
2. God wants to prevent evil.
(Evil is wrong by definition and omnibenevolence implies desiring what is right and disliking what is wrong.)
3. God is able to prevent evil.
(God is omnipotent and omniscient.)
C. God does not exist.
(From P1, P2 and P3)

I would argue that your subjective sense of evil is not the same as evil according to God, thus the two concepts of evil are different, and the argument becomes logically invalid. Since evil refers to two different concepts (equivocation).

Envisage 2
A: God exists (assumption)
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. Evil does not exist (A&1)
4. Evil exists (A&3)
C. A entails a contradiction (3&4), therefore A is false
Why don't you simplify the argument to
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. God does not exist

Can you stop grouping your replies and reply to me with the reply button. The people you dont press the reply button on don't get the notification that you have replied.

Mm... I don't know about simplifying it. The argument is no longer logically complete. I mean yes the conclusion is trivially obvious, but it seems like we are leaving the sentence incomplete.

The law of non contridiction only applies if both p and not-p logically exist at the same time in the same sense.

2 and 3 don.t exist at the same time.

I could also give the argument morally, which should make things clearer

1. If God exists, then instances of evil are impossible
2. If God exists, then instances of evil are possible

Affirm both premises the same way.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 4:19:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 3:58:51 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/9/2015 3:51:50 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:42:54 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:20:06 PM, Amoranemix wrote:
The PoE does not require objective morality to work. It only requires a claim of a very powerful, wise and benevolent deity.

Such a claim implies the existence of a moral standard. God cannot be benevolent without a moral standard and so 'God is benevolent' would be false because the attribute benevolence would be impossible.

Let us consider the subjective moral standard called Amoranemix' morality. That standard describes my feelings about what is right and wrong.

Let us now consider the claim God exists, where God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolent means having the unimpaired desire to adhere to Amoranemix' moral standard.

1. Evil exists.
(Things that Amoranemix feels bad about happen.)
2. God wants to prevent evil.
(Evil is wrong by definition and omnibenevolence implies desiring what is right and disliking what is wrong.)
3. God is able to prevent evil.
(God is omnipotent and omniscient.)
C. God does not exist.
(From P1, P2 and P3)

I would argue that your subjective sense of evil is not the same as evil according to God, thus the two concepts of evil are different, and the argument becomes logically invalid. Since evil refers to two different concepts (equivocation).

Envisage 2
A: God exists (assumption)
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. Evil does not exist (A&1)
4. Evil exists (A&3)
C. A entails a contradiction (3&4), therefore A is false
Why don't you simplify the argument to
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. God does not exist

Can you stop grouping your replies and reply to me with the reply button. The people you dont press the reply button on don't get the notification that you have replied.

Mm... I don't know about simplifying it. The argument is no longer logically complete. I mean yes the conclusion is trivially obvious, but it seems like we are leaving the sentence incomplete.

The law of non contridiction only applies if both p and not-p logically exist at the same time in the same sense.

2 and 3 don.t exist at the same time.

I could also give the argument morally, which should make things clearer

1. If God exists, then instances of evil are impossible
2. If God exists, then instances of evil are possible

Affirm both premises the same way.

For this argument to make sense and Not just rhetoric, i think you would have to show both p and not-p are contingent on God existing.

Or I could argue that evil or acts of evil are on a continous line from 0 to many and God's existence doesn't necessarily dictate where on that spectrum the level of evil will land.

Or I say good is doing God's will. Evil is the lack of doing God's will. And so evil is only prsent when there are free willed agents that can not do God's will. Leaving both premises possibly true. The conclusion evil not contingent on God but freewill agents.

If evil is not contingent on God's existence, then evil as a possibility does not certainly affirm or negate God.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 4:22:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 4:19:25 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/9/2015 3:58:51 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/9/2015 3:51:50 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:42:54 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:20:06 PM, Amoranemix wrote:
The PoE does not require objective morality to work. It only requires a claim of a very powerful, wise and benevolent deity.

Such a claim implies the existence of a moral standard. God cannot be benevolent without a moral standard and so 'God is benevolent' would be false because the attribute benevolence would be impossible.

Let us consider the subjective moral standard called Amoranemix' morality. That standard describes my feelings about what is right and wrong.

Let us now consider the claim God exists, where God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolent means having the unimpaired desire to adhere to Amoranemix' moral standard.

1. Evil exists.
(Things that Amoranemix feels bad about happen.)
2. God wants to prevent evil.
(Evil is wrong by definition and omnibenevolence implies desiring what is right and disliking what is wrong.)
3. God is able to prevent evil.
(God is omnipotent and omniscient.)
C. God does not exist.
(From P1, P2 and P3)

I would argue that your subjective sense of evil is not the same as evil according to God, thus the two concepts of evil are different, and the argument becomes logically invalid. Since evil refers to two different concepts (equivocation).

Envisage 2
A: God exists (assumption)
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. Evil does not exist (A&1)
4. Evil exists (A&3)
C. A entails a contradiction (3&4), therefore A is false
Why don't you simplify the argument to
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. God does not exist

Can you stop grouping your replies and reply to me with the reply button. The people you dont press the reply button on don't get the notification that you have replied.

Mm... I don't know about simplifying it. The argument is no longer logically complete. I mean yes the conclusion is trivially obvious, but it seems like we are leaving the sentence incomplete.

The law of non contridiction only applies if both p and not-p logically exist at the same time in the same sense.

2 and 3 don.t exist at the same time.

I could also give the argument morally, which should make things clearer

1. If God exists, then instances of evil are impossible
2. If God exists, then instances of evil are possible

Affirm both premises the same way.

For this argument to make sense and Not just rhetoric, i think you would have to show both p and not-p are contingent on God existing.

Or I could argue that evil or acts of evil are on a continous line from 0 to many and God's existence doesn't necessarily dictate where on that spectrum the level of evil will land.

Or I say good is doing God's will. Evil is the lack of doing God's will. And so evil is only prsent when there are free willed agents that can not do God's will. Leaving both premises possibly true. The conclusion evil not contingent on God but freewill agents.

If evil is not contingent on God's existence, then evil as a possibility does not certainly affirm or negate God.

I

Oops as defined the possibility of evil can only affirm God.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 4:30:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 4:19:25 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/9/2015 3:58:51 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/9/2015 3:51:50 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:42:54 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:20:06 PM, Amoranemix wrote:
The PoE does not require objective morality to work. It only requires a claim of a very powerful, wise and benevolent deity.

Such a claim implies the existence of a moral standard. God cannot be benevolent without a moral standard and so 'God is benevolent' would be false because the attribute benevolence would be impossible.

Let us consider the subjective moral standard called Amoranemix' morality. That standard describes my feelings about what is right and wrong.

Let us now consider the claim God exists, where God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolent means having the unimpaired desire to adhere to Amoranemix' moral standard.

1. Evil exists.
(Things that Amoranemix feels bad about happen.)
2. God wants to prevent evil.
(Evil is wrong by definition and omnibenevolence implies desiring what is right and disliking what is wrong.)
3. God is able to prevent evil.
(God is omnipotent and omniscient.)
C. God does not exist.
(From P1, P2 and P3)

I would argue that your subjective sense of evil is not the same as evil according to God, thus the two concepts of evil are different, and the argument becomes logically invalid. Since evil refers to two different concepts (equivocation).

Envisage 2
A: God exists (assumption)
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. Evil does not exist (A&1)
4. Evil exists (A&3)
C. A entails a contradiction (3&4), therefore A is false
Why don't you simplify the argument to
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. God does not exist

Can you stop grouping your replies and reply to me with the reply button. The people you dont press the reply button on don't get the notification that you have replied.

Mm... I don't know about simplifying it. The argument is no longer logically complete. I mean yes the conclusion is trivially obvious, but it seems like we are leaving the sentence incomplete.

The law of non contridiction only applies if both p and not-p logically exist at the same time in the same sense.

2 and 3 don.t exist at the same time.

I could also give the argument morally, which should make things clearer

1. If God exists, then instances of evil are impossible
2. If God exists, then instances of evil are possible

Affirm both premises the same way.

For this argument to make sense and Not just rhetoric, i think you would have to show both p and not-p are contingent on God existing.

No I don't. I only need to assume the theist's position to be true "okay, God exists, so now what?". While I contingency is a common fulfilment of a conditional, it's not necessary for one to be sound.

One such argument against a Christian might be:
1. The Christian God exists
2. Therefore the Bible is literally true
3. Therefore evil exists (according to the Bible)

Or I could argue that evil or acts of evil are on a continous line from 0 to many and God's existence doesn't necessarily dictate where on that spectrum the level of evil will land.

I would argue it would have to be zero (that's what impossibility entails...).

Or I say good is doing God's will. Evil is the lack of doing God's will. And so evil is only prsent when there are free willed agents that can not do God's will. Leaving both premises possibly true. The conclusion evil not contingent on God but freewill agents.

It's doesn't matter since premise 1 entails that evil is metaphysically impossible, thus there would be no evil regardless of what caused it.

If evil is not contingent on God's existence, then evil as a possibility does not certainly affirm or negate God.

Well, I was referring to metaohysical possibility. Since the theist (in the instances where the argument would apply) would already be committed to the notion that evil exists within their worldview, then it follows its metaphysically possible since there is at least 1 possible world where evil exists (this one).

Evil is only possible IF either God doesn't exist or the premise (if God exists, evil is impossible) is false. It's deductivly valid, so only the premises can be challenged here.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 4:56:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 4:30:59 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/9/2015 4:19:25 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/9/2015 3:58:51 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/9/2015 3:51:50 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:42:54 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:20:06 PM, Amoranemix wrote:
The PoE does not require objective morality to work. It only requires a claim of a very powerful, wise and benevolent deity.

Such a claim implies the existence of a moral standard. God cannot be benevolent without a moral standard and so 'God is benevolent' would be false because the attribute benevolence would be impossible.

Let us consider the subjective moral standard called Amoranemix' morality. That standard describes my feelings about what is right and wrong.

Let us now consider the claim God exists, where God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolent means having the unimpaired desire to adhere to Amoranemix' moral standard.

1. Evil exists.
(Things that Amoranemix feels bad about happen.)
2. God wants to prevent evil.
(Evil is wrong by definition and omnibenevolence implies desiring what is right and disliking what is wrong.)
3. God is able to prevent evil.
(God is omnipotent and omniscient.)
C. God does not exist.
(From P1, P2 and P3)

I would argue that your subjective sense of evil is not the same as evil according to God, thus the two concepts of evil are different, and the argument becomes logically invalid. Since evil refers to two different concepts (equivocation).

Envisage 2
A: God exists (assumption)
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. Evil does not exist (A&1)
4. Evil exists (A&3)
C. A entails a contradiction (3&4), therefore A is false
Why don't you simplify the argument to
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. God does not exist

Can you stop grouping your replies and reply to me with the reply button. The people you dont press the reply button on don't get the notification that you have replied.

Mm... I don't know about simplifying it. The argument is no longer logically complete. I mean yes the conclusion is trivially obvious, but it seems like we are leaving the sentence incomplete.

The law of non contridiction only applies if both p and not-p logically exist at the same time in the same sense.

2 and 3 don.t exist at the same time.

I could also give the argument morally, which should make things clearer

1. If God exists, then instances of evil are impossible
2. If God exists, then instances of evil are possible

Affirm both premises the same way.

For this argument to make sense and Not just rhetoric, i think you would have to show both p and not-p are contingent on God existing.

No I don't. I only need to assume the theist's position to be true "okay, God exists, so now what?". While I contingency is a common fulfilment of a conditional, it's not necessary for one to be sound.

One such argument against a Christian might be:
1. The Christian God exists
2. Therefore the Bible is literally true
3. Therefore evil exists (according to the Bible)

Or I could argue that evil or acts of evil are on a continous line from 0 to many and God's existence doesn't necessarily dictate where on that spectrum the level of evil will land.

I would argue it would have to be zero (that's what impossibility entails...).

Or I say good is doing God's will. Evil is the lack of doing God's will. And so evil is only prsent when there are free willed agents that can not do God's will. Leaving both premises possibly true. The conclusion evil not contingent on God but freewill agents.

It's doesn't matter since premise 1 entails that evil is metaphysically impossible, thus there would be no evil regardless of what caused it.

If evil is not contingent on God's existence, then evil as a possibility does not certainly affirm or negate God.

Well, I was referring to metaohysical possibility. Since the theist (in the instances where the argument would apply) would already be committed to the notion that evil exists within their worldview, then it follows its metaphysically possible since there is at least 1 possible world where evil exists (this one).

Evil is only possible IF either God doesn't exist or the premise (if God exists, evil is impossible) is false. It's deductivly valid, so only the premises can be challenged here.

Well the inferrences can be challenged. But as I defined evil. For the premise to be false would be an implicit 'no free will agents'

I could write a similiar argument

Bob exist
If bob exists, then impossible for shadows
If bob exists, then shadows
Shadows impossible
Shadows exist
Contridiction

Whats missing? Whether there is a light source or if bob is standing alone in a dark room.

Whether or not bob exists can not be seen from the presence of shadows or not.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 6:10:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 4:30:59 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/9/2015 4:19:25 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/9/2015 3:58:51 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/9/2015 3:51:50 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:42:54 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:20:06 PM, Amoranemix wrote:
The PoE does not require objective morality to work. It only requires a claim of a very powerful, wise and benevolent deity.

Such a claim implies the existence of a moral standard. God cannot be benevolent without a moral standard and so 'God is benevolent' would be false because the attribute benevolence would be impossible.

Let us consider the subjective moral standard called Amoranemix' morality. That standard describes my feelings about what is right and wrong.

Let us now consider the claim God exists, where God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolent means having the unimpaired desire to adhere to Amoranemix' moral standard.

1. Evil exists.
(Things that Amoranemix feels bad about happen.)
2. God wants to prevent evil.
(Evil is wrong by definition and omnibenevolence implies desiring what is right and disliking what is wrong.)
3. God is able to prevent evil.
(God is omnipotent and omniscient.)
C. God does not exist.
(From P1, P2 and P3)

I would argue that your subjective sense of evil is not the same as evil according to God, thus the two concepts of evil are different, and the argument becomes logically invalid. Since evil refers to two different concepts (equivocation).

Envisage 2
A: God exists (assumption)
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. Evil does not exist (A&1)
4. Evil exists (A&3)
C. A entails a contradiction (3&4), therefore A is false
Why don't you simplify the argument to
1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
3. God does not exist

Can you stop grouping your replies and reply to me with the reply button. The people you dont press the reply button on don't get the notification that you have replied.

Mm... I don't know about simplifying it. The argument is no longer logically complete. I mean yes the conclusion is trivially obvious, but it seems like we are leaving the sentence incomplete.

The law of non contridiction only applies if both p and not-p logically exist at the same time in the same sense.

2 and 3 don.t exist at the same time.

I could also give the argument morally, which should make things clearer

1. If God exists, then instances of evil are impossible
2. If God exists, then instances of evil are possible

Affirm both premises the same way.

For this argument to make sense and Not just rhetoric, i think you would have to show both p and not-p are contingent on God existing.

No I don't. I only need to assume the theist's position to be true "okay, God exists, so now what?". While I contingency is a common fulfilment of a conditional, it's not necessary for one to be sound.

One such argument against a Christian might be:
1. The Christian God exists
2. Therefore the Bible is literally true
3. Therefore evil exists (according to the Bible)

Or I could argue that evil or acts of evil are on a continous line from 0 to many and God's existence doesn't necessarily dictate where on that spectrum the level of evil will land.

I would argue it would have to be zero (that's what impossibility entails...).

Or I say good is doing God's will. Evil is the lack of doing God's will. And so evil is only prsent when there are free willed agents that can not do God's will. Leaving both premises possibly true. The conclusion evil not contingent on God but freewill agents.

It's doesn't matter since premise 1 entails that evil is metaphysically impossible, thus there would be no evil regardless of what caused it.

If evil is not contingent on God's existence, then evil as a possibility does not certainly affirm or negate God.

Well, I was referring to metaohysical possibility. Since the theist (in the instances where the argument would apply) would already be committed to the notion that evil exists within their worldview, then it follows its metaphysically possible since there is at least 1 possible world where evil exists (this one).

Evil is only possible IF either God doesn't exist or the premise (if God exists, evil is impossible) is false. It's deductivly valid, so only the premises can be challenged here.

Affirming the consequent
Main article: Affirming the consequent

Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur

If A is true, then B is true.
B is true.
Therefore, A is true.

Even if the premises and conclusion are all true, the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premises. This sort of non sequitur is also called affirming the consequent.

Two affirming the consequence premises with opposite conclusions does not make a contradiction. It makes a bad argument.

Envisage 2
A: God exists (assumption)

1. If God Exists, then Evil cannot exist
If A true, then B true

2. If God Exists, then Evil exists
If A true, then B1 true

3. Evil does not exist (A&1)
B true

4. Evil exists (A&3)
B1 true

C. A entails a contradiction (3&4), therefore A is false
It does not matter if I say either B or B1 is true, it makes A true. But wait B and B1 are contradictions, so A is not true.

Actually that means A is true not matter what.

And no premise supports that "Evil existing with God" is mutually exclusive with "Evil not existing with God."
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 6:42:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If God exist then evil should not exist.
But evil exists.
So God must allow evil to exist.

Satan rewards man for being evil.
God punishes man for being evil.
Evil benefits man.

Jesus resisted Satan.
Jesus was. crucified.
Satan triumphed over Jesus.

We have survived 2000 years without Jesus with Satan in charge. How great is that!!!?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 7:01:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 6:42:19 PM, Harikrish wrote:
If God exist then evil should not exist.

How is that? It has been explained by hundreds before me. I'll start with defining the words. Good: is doing god's will. Evil: is the lack of doing God's will Evil comes from agents that are able to choose differently than God's will. This means if God exists, and free agents exist, then Evil is possible to exist.

You have to support what about God makes it necessary that evil not exist.

But evil exists.
So God must allow evil to exist.


Yeah heaven forbid our actions have no consequences. Free to do anything does not mean all things done are beneficial.

Satan rewards man for being evil.

Where do you get that? What religion are these arguments coming from or to? Because I don't see Satan rewarding people for evil anywhere in the bible.

Did you get that from a Sunday morning cartoon?

God punishes man for being evil.

Does he? Where do you get that? is the punishment in this life? I thought you were talking about the judo-christian God, but your remarks are nothing like the God from what the bible expresses.

Evil benefits man.

Do the rewards of Satan, outweigh the cost of punishment from God? Oh Oh yeah you are getting this God, Satan, Evil concept from that T.V. Show Supernatural where humans tortured in Hell can become Demon lords of Hell.


Jesus resisted Satan.
Jesus was. crucified.
Satan triumphed over Jesus.

The resurrection was Jesus victory over Death. Satan has been trying to destroy the savior since the days of Noah. And yet when Jesus was crucified it open the way for Jesus to be in the heart of every believer.

If you think turning your one enemy into a couple billion is a victory. I question your knowledge of conventional battle strategies.

We have survived 2000 years without Jesus with Satan in charge. How great is that!!!?

Satan is in charge of what? you! I agree Atheist say there is no god but we all know their father is the father of lies.