Argument From Incredulity

[Chesterton]

IMO, the only strong argument against the Christian God is the problem of evil. But isn't it a fallacious argument from incredulity?

1. Given the nature of the world, I cannot imagine how a good and all-powerful God could possibly be true;

2. Therefore, there is no good and all-powerful God.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

It basically is, I dont think its a particulary good arguement personally.
But for theists the problem of evil seems to really bother them. Which is interesting since it seems to go rather well with the "I cannot imagine how evolution could work" which some of them seem to think is a good arguement.

I am not sure why that is. I suppose it has to do with people caring more for how they feel then what is reasonable.
"I do not feel right about evil while god is meant to be all good." Is what i imagine is going through their minds.

 

[quatona]

IMO, the only strong argument against the Christian God is the problem of evil.

Actually, I´d rather expect there to be good arguments for a certain god. Even if there were no single strong argument against a certain god this would not make a case for this god´s existence.

But isn't it a fallacious argument from incredulity?

1. Given the nature of the world, I cannot imagine how a good and all-powerful God could possibly be true;

The operational phrase is not "I cannot imagine".
It´s rather: An omnibenevolent (good) and powerful god can logically not exist if we apply any known and/or proper definition of "omnibenevolent (good)".
Of course, you can have "god" and "good" mutually define each other...but that wouldn´t a proper definition make - but merely be a tautology.

2. Therefore, there is no good and all-powerful God.

Ok. You define "omnibenevolent (good)" in the way it is meant in "God is omnibenevolent (good)", and I would at least have a reason to even start considering the claim.

 

[SithDoughnut]

IMO, the only strong argument against the Christian God is the problem of evil. But isn't it a fallacious argument from incredulity?

1. Given the nature of the world, I cannot imagine how a good and all-powerful God could possibly be true;

2. Therefore, there is no good and all-powerful God.

You think this argument is strong? I think it's incredibly weak, because it merely discusses one characteristic of God, not his existence. Given that the Christian God isn't even necessarily all-powerful, and that the idea of 'good' is often given criteria based upon God, it's not even an argument against that specific god.

I find that the strongest argument is the lack of evidence. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's the only argument that actually means anything, because all the logical arguments work on assumed definitions of God that may or may not be true.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I agree with Sith that the lack of evidence is the strongest argument.

I disagree, however, with the idea that the PoE is an argument from incredulity or that tit is "incredibly weak."

The original problem of evil was formulated by Epicurus some 200 years before Christ--before, AFAIK, the west ever heard of Yahweh. (I suppose it is possible that some Greeks had heard of him through conquest.) It has been discussed and debated ever since.

The problem is important enough that when Plantinga's Free Will defense (which he avers is NOT a theodicy) was heralded as THE solution. And, it seems that every time the PoE arises a theist pops in to mention the FWD.

The reason the PoE is not weak is that it presents trilemma: either God is not all-powerful or not good or there is an explanation how he can be both while evil exists. In the absence of an explanation, to paraphrase Epicurus: If he is not good, why worship him; If not all-powerful, why call him god?

If you accept Plantinga and his cohort, then you might still believe. If you think those arguments suck (transworld depravity? really?), then you are left with nothing to worship.

If then you cannot believe the explanations, I don't think you are guilty of "incredulity" if the arguments actually suck. One is not required to accept any ol' argument.

If you think that no explanation is possible, then perhaps you are guilty of incredulity. But, if after 2300 years of argumentation there does not seem to be an answer, is one not justified in dismissing the likelihood? (One may raise the problem of induction here, but I don't think it applies. The PoI applies to certainty and not to justifiability, IMHO.)

Now if this the only nail holding down the lid of the coffin for your belief, it may pop off. In my case, I used a lot of nails and the PoE wasn't one of them.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Why does a god have to be all-powerful? The idea of an all-powerful being appears to be a relatively new idea, considering that the ancient gods were limited in their abilities. This is my problem with such an argument, because it assumes a definition of God that has not been proven.

 

[tucker58]

IMO, the only strong argument against the Christian God is the problem of evil. But isn't it a fallacious argument from incredulity?

1. Given the nature of the world, I cannot imagine how a good and all-powerful God could possibly be true;

2. Therefore, there is no good and all-powerful God.

The problem Chesterton is that God is slow to wrath. So slow in fact that one begins to wonder if He is even there any more . He is like this message board's management, they are slow to wrath but the day is coming when they are going to clean house ! And it is going to be interesting to see who is left.

love,

tuck

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

The problem Chesterton is that God is slow to wrath. So slow in fact that one begins to wonder if He is even there any more . He is like this message board's management, they are slow to wrath but the day is coming when they are going to clean house ! And it is going to be interesting to see who is left.

love,

tuck

Originally I was gonna object but.. Well done.

Thinking about this I actually really like this analogy. Regardless of what the management does here no matter how wrong it is or how much we disagree with it, its their right to do whatever the heck they want with their board. Same with god and his universe.

Difference is I suppose that the community is free to up and leave if they get tired of the managements behaviour. While there is no escaping the universe.

Though you could say hell is an escape from gods universe but I think taking the analogy so far that Hell has become everything outside of CF we are making hell look alot more appealing then we should be comfortable with?

With regards to wrath.. I too wonder who will be left, more so I think that it may not be the powers that be that remove those that have gone but rather the population refusing to put up with that powers wrath and deciding to leave their area of influence.

 

[quatona]

Why does a god have to be all-powerful?

Why does a god have to be anything?

The idea of an all-powerful being appears to be a relatively new idea, considering that the ancient gods were limited in their abilities.

Yes, all god concepts need to be approached individually, but this particular argument happens to deal with the concept of an omnipotent god (and does not affect other god concepts).

This is my problem with such an argument, because it assumes a definition of God that has not been proven.

Err...which definition of god has been proven again?
(Actually, I don´t even seem to understand what "proving a definition" might possibly mean.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Why does a god have to be anything?

Yes, all god concepts need to be approached individually, but this particular argument happens to deal with the concept of an omnipotent god (and does not affect other god concepts).

Which merely demonstrates that a god cannot be omnipotent and omnibenevolent at the same time, not that the god in question does not exist.

More importantly, the OP specifies the Christian God, who is not omnipotent (being limited by his nature and so on), so the argument doesn't even apply.

Err...which definition of god has been proven again?
(Actually, I don´t even seem to understand what "proving a definition" might possibly mean.

If you're going to attempt to disprove God, then you need to define him, and demonstrate that the definition is correct.

 

[sandwiches]

Which merely demonstrates that a god cannot be omnipotent and omnibenevolent at the same time, not that the god in question does not exist.

More importantly, the OP specifies the Christian God, who is not omnipotent (being limited by his nature and so on), so the argument doesn't even apply.

If you're going to attempt to disprove God, then you need to define him, and demonstrate that the definition is correct.

I think that's the key. If you don't think omnipotence is necessary for Godhood, what is, exactly?`

 

[Lord Emsworth]

IMO, the only strong argument against the Christian God is the problem of evil. But isn't it a fallacious argument from incredulity?

1. Given the nature of the world, I cannot imagine how a good and all-powerful God could possibly be true;

2. Therefore, there is no good and all-powerful God.

Firstly:

The problem of evil is an internal critique that seeks to show a contradiction between certain tenets of a given God, religion, or so. For instance:
Religion A says such-and-such and the Gof of religion A is X, Y and Z.
Such and such, and X, Y, Z entail contradictions because of this-and-that.
Therefore, something is amiss about religion A/religion A's God.

The PoE does not, and must not look towards "the nature of the world" in and of itself. It has to deal with statements by a given religion about "the nature of the world."


Secondly:

You can only have an argument from incredulity if certain meaningful propositions are being denied because, and simply because, of incredulity. Actually showing that certain statements do entail contradictions based on, say, logic, is not the same as denying something simply because of incredulity.


And lastly:

This is not to say that the PoE is a successful or an unsuccessful internal critique of course, but just that, if done properly, the PoE would be an internal critique.

 

[variant]

IMO, the only strong argument against the Christian God is the problem of evil. But isn't it a fallacious argument from incredulity?

1. Given the nature of the world, I cannot imagine how a good and all-powerful God could possibly be true;

2. Therefore, there is no good and all-powerful God.

For the Christian theist, all good aspects of the world in their eyes are attributed to God.

For constancies sake it gives us the question of evil, and why there is so much of it.

Christianity would have us believe that people create all the evil in the world, but that is fairly unsupported and thus you have the problem of evil.

Even your own religion has had difficulties fleshing this one out. If one reads the book of Job we see a rather problematic tale of a man who is essentially the victim of God trying to prove a point, essentially letting the Devil torture a man to test his faith.

What is the point of tortureing a faithful man to prove a point? Dosen't make much sense, so why do the faithful get so much evil done to them?

 

[quatona]

Which merely demonstrates that a god cannot be omnipotent and omnibenevolent at the same time, not that the god in question does not exist.

Yes, it demonstrates that the god in question (omnibenevolent and omnipotent) doesn´t exist. And, as far as I can tell, that´s all it´s meant to demonstrate.

More importantly, the OP specifies the Christian God, who is not omnipotent (being limited by his nature and so on), so the argument doesn't even apply.

Which doesn´t keep certain Christians from claiming god to be omnipotent.
On another note, the OP specifies the Christian God, who is not omnibenevolent (having created evil and so on).

If you're going to attempt to disprove God, then you need to define him, and demonstrate that the definition is correct.

"Disproving God" (in view of the - even within Christianity - multiple and partly even contradictory god concepts out there) would be a pointless endeavour, in the first place. All you can possibly do is disprove a certain god concept (as defined by those who hold it).
It´s not my problem that believers cannot prove that their definitions of god are correct.

 

[Greg1234]

IMO, the only strong argument against the Christian God is the problem of evil.

Its not really much of an argument. Even the most basic understanding of text defeats this.

 

[sandwiches]

Its not really much of an argument. Even the most basic understanding of text defeats this.

How does the counter argument go?

 

[Eudaimonist]

IMO, the only strong argument against the Christian God is the problem of evil. But isn't it a fallacious argument from incredulity?

LOL! IMO, the weakest of all atheist arguments is the problem of evil.


eudaimonia,

Makr

 

[SithDoughnut]

I think that's the key. If you don't think omnipotence is necessary for Godhood, what is, exactly?`

No idea. Someone has to define the term to start with. Perhaps the status of having created everything?

This is all just semantics though. Should God exist, and we define him as not a god because he isn't omnipotent, then that doesn't actually change anything. God doesn't suddenly not exist because we choose not to call him God.

 

[sandwiches]

No idea. Someone has to define the term to start with. Perhaps the status of having created everything?

This is all just semantics though. Should God exist, and we define him as not a god because he isn't omnipotent, then that doesn't actually change anything. God doesn't suddenly not exist because we choose not to call him God.

That doesn't make any sense. It's like saying just because we don't know the definition of the word 'hijsahu,' doesn't mean that the hijsahu doesn't exist.

If something which fits the definition of 'God' doesn't exist, then God doesn't exist. So, again, before we can say whether or not can exist, we have to define what God is. The definition is EXTREMELY important. If not, we're going to do what AoS does who claims that the planets are gods.

 

[quatona]

No idea. Someone has to define the term to start with. Perhaps the status of having created everything?

This is all just semantics though.

Why "just"? I think it is essential that we have an idea what the keywords of a certain claim are meant to communicate. Else any conversation is pointless.

Should God exist, and we define him as not a god because he isn't omnipotent, then that doesn't actually change anything.

Indeed. If God were but a teapot and didn´t match any of the popular definitions of "God" that are out there, God would still exist.

God doesn't suddenly not exist because we choose not to call him God.

Yes, and God wouldn´t cease to be omnipotent and/or omnibenevolent just because we choose to define these terms in a way that would not render him not omnipotent and/or omnibenevolent.
If the word "God" can mean anything anything I wouldn´t even be willing to use it. That´s why I insist that, at best, we can discuss god concepts. That´s what the argument in question does quite fine.