Problem of Evil Argument Conclusion versus a "lack of belief".

[Joshua260]

Unfortunately, I side-tracked a thread (sorry...I honestly didn't mean to) and it may have been one of the reasons it got closed. I was only asking a quick question, but I guess I hit a nerve and many atheists wanted to engage me. Therefore, I thought I would start a separate thread which interested parties could respond to.

So I'd like to define several possible gods:
God A: omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
God B: not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
God C: omnipotent, not omniscient, and omnibenevolent
God D: omnipotent, omniscient, and not omnibenevolent

So below is the problem of evil argument:

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

It seems to me that the argument is specifically concluding that God A does not exist.

Question 1: Do you believe that the above argument is sound?

Question 2: If answer to #1 is "yes", then do you profess to know that God A does not exist or do you simply believe that God A does not exist?

edit: I had to correct my OP since growingsmaller so kindly pointed out that I used the wrong language. Therefore I changed Q1 from "valid" to "sound" in accordance with the below:

A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.

 

[seekingsolace]

How can empirical knowledge constitute the unknown?

 

[Colter]

Unfortunately, I side-tracked a thread (sorry...I honestly didn't mean to) and it may have been one of the reasons it got closed. I was only asking a quick question, but I guess I hit a nerve and many atheists wanted to engage me. Therefore, I thought I would start a separate thread which interested parties could respond to.

So I'd like to define several possible gods:
God A: omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
God B: not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
God C: omnipotent, not omniscient, and omnibenevolent
God D: omnipotent, omniscient, and not omnibenevolent

So below is the problem of evil argument:

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

It seems to me that the argument is specifically concluding that God A does not exist.

Question 1: Do you believe that the above argument is valid?

Question 2: If answer to #1 is "yes", then do you profess to know that God A does not exist or do you simply believe that God A does not exist?

No, I do not believe the argument is valid. As finite minds in time and space we wouldn't know what goodness is if not contrasted with the potential for imperfection in a universe in motion on an experiential, evolutionary world.

 

[True Scotsman]

Unfortunately, I side-tracked a thread (sorry...I honestly didn't mean to) and it may have been one of the reasons it got closed. I was only asking a quick question, but I guess I hit a nerve and many atheists wanted to engage me. Therefore, I thought I would start a separate thread which interested parties could respond to.

So I'd like to define several possible gods:
God A: omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
God B: not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
God C: omnipotent, not omniscient, and omnibenevolent
God D: omnipotent, omniscient, and not omnibenevolent

So below is the problem of evil argument:

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

It seems to me that the argument is specifically concluding that God A does not exist.

Question 1: Do you believe that the above argument is valid?

Question 2: If answer to #1 is "yes", then do you profess to know that God A does not exist or do you simply believe that God A does not exist?

To believe something is to accept that it is true, i.e. corresponds to reality. Knowledge consists of non-contradictory, objectively identified facts of reality. So yes if I believe something then I also know it. I do think this argument is valid and sound.

 

[seekingsolace]

I am blind, I know this because I observe it, thus all are blind.

 

[True Scotsman]

I am blind, I know this because I observe it, thus all are blind.

This is a contradiction in terms. If you are blind how do you observe anything. This statement commits the fallacy of the stolen concept also. And, how does it follow that because you are blind all are? I am not blind.

 

[seekingsolace]

if I am blind, I observe I can not see, thus the truth I know is that I cannot see, not that others can. Knowledge is not observation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Unfortunately, I side-tracked a thread (sorry...I honestly didn't mean to) and it may have been one of the reasons it got closed. I was only asking a quick question, but I guess I hit a nerve and many atheists wanted to engage me. Therefore, I thought I would start a separate thread which interested parties could respond to.

So I'd like to define several possible gods:
God A: omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
God B: not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
God C: omnipotent, not omniscient, and omnibenevolent
God D: omnipotent, omniscient, and not omnibenevolent

So below is the problem of evil argument:

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

It seems to me that the argument is specifically concluding that God A does not exist.

Question 1: Do you believe that the above argument is valid?

Question 2: If answer to #1 is "yes", then do you profess to know that God A does not exist or do you simply believe that God A does not exist?

Hi Joshua,

In short, the problem with your presentation of 'possibilities' is that the options you delineate (however clearly) do not represent the primary quality/attribute/characteristic of the Judeo-Christian God.

In fact, it isn't even the attribution of Agape Love that makes God who He is. It is the quality of His being ***HOLY*** that is of prime importance,...and everyone seems to completely ignore this single proposition when cogitating about God's existence and goodness. To which I say, we all better get a firm understanding of it, and soon. (I have Psalm 2 in mind here.)

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[True Scotsman]

if I am blind, I observe I can not see, thus the truth I know is that I cannot see, not that others can. Knowledge is not observation.

This is still self contradictory. How do you observe that you are blind if you are blind? Knowledge begins with observation. It is the job of the conceptual faculty to identify and integrate the observations.

 

[seekingsolace]

This is still self contradictory. How do you observe that you are blind if you are blind? Knowledge begins with observation. It is the job of the conceptual faculty to identify and integrate the observations.

How do you observe you are clinically retarded if you are clinically retarded? Where does spiritual knowledge come from physical?

 

[True Scotsman]

How do you observe you are clinically retarded if you are clinically retarded?

I don't know that you could. I don't know how much a clinically retarded person is capable of conceptualizing.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Unfortunately, I side-tracked a thread (sorry...I honestly didn't mean to) and it may have been one of the reasons it got closed. I was only asking a quick question, but I guess I hit a nerve and many atheists wanted to engage me. Therefore, I thought I would start a separate thread which interested parties could respond to.

Hi. Sure.

So I'd like to define several possible gods:

Oh boy, I hope you do Olodumare.

God A: omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent

Uh. I doubt anyone can be omnibenevolent. I'm actually gonna look that word up because I'm not sure it's even a word. Okay so it is, and yes that's illogical. Omniscient is also illogical.

God B: not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent

Nope.

God C: omnipotent, not omniscient, and omnibenevolent

Nope.

God D: omnipotent, omniscient, and not omnibenevolent

Nope.

So below is the problem of evil argument:

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

It seems to me that the argument is specifically concluding that God A does not exist.

I mean it's not an all around smackdown.

Question 1: Do you believe that the above argument is valid?

Well yes. And then some. But it's only an argument against a supposed "all-loving" God. It's just another nail in the coffin if you will.

Question 2: If answer to #1 is "yes", then do you profess to know that God A does not exist or do you simply believe that God A does not exist?

I'm not gnostic and I do not even want to have that discussion again.

All these gods are unproven and not worth considering until you can demonstrate the the quantifiable amounts of "power", "knowledge", and "goodness" and how they are quantifiable in the first place.

Especially goodness, how is that quantifiable? Tsk tsk.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

So I'd like to define several possible gods:
God A: omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
God B: not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
God C: omnipotent, not omniscient, and omnibenevolent
God D: omnipotent, omniscient, and not omnibenevolent

So below is the problem of evil argument:

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.

What do "omnipotent", "omniscient" and "omnibenevolent" actually mean?

It is easy to assume that "omnipotent" means "capable of doing anything" and "omniscient" means "knows everything", but this is too simplistic. Some things aren't do-able even by an omnipotent being - like making a square circle. And maybe some things aren't knowable by an omniscient being. Say, for example, the nature of reality is that the future is not fixed. This, I'd argue, is neccesary if there is to be such a thing as free will. In which case, even an omniscient God can't perfectly know the future, because the future is not perfectly knowable.

If you accept that some things aren't doable (maybe, for example, it is not physically possible to create an inhabitable world where earthquakes don't happen - and I'll explain why this might be the case if anybody is interested) and that some things aren't knowable, then it follows that even a God that can do everything doable and know everything that is knowable (or, perhaps, know everything that is known by any conscious being), still can't ensure that there is no natural evil in the world. And if humans have free will then no God, regardless of how omni- it is, can prevent human-created evil.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Technically speaking its logically valid, meaning if the premises of the argument (forst 2 statements) are true it deductively follows that the conclusion (last statement) is also true. The difficulty is trying to decide upon the truth of the premise number one. Theres no concrete evidence telling us that God and evil cna coexist, or otherwise. Besides that the alternative is intuition maybe, or apologetics, but theyre vulnerable to flaws.

 

[elopez]

So below is the problem of evil argument:

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

It seems to me that the argument is specifically concluding that God A does not exist.

Question 1: Do you believe that the above argument is valid?

Now I am not saying there is absolutely no problem of evil, or that all arguments are invalid, however, logically speaking, this argument is indeed invalid. The structure of the argument is what is invalid. Instead of denying the consequent such as it is with the valid form of the argument modes tollens, this argument affirms the consequent, also known as the converse error. The conclusion could be false even given the two premises may be true.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Now I am not saying there is absolutely no problem of evil, or that all arguments are invalid, however, logically speaking, this argument is indeed invalid. The structure of the argument is what is invalid. Instead of denying the consequent such as it is with the valid form of the argument modes tollens, this argument affirms the consequent, also known as the converse error. The conclusion could be false even given the two premises may be true.

Sorry, but I'm not following you at all. The argument looks perfectly valid to me. I don't think it is sound, because I don't think premise 1 is true, but if premise 1 is taken to be true then I don't understand why the conclusion isn't also true. Premise one states that if an omni-everything God exists, there could be no evil in the world. Premise 2 states that there is evil in the world. It logically follows that an omni-everything God cannot exist.

Please explain in plain English what you think is wrong with it.

If premise 2 was "there is no evil in the world" and the conclusion was "therefore an omni-everything God exists", then it would be invalid, but that is not the argument that has been offered.

 

[Chany]

Now I am not saying there is absolutely no problem of evil, or that all arguments are invalid, however, logically speaking, this argument is indeed invalid. The structure of the argument is what is invalid. Instead of denying the consequent such as it is with the valid form of the argument modes tollens, this argument affirms the consequent, also known as the converse error. The conclusion could be false even given the two premises may be true.

Good point.

The form of the argument, as currently written, is:

1. If A, then ~B.

2. B.

Therefore:

3. ~A.

This is indeed fallacious. However, the argument can easily be reworded into a valid form.

1. If evil exists, then the god of classical theism (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, among other traits) does not exist.

2. Evil exists.

Therefore:

3. The god of classical theism does not exist.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm not following you either. Perhaps I'm just being stupid...

as written:

1. If A, then ~B. (if omni-God, then there can be no evil)
2. B (evil exists)
therefore
3. ~A (no omni-God)

reworded:

1. If B, then ~A (if evil exists then there is no omni-God)
2. B (evil exists)
therefore
3. ~A (no omni-God)

I fail to see the important difference between the first and second versions of this argument. In both versions premise 1 logically entails that evil and an omni-everything God cannot both exist. It doesn't matter whether you say that if "A exists then B can't/doesn't exist" or you say "If B exists then A can't/doesn't exist", because both statements logically imply that "A and B can't both exist."

Version 1

1. If A, then ~B
therefore
2. ~(A and B)

Version 2

1. If B, then ~A
therefore
2. ~(A and B)

Both:

1. ~(A and B)
2. B
therefore
3. ~A

What am I failing to understand here?

 

[Joshua260]

Technically speaking its logically valid, meaning if the premises of the argument (forst 2 statements) are true it deductively follows that the conclusion (last statement) is also true. The difficulty is trying to decide upon the truth of the premise number one. Theres no concrete evidence telling us that God and evil cna coexist, or otherwise. Besides that the alternative is intuition maybe, or apologetics, but theyre vulnerable to flaws.

Thanks for pointing that out.

I thought I might look it up:
"A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound."

So I agree that the argument looks to be valid, but I do not agree that it is sound. I do not believe that p1 is necessarily true.

I'll go back and fix the OP.

Thanks again.

 

[Joshua260]

To believe something is to accept that it is true, i.e. corresponds to reality. Knowledge consists of non-contradictory, objectively identified facts of reality. So yes if I believe something then I also know it. I do think this argument is valid and sound.

Thanks for responding.
So you do not claim to be the type of atheist who simply "lacks a belief", but you rather admit to hold to an actual belief that God A does not exist, correct?