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

[elopez]

You are confusing what it means to affirm the consequent. Affirming the consequent looks like this:

If a, then b
b
Therefore, a

That is not the same as what the OP is doing, which is this:

If a, then not-b
b
Therefore, not-a

That is logically valid. There is no way to affirm b without rejecting a.

LOL! Can you re-read what you wrote?

 

[elopez]

How is that fallacious? If A, then not-B. If B is the case, A cannot be the case. This is not affirming the consequent.

Yes it is...

Premise 1's consequent is -B. Premise 2 is affirming that consequent as B.

 

[Conscious Z]

UndercoverElephant is correct in his assessment. Affirming the consequent looks like this:

If A, then B
B
Therefore, A

That is invalid because there is no reason to think that A is the only thing that could cause B. Here it is in plain English:

If I've won a million dollars, I will travel this year.
I am travelling this year.
Therefore, I've won a million dollars.

Even though it is true that I would travel if I've won a million dollars, I might travel for other reasons as well. Simply knowing that I'm travelling is not sufficient to know that I've won a million dollars.

However, here is the OP's argument:

If A, then not-B
B
Therefore, not-A

That is valid because there is no way to affirm B without rejecting A. The two are mutually exclusive in this argument. Here's a plain English example:

If I've won a million dollars, I won't ask for money
I will ask for money
Therefore, I have not won a million dollars

That is valid because, per the first premise, there is no way that I will ask for money if I've won a million dollars. Therefore, if I'm asking for money, I have not won a million dollars.

 

[elopez]

I think all of you are failing to grasp the fallacy is how the atructure of the argument is. Even the above two examples are in the same structure. ..

 

[Conscious Z]

LOL! Can you re-read what you wrote?

I did re-read it. It is correct.

Yes it is...

Premise 1's consequent is -B. Premise 2 is affirming that consequent as B.

No, premise 2 is rejecting the consequent. If the consequent is "-B," then premise 2 is rejecting it by asserting "b." That is the critical difference that you are missing.

 

[Conscious Z]

I think all of you are failing to grasp the fallacy is how the atructure of the argument is. Even the above two examples are in the same structure. ..

They are not. One is affirming the consequent, whereas the other is rejecting the consequent.

 

[Conscious Z]

If A, then B
B
Therefore A
^^^^^^^
The stuff in bold matches.


If A, then -B
B
Therefore, -A
^^^^^^
The stuff in bold doesn't match.

 

[elopez]

No, premise 2 is rejecting the consequent. If the consequent is "-B," then premise 2 is rejecting it by asserting "b." That is the critical difference that you are missing.

Read it again. Or maybe you simply don't understand. If premise 2 was rejecting the consequent it would mean that it is not the case. That is rejecting... when in fact premise 2 does not say such rather it claims it is the case evil exists.

 

[Conscious Z]

Read it again. Or maybe you simply don't understand. If premise 2 was rejecting the consequent it would mean that it is not the case. That is rejecting... when in fact premise 2 does not say such rather it claims it is the case evil exists.

This is hilarious. You are telling me that I don't understand when I am not the one who is making the obvious error here.

Premise 2 does say it is not the case that evil does not exist! Premise 1 says that if god exists, evil does not. Premise 2 says it is not the case that evil does not exist!

As I said above:

If A, then -B
B
Therefore, -A

The blue is a rejection of the red.

 

[Conscious Z]

"evil exists" is a rejection of the proposition "evil does not exist." In other words, "b" is a rejection of "-b."

 

[Eudaimonist]

UndercoverElephant is correct in his assessment. Affirming the consequent looks like this:

If A, then B
B
Therefore, A

That is invalid because there is no reason to think that A is the only thing that could cause B. Here it is in plain English:

If I've won a million dollars, I will travel this year.
I am travelling this year.
Therefore, I've won a million dollars.

Even though it is true that I would travel if I've won a million dollars, I might travel for other reasons as well. Simply knowing that I'm travelling is not sufficient to know that I've won a million dollars.

However, here is the OP's argument:

If A, then not-B
B
Therefore, not-A

That is valid because there is no way to affirm B without rejecting A. The two are mutually exclusive in this argument. Here's a plain English example:

If I've won a million dollars, I won't ask for money
I will ask for money
Therefore, I have not won a million dollars

That is valid because, per the first premise, there is no way that I will ask for money if I've won a million dollars. Therefore, if I'm asking for money, I have not won a million dollars.

Thanks! That's what I was looking for.

I agree with you... the argument is valid (but not sound).


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[elopez]

"evil exists" is a rejection of the proposition "evil does not exist." In other words, "b" is a rejection of "-b."

"Evil exists" is not stated as a rejection. It is claiming evil exists. Rejecting would be saying it is not the case that evil exists.

 

[Conscious Z]

"Evil exists" is not stated as a rejection. It is claiming evil exists. Rejecting would be saying it is not the case that evil exists.

Logically, there is no difference between "Evil exists" and "It is not the case that evil does not exist." There is no way for it to not be the case that evil does not exist and not be the case that evil exists. Asserting B is the same as rejecting -B.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

So you admit you are unaware of formal logic?

I have a degree in philosophy, and before that I programmed computers for a living. I am aware of logic, both formal and otherwise.

I'm not sure I can explain this stuff any more clearly than I have already though, and somebody else appears to be taking over the baton...

 

[elopez]

Logically, they are the same thing. There is no way for it to not be the case that evil does not exist and not be the case that evil exists. Asserting B is the same as rejecting -B.

Im not sure this is correct. B has no negation or negative indicator to it

 

[UndercoverElephant]

The argument is valid. That is obvious.

The argument is not sound, however. The faulty premise is the first one. No philosopher in the world believes the first premise is true, which is why the standard problem of evil argument has zero traction in the philosophical community. What does have traction, however, is the evidentiary problem of evil. Roughly speaking, it goes more like this:

1. If an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god exists, then there is as little evil in the world as possible.
2. There probably isn't as little evil in the world as possible.
3. Therefore, it is probably that such a god does not exist.

The argument isn't designed to produce a conclusion that says a god is logically impossible, but rather that such a god is highly unlikely. I've given the quick and dirty version here, but it's enough to get a good idea of the argument.

It is very compelling, IMO.

Just for the record, I don't think it is particularly compelling. I'm not a Christian, but I do believe in the existence of something worthy of the description "God", which is as close to "omnipotent" as is logically possible in a world where humans have free will, and is doing Its best to minimise "evil".

More simply stated, I think we live in the Best Possible World, or something that might Possibly be the Best Possible World. Just my opinion, not based on logic...

 

[Conscious Z]

Actually, I am relinquishing the baton. I have explained it as clearly as I know how as well.

Last shot: B need not have a negative indication in order for it to be the rejection of -B. In other words, B=--B

 

[Conscious Z]

Just for the record, I don't think it is particularly compelling. I'm not a Christian, but I do believe in the existence of something worthy of the description "God", which is as close to "omnipotent" as is logically possible in a world where humans have free will, and is doing Its best to minimise "evil".

More simply stated, I think we live in the Best Possible World, or something that might Possibly be the Best Possible World. Just my opinion, not based on logic...

OP, the above is much more similar to a modern version of the problem of evil. The question is whether we live in the best possible world, which is to say the world we would live in if a three-trait god did in fact exist. That is the debate. There is very little credence to the idea that a three-trait god would result in a world with zero evil.

I do not think we live in the best possible world, and I think one prime example is the suffering of animals before humans ever hit the evolutionary scene. Another example is the prevalence of natural disasters. Both of these are independent of a need for humans to have free will.

 

[Chany]

On second thought, I was wrong. My formal logic is fuzzy and the negatives confused me.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hi Conscious Z

one prime example is the suffering of animals before humans ever hit the evolutionary scene. Another example is the prevalence of natural disasters. Both of these are independent of a need for humans to have free will.

These things have nothing to do with humans, so they can't have anything to do with humans having free will.

Do you think evolution by natural selection is possible without the existence of suffering of conscious beings?

I also have an argument, based on science, about natural disasters, but I'd like to explore the evolution/suffering probem first.

regards...

UE