A General Argument from Evil:
God (def.): An entity that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
Omnipotent (def.): An entity G is omnipotent if and only if G can do anything that is logically possible.
Omniscient (def.): An entity G is omniscient if and only if G knows every true proposition.
Morally Perfect (def): An entity G is morally perfect if and only if for any two acts, events, or states of affairs A and B, if A is morally preferable to B then G prefers that A occur or obtain rather than B, and G acts accordingly.
NOTE: The notion of ‘morally preferable’ presume no particular ethical theory. The argument that follows is neutral as to correctness of any particular ethical theory, and as such is applicable regardless of which ethical theory is correct.
1) God exists.
2) There has occurred at least one event E such that E brought about unnecessary suffering; suffering not logically necessary for the bringing about of greater good.
3) Since God is omnipotent, God could have prevented E from occurring.
4) Since God is omniscient, God would have known that E was going to occur.
5) Since God is morally perfect God would have preferred that E not occur, and acted accordingly.
6) If (3), (4), and (5), then E could not have occurred.
7) Hence, E did not occur.
8) But, by (2), E did occur.
9) Hence, either one or more premises (1) through (5) are false.
10) Premises (2) through (5) are true.
11) Hence, premise (1) is false; God does not exist.
This is a valid reductio, so the theist must reject either theism itself, or at least one of the following premises: (2), (3), (4), or (5).
If you think the conclusion of this argument is false, then you are thereby rationally committed to the claim that at least one of the premises is false. So, explicitly state in your response which premise you think is false any why.
Philosophers should be shot if there is any ammo left after the lawyers are dealt with.
Now I'll read the rest of your post.
Looks like it's going to be a long read , will you please stop making me try to think?
BTW, there's a spelling error in there.
"only if G can go anything" should read "only if G can do anything", methinks.
Originally posted by KneverKnightI don't see any spelling error. 😉
Philosophers should be shot if there is any ammo left after the lawyers are dealt with.
Now I'll read the rest of your post.
Looks like it's going to be a long read , will you please stop making me try to think?
BTW, there's a spelling error in there.
"only if G can go anything" should read "only if G can do anything", methinks.
Thanks, all fixed.
"Morally Perfect (def): An entity G is morally perfect if and only if for any two acts, events, or states of affairs A and B, if A is morally preferable to B then G prefers that A occur or obtain rather than B, and G acts accordingly."
God decides what is right on His whim. He sets the standard for what is morally perfect to begin with and can change the standard at any time, because He is God. God is free to change the rules at any time He chooses.
Omnipotent, you see.
Absolute power. God-like even ...
Originally posted by bbarrI hope believers will weigh in on this.
2) There has occurred at least one event E such that E brought about unnecessary suffering; suffering not logically necessary for the bringing about of greater good.
In my own informal debates with believers, I have presented a somewhat less rigorous-sounding version of the O.P. Premise # 2 is the one that those believers seem to pick out as the flawed one. They like to say that what we perceive as suffering in the animal kingdom (or the animal kingdom plus humans, as they would put it, since they maintain humans are not part of animalia) must somehow be necessary for a greater good that we are not wise enough to see.
How they square eternal torment in hell with their idea that premise # 2 is flawed, I am not able to say.
Originally posted by bbarrIt is? No no keep on, this is interesting, but I haven't yet seen how God could make a set of rules that even He couldn't follow, like the stone He couldn't lift and so forth. I'll shut up now and see what happens in this thread.
That is perfectly consistent with the definition of 'moral perfection' given above (it entails it, even). So, are you rejecting a premise or not?
