A General Argument from Evil.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Thanks, but my question still holds - is A such a constituent in (2'😉? To put it another way, if we assume that the three states I've specified comprise the universe of possible states, does the state (A,~B) where A causes suffering satisfy (2'😉?

Originally posted by davegage



Therefore, from Premise (2), at the instant E obtained, it was a true proposition that “it is logically possible that E obtains", and it was a true proposition that "it is logically possible that F obtains.”

Being “omniscient,” God knew these true propositions. Being “omnipotent,” at the time E obtained, God could have caused either E to obtain o ...[text shortened]... ce in this post; but I would sincerely be interested in your honest critique of this argument.
[/b]

Originally posted by bbarr
If these three states of affairs comprise the universe of possible states of affairs, then act A will be a constituent of one fully specified state of affairs. It makes no sense to say that A is a constituent of premise 2 itself, as acts are not constituents of propositions.

Thanks, but I never asked if A is a constituent of premise 2; I only asked if A was a constituent [as described] in premise 2.

I might not have been clear, but what I wanted to ask was this - given that the state (A,~B) has obtained and it was one of only three possible states (as described above), was this state an instance of S in (2'😉?

Let me see if I can resolve it myself. But before I do so, I'd like to clarify one thing. Your restated premise 2 reads:

2'😉 There has obtained at least one fully specified state of affairs S such that S included as a constituent suffering logically unnecessary for the bringing about of greater good.

Am I correct in inferring that it is not the logical necessity of the event that caused the suffering, but that of the suffering itself that is in question? So, it is not a question of "Did a [particular] infant have to die at the hands of the Nazis/Cossacks" but "Did this [particular] infant have to suffer while doing so".

Originally posted by bbarr

Please see the revision of premise 2 I offered in response to Lucifer S's criticisms.

If Premise (2) is false, then everything from here on is irrelevant

No, if premise 2 is false then there follow bizarre and counterintuitive consequences of the sort I've outlined on pg. 12.



but if we suppose Premise (2) is true, then from the definit ...[text shortened]... sary for Y then there is no other Z such that it is logically possible that Z bring about Y.

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

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.

5) Since God is morally perfect God would have preferred that E not occur, and acted accordingly.


Here is my interpretation

The definition of religious morals is not correct.
therefore
#5 is false.

Also
#2 is an unknown.

Here is why: (moral definition and #5)
Religious Morals are nothing more than being in accordance with God. God is always in accordance with god. If you use an independant system to judge morality, that isn't based on religion... then you can say that act X is immoral, whether god wants it or not.. With religion, God's wish defines moralities. His wishes were that humans follow the rules he set forth. He can kill thousands, and never break his own "thou shalt not kill" law. Why? The rules were not meant for him.

As far is this goes, whatever god wants is moral. God may want you to suffer in a way you deem unneccessary. Maybe he wants you to experience unneccessary suffering. Bottom line, is god isn't morally obligated to let you live a perfect life. He may want you to live an imperfect life.

For #2
I think you could say god would deem what is necessary and unnecessary. The decision is subjective.. but only God's point of view matters for this proof.

He makes a good point, and as an atheist I agree to some points. Of course, this doesn't make it a logical "proof".. just a good case. I'd wonder why God allows some people to suffer. He must want it to happen if he exists. Theists explain it by "God works in mysterious ways". I don't really accept this explanation either.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
...Besides, you've never specified what moral theory your argument is based on. We should resolve that first.

Originally posted by Coletti
Yeah! 😠

Here is Something I've come up with... Rip it apart if you like

What does this prove


The shows that logically either god is imperfect and fallible OR god's existence is trivial.

1) God's existence is trivial - by proving that your existence is preplanned, and that everything you do would be god's wish, there is no reason to follow any religious doctrine.

2) God is imperfect - If god can be wrong, and is not omniscient, then obviously his word cannot be taken as absolute.

Both imply that there is something incorrect with the current religious doctrine. This infers that god and most people's relationship to god cannot logically exist as they believe.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
___________________________________________________________
PART I: The Butterfly Effect
___________________________________________________________
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Defining terms:

omniscience: knowing all, icluding knoweledge of past present and future events

predetermination: A result of a linear path taken by space and time. It requires that everything that has happened couldn't of happened any other way and that anything that happens in the future has only one possibility.

Givens:

God is omniscient [OMNI]

God knows all future events [FE]

IF God is omniscient THEN God knows all future events
[OMNI->FE]
--------------
(EXPLANATION: the statement "all future events" uses the term event loosely. It is just a shorter way to say god knows every detail about everything that has,will and can happen.)


IF god knows all future events THEN all future events god knows must happen
[ FE -> MH ]
---------------
(EXPLANATION: Since god knows everything, he can't be wrong. If he knows that something will happen, it must happen or he would be wrong.)


If (god knows all future events AND all future events god knows must happen) THEN there is only one possible path of events.
[ (FE & MH) -> OPP]
---------------
(EXPLANATION:IF god knows everything about what will happen in the future AND everything god knows about the future must happen THEN everything that will happen in the future can only occur in one way (the way god knows it will happen).)


If there is only one possible path of events THEN the future is predetermined
[OPP->FIP]
---------------
(EXPLANATION: This is true by definition, mentioned at the beginning)

so we have:
(1)OMNI
(2)FE
(3)OMNI->FE
(4)FE->MH
(5)(FE&MH)->OPP
(6)OPP->FIP
________________

(7)MH 2 on 4 Modus Ponens
(8)OPP 7&2 on 5 Modus Ponens
(9)FIP 8 on 6 Modus Ponens
(10) OMNI->(FE&MH) 1,3,4 EQ
(11) (FE&MH)-> FIP 4,5,6 EQ
(12) OMNI->FIP 10,11 EQ

RESULT: The Future is predetermined. (FIP)

So we now establish the future is predetermined, and god's omniscience implies the future is predetermined. It is vital for your understand of the rest of the proof that you picture our universe (past, present and future) as a path. The best analogy is movie reel. The future frames are already made, but they just haven't been played yet.

Of course, one must accept the givens.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
___________________________________________________________
PART II: (NEO) "woah. The problem is choice!"
___________________________________________________________
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Definitions:

free will: the ability to determine one's own future, whereas a predetermined future is impossible.

predetermined: meaning there is only one possible path of events.

omniscience: knowing all details about everything, past present and future

God is omniscient [OMNI]

IF god is omniscient THEN our future is predetermined
[OMNI->FIP]
-----------------------------------------
EXPLANATION: from previous proof

If there is free will THEN the future is not predetermined.
[FW->~FIP]
-----------------------------------------
EXPLANATION: This is by the definition provided above *SEE FOOTNOTE!

(1) OMNI
(2) OMNI->FIP
(3) FW->~FIP
___________

(4) FIP 1 on 2 - Modus Ponens
(5) ~FW 4 on 3 Modus Tollens

With the supplied givens, the conclusion is that there is no free will. (~FW)

I won't waste time changing that into the equivalence of god's omniscience leads to no free will... it is obvious from the proof.

This proof only requires that you accept the above proof, PART I.

FOOTNOTE:
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
There is one catch with this proof: if you do not believe free will has anything to do with predetermination , then there is no point for this. If this is the case, the argument that the future is not predetermined because of free will cannot be used. Free will either contradicts predetermination or it doesn't. Bear in mind though that the existence of free will contradicts god's omniscience as well.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
___________________________________________________________
PART III: Ultimate responsibility lies with the ultimate power
___________________________________________________________
++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Definitions:

omnipotent: The quality of being all powerful. Unlimited freedom of action.

omniscient: The quality of knowing everything. Past and present, future.

GIVENS:

God is omnipotent [POTE]

God is omniscient [OMNI]

God created a universe with one predetermined path
[WOPP]
--------------------
(EXPLANATION: Derived from part one (assuming God created the universe, and the future is predetermined).

IF god is omnipotent THEN god could have created a universe with Any possible Predetermined Path.
[POTE->APP]
--------------------
(EXPLANATION: Since god is all powerful, he could have done anything he wanted...including create any universe imaginable.)


IF god is omniscient THEN god knows the result of all possible predetermined paths before creation.
[OMNI->GKPP]
---------------------
(EXPLANATION: Since god knows everything, he knows this, because this is part of everything; hence if you don't know something, you cannot know everything. In this case, god knows how any universe will tunr out, start to finish, before he created it.)


IF (god created our universe with a predetermined path & god could have created a universe with Any possible Predetermined Path & god knows the result of all possible predetermined paths before creation) THEN (god chose what predetermined path the universe would take & knew what it's results would be beforehand).
[(WOPP&APP&GKPP)->GOCH]
---------------------
(EXPLANATION: If god couldve created anything, and he knew in advance how his each possible creation would turn out, and god only chose one (our) universe to create THEN god chose the path our universe would take😉
(SHORTER EXPLANATION: god chose this out of many other choices, knowing in advance how it would turn out, thus dictating the events in our universe)



(1) POTE
(2) OMNI
(3) WOPP
(4) POTE->APP
(5) OMNI->GKPP
(6) (WOPP&APP&GKPP)->GOCH
___________________

(7)APP 1 on 4 Modus Ponens
(8)GKPP 2 on 5 Modus Ponens
(9)GOCH 7,8,3 on 6 Modus Ponens

RESULT: GOCH - god chose what predetermined path the universe would take and knew what it's results would be beforehand

This proof shows that if you believe the givens, then god made a choice on the path that the universe would take. By path, I mean the predetermined path, described in Part I. A predetermined path, by definition, is EXACT. Things can only happen one way.

If this becomes too dificult to understand, and you've followed along up until this point, I will show my less thorough proof:

We have shown that if god is omniscient, the universe is on a predetermined path. This predetermined path is static, meaning it cannot change. All points on a predetermined path were decided at its creation. God had many choices for the creation of the universe knowing the path each would take. He chose this universe to create, thus picking this out of an infite amount of other choices. The only one responsible for choosing what to create (and how it would happen) is god.

The implications of this conclusion are to be left out of the proof, as they are abstract. The implications, amongst other things are dealt with below.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
___________________________________________________________
PART IV: (Neo)Mr wizard, I need an exit!
___________________________________________________________
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So you've decided to try to find a way around my proof. Here are some commong objections which have already been shown to be illogical or irrelevant. This also goes over some of the implications of the proof.

1. Objection: "Free will!"

Reply: No, we've shown that if free will had anything to do with predetermination, then god couldn't be omniscient.

2. Objection: "Predetermination, eh? So this means I can sit on my couch and not eat, drink, go to work and everything will still happen the way it's supposed to?"

Reply: You wish. Predetermination doesn't imply that things will happen one set way DESPITE any choices you make. It simply means that the choices you make have already been decided, long before you were even born. If you choose to stay on the couch and not eat or drink anything, then you will die. All predetermination implies is "what happened, happened, and it couldn't have happened any other way.". The best illustration is groundhog day, starring bill murray. When every day restarts everyone besides bill murray does what they did the day before. If Bill Murray's character did not remember what happened in the previous day, everything would have proceeded the same way. Simply put, without interference (i.e Bill Murray reliving the day), then the day can only happen one way, and ONLY one way each time your rewind to the morning. So really you still have the freedom of choice. The choices are still genuinely yours and are determined by who you are. The only thing this logic implies is that your actions are perfectly predictable from the time you were concieved. The rest of the proof shows that your existence and who you are would have to have been chosen by god, if he created you.

3. (Objection): "Who says god has to be omniscient? So what if he is not."

REPLY: Well, the Bible (old and new testament) does. Many times. Not to mention, if he is not omniscient, then he doesn't know everything. If he doesnt know everything, then he can be wrong. If he can be wrong, he is not perfect. If he is not perfect, he can be flawed in serveral ways. This means he can be smarter and stronger than us, but that won't guarentee that his moral decisions are the right ones (since he can be wrong). In fact, now we've just classified your god only as a more intelligent and more powerful life form... thus possibly classifying him as a mere alien (no not a mexican...). This also applies to any other religion, that says their god is not omniscient. If you believe your god isn't omniscient I have no logical objection, but this belief implies a lot on its own. God loses a great deal of authority if we can claim that he doesn't always "know better".

4. Objection: "So what? god chose the path of the universe and what events would happen. Big deal, this doesn't mean anything."

REPLY: Actually, it means a lot. It means god chose all things to happen. Both good and evil. God chose for hitler to exist, and kill jews. He chose everything vile and wrong. So what does this mean? It means that whatever you do, is what god chose for you to do. You can destroy the world, or save starving orphans. No matter what you do, you will be doing what god chose for you... so the idea of pleasing god is pointless. You are void of any responsibility on religious scale. It also means, that no matter what, worshiping your religion serves no religious purpose. You are absolved of any moral responsibility, and there is no need to practice such a religion. Of course you still could practice religion, however it doesn't mean you are following god's word more or less closely than anyone else.

5. Objection: "Invalid Premise! I don't agree with your givens."

REPLY: Well, that's the only requirement with logic. That you accept the givens. Of course they are pretty consistent with the god described in many religions. The givens are also logically sound by themselves, and reinforced by the definitions of the words used. You'd probably have to depart a good ways from most current oragnized religions before you can come up with a valid cause to claim an invalid premise (or a wrong "given"😉.

6. Objection: God must be outside of time, therefore your logic doesn't work.

REPLY: Well, this doesn't matter whether it is true or not. Time is a human concept, merely an organized way of catalogging ordered events. In case you haven't realized, the order of events matters just as much as what actually happens. If god was to have existed when there was no universe, and then would later create our universe, then god is subject to time just like the rest of us. That is a clear ordering of events. First there was just God, then there was God + universe. If you start playing games with this, and take away time (or the ordering of events), then you can't say God created the universe. For instance if you change the order as if first came God+universe and THEN there was just god... then that order suggests god destroyed the universe, not created it. You also have to go against obvious fact, since our universe is very ordered (in the respect to time) and that's all that really matters for the sake of this proof..

7. Objection: God does not know the future, since this is impossible.

REPLY: First let me note, that even if this was true, there would be some important trade off's. God cannot know what is best for you in this world, and wouldn't know about what's good for your future (or the greater good of anyone's future) any more than you do. This anulls any Bible prophecies and undermines a lot of core beliefs about god. Under this circumstance, it is very likely you can be right when god is wrong. It is another concession on god's authority, which was the intention of this proof. However, the point is on poor logical and theological ground. There are countless quotes that can be taken from the Bible stating god's omniscience and knoweledge of futre events. A lot of modern theology seems to contradict this belief. As far as the logicality, it runs into a paradox of sorts. God would have to create an aspect of the universe which he either doesn't understand or creates random results. The paradox is how an omniscient being could create something it doesn't understand. So obviously there is a lot of problems with this objection. Not only does it take away from god's authority and ability, as well as contradicts religious doctrine, and it creates a paradox of sorts. Although this may sound like a viable way out, it is a major departation from common beliefs in god and modern religions... hence a success for me.

8. Objection: One last thing, if god created everything (including logic), then god could have created logic so that it is faulty. You could never prove the existence of something outside the sphere of logic.

REPLY: Very true, but that won't make god or any conclusion you come up with logical. Logic is only a tool. All it does is tell us whether our reasoning of the facts is consistent. It reveals contradictions, and flaws in our thought process. From an objective standpoint, you cannot reject the concept of being rational. If we ignored rational thought, our world would be in chaos. Logic is the source of our rational behavior. If you make the choice to reject the proof based on this concept, you must understand you are rejecting rational/logical thought. This was the only intention of this proof (to prove such beliefs in god and religion illogical).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I think Bennett has made it clear that any non-nihilistic moral theory will do.

Originally posted by davegage
Bennett:

I think I am probably way over my head here, but what is the fallacy in the following line of reasoning? I am trying specifically to work only in the framework of your initial post, working strictly from mutual definitions – ethical theories out the window.

Consider that we know only your current definitions of “God”, “omniscient”, “omnipo ...[text shortened]... ce in this post; but I would sincerely be interested in your honest critique of this argument.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Originally posted by bbarr
If these three states of affairs comprise the universe of possible states of affairs, then act A will be a constituent of one fully specified state of affairs. It makes no sense to say that A is a constituent of premise 2 itself, as acts are not constituents of propositions.

Thanks, but I never asked if A is a c ...[text shortened]... the Nazis/Cossacks" but "Did this [particular] infant have to suffer while doing so".

Originally posted by davegage
I agree with Bennett that it is basically absurd to stick fast to Premise (1). Ironically, this doesn't bother me in the least since I think the definition of God that is assumed throughout the argument is equally as absurd.