1. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    23 Apr '14 00:001 edit
    What follows below is an interesting inductive version of the evidential problem of evil, as taken directly from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/. It's an inductive argument in virtue of the move from (8) to (9).

    For theists out there, I am interested to know which premise(s) you reject and why. In particular, I am interested if there are those who would deny the move from (8) to (9) and why.

    ------

    1. Both the property of intentionally allowing an animal to die an agonizing death in a forest fire, and the property of allowing a child to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, are wrongmaking characteristics of an action, and very serious ones.

    2. Our world contains animals that die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children who undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer.

    3. An omnipotent being could prevent such events, if he knew that those events were about to occur.

    4. An omniscient being would know that such events were about to occur.

    5. If a being allows something to take place that he knows is about to happen, and which he knows he could prevent, then that being intentionally allows the event in question to occur.

    Therefore:
    6. If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then there are cases where he intentionally allows animals to die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer.

    7. In many such cases, no rightmaking characteristics that we are aware of both apply to the case in question, and also are sufficiently serious to counterbalance the relevant wrongmaking characteristic.

    Therefore:
    8. If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then there are specific cases of such a being's intentionally allowing animals to die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, that have wrongmaking properties such that there are no rightmaking characteristics that we are aware of that both apply to the cases in question, and that are also sufficiently serious to counterbalance the relevant wrongmaking characteristics.

    Therefore it is likely that:
    9. If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then there are specific cases of such a being's intentionally allowing animals to die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, that have wrongmaking properties such that there are no rightmaking characteristics—including ones that we are not aware of—that both apply to the cases in question, and that are also sufficiently serious to counterbalance the relevant wrongmaking characteristics.

    10. An action is morally wrong, all things considered, if it has a wrongmaking characteristic that is not counterbalanced by any rightmaking characteristics.

    Therefore:
    11. If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then there are specific cases of such a being's intentionally allowing animals to die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, that are morally wrong, all things considered.

    Therefore:
    12. If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then that being both intentionally refrains from performing certain actions in situations where it is morally wrong to do so, all things considered, and knows that he is doing so.

    13. A being who intentionally refrains from performing certain actions in situations where it is morally wrong to do so, all things considered, and knows that he is doing so, is not morally perfect.

    Therefore:
    14. If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then that being is not morally perfect.

    Therefore:
    15. There is no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being.
    16. If God exists, then he is, by definition, an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being.

    Therefore:
    17. God does not exist.
  2. Standard memberRajk999
    Enjoying
    On the Beach
    Joined
    04 Apr '04
    Moves
    170571
    23 Apr '14 00:05
    Originally posted by LemonJello
    What follows below is an interesting inductive version of the evidential problem of evil, as taken directly from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/. It's an inductive argument in virtue of the move from (8) to (9).

    For theists out there, I am interested to know [b]which premise(s) you reject and why
    . In particular, I am interested if there ...[text shortened]... on, an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being.

    Therefore:
    17. God does not exist.[/b]
    All the ramifications of what death entails are not fully understood by humans. So the argument is flawed from #1.
  3. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    23 Apr '14 00:08
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    All the ramifications of what death entails are not fully understood by humans. So the argument is flawed from #1.
    Even if it is true (which I am sure it probably is), how exactly would "All the ramifications of what death entails are not fully understood by humans" justify rejection of premise 1? That does not follow at all....
  4. Standard memberRajk999
    Enjoying
    On the Beach
    Joined
    04 Apr '04
    Moves
    170571
    23 Apr '14 00:13
    Originally posted by LemonJello
    Even if it is true (which I am sure it probably is), how exactly would "All the ramifications of what death entails are not fully understood by humans" justify rejection of premise 1? That does not follow at all....
    You are viewing death [as we know it] as something bad and evil so if a morally responsible omnipotent being exists then he must want to do something about the death and suffering. However if death was a desirable outcome [a possibility if some of the Bible is to be believed] of all life then the whole argument would fail.
  5. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    23 Apr '14 00:14
    I cannot imagine being so blind that even blackness appears as light.
  6. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    23 Apr '14 00:141 edit
    Originally posted by LemonJello
    What follows below is an interesting inductive version of the evidential problem of evil, as taken directly from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/. It's an inductive argument in virtue of the move from (8) to (9).

    For theists out there, I am interested to know [b]which premise(s) you reject and why
    . In particular, I am interested if there ...[text shortened]... on, an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being.

    Therefore:
    17. God does not exist.[/b]
    Why not go directly to Copy & Paste: "17. God does not exist."
    If true, accept it and move on; if false, consider expanding the truth search
    beyond the confines of "http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/."
  7. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    23 Apr '14 00:18
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    You are viewing death [as we know it] as something bad and evil so if a morally responsible omnipotent being exists then he must want to do something about the death and suffering. However if death was a desirable outcome [a possibility if some of the Bible is to be believed] of all life then the whole argument would fail.
    So which premise(s) are you rejecting?
  8. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    23 Apr '14 00:19
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    I cannot imagine being so blind that even blackness appears as light.
    Which premise(s) do you reject and why?
  9. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    23 Apr '14 00:19
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    Why not go directly to Copy & Paste: "17. God does not exist."
    If true, accept it and move on; if false, consider expanding the truth search
    beyond the confines of "http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/."
    Because 17 is simply the conclusion of the argument, not the argument itself. Duh....
  10. Standard memberRajk999
    Enjoying
    On the Beach
    Joined
    04 Apr '04
    Moves
    170571
    23 Apr '14 00:221 edit
    Originally posted by LemonJello
    So which premise(s) are you rejecting?
    #1, that death is necessarily an evil thing.
  11. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    23 Apr '14 00:261 edit
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    #1, that death is necessarily an evil thing.
    Then I don't understand. Premise 1 does not claim that "death is necessarily an evil thing". In fact, not a single premise in the entire argument claims this or entails it....
  12. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    23 Apr '14 00:271 edit
    Originally posted by LemonJello
    Because 17 is simply the conclusion of the argument, not the argument itself. Duh....
    Plato's convincing though dreary presentation of the arguments resulted in a sidebar acceptance of the conclusion.
  13. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    23 Apr '14 00:30
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    Plato's convincing though dreary presentation of the arguments resulted in a sidebar acceptance the conclusion.
    Feel free to actually contribute something here...

    If there's a premise somewhere in there that you disagree with, then that would be good for discussion....
  14. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    23 Apr '14 00:40
    Originally posted by LemonJello
    What follows below is an interesting inductive version of the evidential problem of evil, as taken directly from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/. It's an inductive argument in virtue of the move from (8) to (9).

    For theists out there, I am interested to know [b]which premise(s) you reject and why
    . In particular, I am interested if there ...[text shortened]... on, an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being.

    Therefore:
    17. God does not exist.[/b]
    The inductive step seems to be from 7's

    "no rightmaking characteristics that we are aware of"

    which is part of 8

    to 9's

    "there are no rightmaking characteristics—including ones that we are not aware of"

    IOW it seems to assume that because there are no RC's that we are aware of (or can conceive of) we can justifiably induce that there are no RC's.

    Do I have it?
  15. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    23 Apr '14 00:49
    Originally posted by JS357
    The inductive step seems to be from 7's

    "no rightmaking characteristics that we are aware of"

    which is part of 8

    to 9's

    "there are no rightmaking characteristics—including ones that we are not aware of"

    IOW it seems to assume that because there are no RC's that we are aware of (or can conceive of) we can justifiably induce that there are no RC's.

    Do I have it?
    Yeah, that's the basic gist of the crux of the argument (or what many would take to be the crux of this argument). Although others may have various other objections against the argument as well.

    So, yeah, I am interested in what you and others make of this inductive move and whether you think it is successful or not. The article in the link I provided has quite a bit of discussion regarding the move from 8 to 9 as well.
Back to Top