An Inductive Argument from Evil

Originally posted by sonship
I am told by two parties that I do not understand the first step of this argument.

[quote] 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 ...[text shortened]... gical Argument for the Existence of God posted in another thread this week.

[Lots of edits ]

Did you bother to read the posts I urged you to read, in clarification of what premise (1) asserts?

You are reading premise (1) as though it asserts that the property described makes an action wrong. But that is incorrect. Again, and for the last time, premise (1) simply asserts that the property described counts weightily toward making the action wrong prima facie, such that it would take weighty countervailing considerations in return to make the action morally neutral or right, all things considered.

The fact that you do not understand the actual assertorial content of (1) is evident in your replies. You claim, for example, that (1) need not hold and you cited previously, for example, possible extenuating circumstances such as that the animal has rabies and poses imminent threat to a whole ecosystem. But that has nothing to do with showing that (1) is false. In fact, responses like that only go to retention of (1), because it is perfectly consistent with what (1) actually asserts: that the described property counts toward making the action wrong in the absence of such extenuating circumstances. The fact that what you argue actually only counts to support (1); while at the same time you appear to think you are presenting reasons against (1); this is what suggests that you do not understand what (1) actually asserts.

Originally posted by sonship

Premise (1) simply asserts that the property of intentionally allowing the types of events involving suffering and death at issue is a very serious wrongmaking characteristic of an action.

And my response is that there may instances where the opposite might be serious wrongmaking.

You see, I think the first step assumes the non-exis ...[text shortened]... e 1, I think, is loaded with the assumption of the conclusion the argument is designed to prove.

Really? Then show me how premise (1) already assumes (17). Put up or shut up, as they say.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No if you reject step 1 then we can't move on to step 2.
But I don't think you do reject step 1... Or at least you wouldn't if you understood what it
actually meant. Because what you are saying to us about your position is completely
compatible with step 1.


[quote].... I do not swallow step one that a dying animal or suffering child has to be [ ...[text shortened]... s
and that thus the action of allowing them also has bad/wrongmaking aspects/characteristics ?

Presumably you believe that the ultimately good and moral place is heaven.

I would not want to go to heaven if Christ is not there.

I would prefer to be in hell with Christ and conformed to His life and nature then to be in heaven apart from Him.

Salvation is ultimately a Person rather than a place to which we go.

Presumably you would also say that in heaven children don't suffer long painful deaths.

So in a perfect world children suffering long painful deaths wouldn't happen.

Thus children suffering long painful deaths must have some inherent bad quality that in a perfect world would never happen.

So children suffering long painful deaths is still a bad thing, even if in our imperfect world their can be circumstances than make it less bad than the alternative and this the net best moral outcome available.


Step one is simply saying that there are bad aspects, "wrongmaking characteristics" of intentionally allowing situations with bad aspects to occur, giving two examples.

It specifically doesn't say that the ACTION on net is bad/wrongmaking.


So can you accept that the situations described in step 1 have bad/wrongmaking aspects/characteristics and that thus the action of allowing them also has bad/wrongmaking aspects/characteristics ?

At times yes. At other times no.

Are you putting your confidence that this argument is a logical explanaing of why you know that God does not exist ?

Are you going to put your confidence in the reasonableness of this multiple stepped rational ?

I am more impressed with one Jesus of Nazareth - His life, His words, His work in my life personally and in the lives of thousands I have known personally.

It may be a fine academic argument. I forbid no one to entertain it if they wish. I am more impressed with the Person of Jesus.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Really? Then show me how premise (1) already assumes (17). Put up or shut up, as they say.

Really? Then show me how premise (1) already assumes (17). Put up or shut up, as they say.

Okay, I'll shut up for now.

Better yet I'll show you if I can.

How do you know that a animal dying in a forrest fire or a child suffering from cancer cannot be for the ultimate good outcome in the universe ?

And if I do not accept premise 1 because of your objection, how do I know that you will see as valid ANY rejection of ANY step in the argument?

I have the suspicion that you could put up as much of a correction upon rejecting the other following steps one by one also.

Originally posted by sonship

Presumably you believe that the ultimately good and moral place is heaven.

I would not want to go to heaven if Christ is not there.

I would prefer to be in hell with Christ and conformed to His life and nature then to be in heaven apart from Him.

Salvation is ultimately a Person rather than a place to which we go.
[quote]
...[text shortened]... nt. I forbid no one to entertain it if they wish. I am more impressed with the Person of Jesus.

I would not want to go to heaven if Christ is not there.

I would prefer to be in hell with Christ and conformed to His life and nature then to be in heaven apart from Him.

Salvation is ultimately a Person rather than a place to which we go.

Seriously????

Can you not take anything at face value... Heaven is supposed to have JC in it so
your fine.

At times yes. At other times no.

This was a yes no kind of question. You either accept it or you don't.
Which is it?

Are you putting your confidence that this argument is a logical explanaing of why you know that God does not exist ?

No. In fact I raise objections to the argument earlier in the thread, and it only applies
to a specific god concept, and as an atheist I don't believe in any god concept, not
just the narrow one defined in this argument.

Are you going to put your confidence in the reasonableness of this multiple stepped rational ?

Don't know what you mean... probably rendered mute by my previous answer.

I am more impressed with one Jesus of Nazareth - His life, His words, His work in my life personally and in the lives of thousands I have known personally.

It may be a fine academic argument. I forbid no one to entertain it if they wish. I am more impressed with the Person of Jesus.

Yes. We get that.

However we are not claiming that you will find this argument convincing, [although I think you believe in a
god this applies to and thus probably should find it convincing] but what we are interested in is WHY you don't
find it convincing and which part... What you are showing us at the moment is that you don't find it convincing
because you have no clue what it says.

There is a step in this argument that I guarantee you [based on what you have been repeatedly telling us] that
you will not accept. you will not find this argument convincing.

However that step is not step 1.

It's step 9. We are not at step 9 yet and what I cannot fathom is why we cannot get off of step 1.

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]

Brief comments on this astute argument:

. 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.

Okay. Whatever that is suppose to mean. Let's just go on. Maybe I am just not philosophical enough.

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

That's true. It happens.

Though I cannot in first person know how an animal feels.

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

Let's just say God could prevent something.

I am not sure if omnipotence means that God can do the logically impossible like make a married bachelor or create a square circle.

But let's say God could certainly prevent the animal from dying or the child from having cancer.

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

Okay. Let's give you this too.

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.

Okay. Things are permitted to happen by God.
And at the end of all this I am suppose to say "Yep, God doesn't exist" ?

Reading through the Bible plenty of unfortunate things occur. If you didn't notice from the fall of Adam all kinds of unfortunate things are permitted by God to happen. It doesn't seem to stop Him from existing or fulfilling His ultimate purposes.

Therefore:

Aha. Now we Christians are in trouble!

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.

Okay. Cain kills Abel. Lamach kills a young man for injuring him.
All this is seen in Genesis let alone the other books to follow.

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.

Things are working out as we are NOT aware of. True.
We Christians are told to walk by faith and not by sight.

We are to trust in God. It is the BEST way to live for sure, I say.

On our side there is to be Trust. On God's side there is TrustWORTHINESS.

It is not a one sided equation. Our trust PLUS the TRUSTWORTHINESS of God.

Therefore:

Still a Theist so far Prof.

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.

Above you spoke of man's limited AWARENESS.
To our level of AWARENESS we certainly are perplexed at some misfortunes.

I believe that in the end two things will occur before God.

1.) He will say "I was right. But you were wrong."

2.) He will say also "I was right. But you were right also."

Still believe in God up to this point LemonJello.

Therefore it is likely that:

The suspense is killing me.
Okay, seriously now. You did put a lot of work into this. Or shall I say a lot of pasting.

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.

I have to run an errand. I'll come back to this latter.

Originally posted by sonship
Brief comments on this astute argument:

. 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.

Okay. Whatever that is s ...[text shortened]... rongmaking characteristics. [/quote]

I have to run an errand. I'll come back to this latter.

No...

You can't do this with a logical argument.

If you don't want to take it seriously then there is no point.

You can't just breeze past steps, it doesn't work like that.

Originally posted by sonship

Really? Then show me how premise (1) already assumes (17). Put up or shut up, as they say.

Okay, I'll shut up for now.

Better yet I'll show you if I can.

How do you know that a animal dying in a forrest fire or a child suffering from cancer cannot be for the ultimate good outcome in the universe ?

And if I do not a ...[text shortened]... u could put up as much of a correction upon rejecting the other following steps one by one also.

How do you know that a animal dying in a forrest fire or a child suffering from cancer cannot be for the ultimate good outcome in the universe ?

I do not know that, and I have never stated otherwise. Further, not a single premise in the argument I posted, nor any single collection of them, entails otherwise either.

You're clearly just not getting the argument. Even if it is plausible that at least some instances of an animal dying in a forest fire or a child suffering from cancer not only can be but in fact are for some greater ultimate good (perhaps in some way that we do not understand), that would not show that there is anything wrong with the argument I posted. Rather, what you basically would need to show is that it is plausible that all such actualized cases conduce to some greater morally preferable state, such that an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being would have had no sufficient reason to intentionally disallow any of them (or would have had sufficient reason to intentionally allow all of them). And that is what strikes me as highly implausible, given the number of concrete cases that would satisfy the description in, say, premise (8) of the argument. Just saying of each particular case that it is possible that its obtaining conduces to some greater morally preferable state does not provide any reasonable basis for thinking it is plausible that all of them actually do so conduce.

And if I do not accept premise 1 because of your objection, how do I know that you will see as valid ANY rejection of ANY step in the argument?

Not sure what you are asking me here.

Originally posted by sonship
Brief comments on this astute argument:

. 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.

Okay. Whatever that is s ...[text shortened]... rongmaking characteristics. [/quote]

I have to run an errand. I'll come back to this latter.

I will wait until you read the whole argument and then decide which specific points you intend to argue.

I haven't read all the accompanying notes for the argument...

But I assume that the examples of bad things given in step 1 were
picked such that 'free will' isn't a factor. So as to avoid the theists
response that god [for example] stopping a murder would be interfering
with the free will of the murder. [which is nonsense of course]

So the examples in step one are both incidences of suffering caused
by unintelligent agents [forest fire, cancer] which cannot have any
free will to violate.

I mention this because Sonship is talking about events in the bible
where people kill other people as examples of bad things.

I would also note that at no point does the argument specify the Christian god.
It applies to any and all god concepts that meet the definition in step 16.

16. If God exists, then he is, by definition, an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being.

And thus only applies to a particular persons god concept if that god
concept matches the above.

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]

Errand completed. I left off at:

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.

I do not understand this step well.
I may lean on your summary.

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.

I do not completely understand a previous step and I am not sure that "all things" are considered. But I'll think about it.

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.

Well, I will give it some more thought because step 9 and some other things are not clear to me.

But beside all the steps, some of which appear redundant to me at this time, I agree that the argument basically boils down to this:

Because suffering and death exist God does not exist.

Have you ever seen a play called "God On Trial" ? Essentially it was about some prisoners of war in a Nazi death camp who conduct a full trial for Yahweh. The prisoners themselves play the parts of the court -

Jury,
Witnesses,
Prosecutor,
Defence Attorney.
and three judges.

It is a good play and deals with the horrors of the Holocaust against Jewish theism.

A memorable line from it is that one witness to the issue of not knowing the Mind of God says something like " I don't care about His mind. I care about His covenant."

Anyway since I am not prepared at the moment to further comment before more analysis of this argument, I just volunteer that we Christians have often contemplated the problems of such as you and that play called "God On Trial" present.

If Jesus (Who believed He was God's Son - and I too believe) cried out "My God, My God, Why have You forsaken Me ?" and the Gospel writers were candid enough to record it, then who am I to not be perplexed at certain events IF God DOES exist ?

Originally posted by sonship
Errand completed. I left off at:

[quote] 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 ...[text shortened]... did enough to record it, then who am I to not be perplexed at certain events IF God DOES exist ?

I agree that the argument basically boils down to this:

Because suffering and death exist God does not exist.

You and Freaky seem to suffer from similar reading comprehension ails.

Have you ever seen a play called "God On Trial" ?

I have not. But I may check it out if I get the opportunity.

I am not prepared at the moment to further comment before more analysis of this argument

That's perfectly fine. Take your time and then let me know what you think, or what questions you have about it.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[quote]The argument is based upon the premise of two imagined states of really bad conditions.
The argument does not support how or why such states are not preferred, what makes them bad, or any other claims related to why such states are anything other than normal.
The argument uses this premise as its lynchpin, thereby assigning to these states at m ...[text shortened]... ns to think otherwise, then let’s hear them already!!!

Come on, Freaky, get with the program.

All that means is basically that it counts seriously (weightily) toward making the action wrong, in the absence of further, and perhaps countervailing, considerations.
So--- if I'm hearing the explanation aright, if the game ended after that there first premise, the score is... 1-0?
Nearly 1-0?
Almost 1-0?
Hey-if-things-don't-turn-around-soon-it's-going-to-end-guys-seriously 1-0?

Now, in all seriousness, stop and ask yourself: do you even understand the assertorial content of (1)?
Gee, LJ, hasn't its construction been the focus of my objection from the beginning?
Don't tell me you've ignored everything I've been trying to teach you!

Premise (1) is not claiming that any action with said property is wrong; and it is not claiming that the suffering and death of innocents are somehow supremely or irrevocably bad or anything else of this sort.
You've got some peanut butter on your steak there.
It is EMPHATICALLY describing what anyone in their supposed right mind would call wrong.
It is PURPOSELY imagining a scenario designed to elicit an emotional reaction on the part of the reader, one which would reach the conclusion of exactly how wrong--- how unjustifiably wrong--- that situation is.
Premise one does not offer any redemptive hope whatsoever.

If premise one isn't intended to describe wrong, counterbalance of good is completely unnecessary.

The steak part of your argument, however, is that premise one doesn't say anything about the wrong related to whether or not it can be supplanted by good.
It simply leaves the score at 1-0.

All that means is basically that it counts seriously (weightily) toward making the action wrong, in the absence of further, and perhaps countervailing, considerations.
Nothing remotely like this can be found in premise one.
I think you know that, right?
After all, this is your argument!

Now, it is up to the reader to employ some reasonable standards for the proper application of 'right' and 'wrong' unto actions in order to determine if this premise is true or false. That's a task you have simply failed to perform. Perhaps you do not understand how this is supposed to work. You do not get to simply assert that the argument as provided has failed to support its premise in this way and that's the end of the story.
Actually, the failure is not mine (it hardly ever is, you know).
The failure lies in the first premise.
It is intended to strike an emotional chord, but it--- not me--- fails to describe why the imagined scenarios it employs are wrong.
It's not my task to do the work for the author.
He dreamed it up, it's up to him to describe why those states are less preferred than any others.
Didn't do it, for whatever reason.
Perhaps he thought the wind of emotion would be enough to carry the whole thing through.

That's why the readers here are supposed to engage in the practices of justification, offering relevant epistemic reasons for and against. You apparently missed this memo.
Hey, I'm all for give and take when the situation warrants.
Here, the author is just so damn lazy and lacking in attention to detail, I wonder how such a thing passed muster.
Maybe they just had space to fill, right?

That's a serious moral failing given the nature of the events at issue and given the absence of counterbalancing justifying considerations, for the following reasons.
So... wrong?
Or just possibly wrong?

The rest of this paragraph blathers on about "alarming" this and "alarming" that, but you are doing nothing more than furthering a point which jumped way ahead of itself without justification.
Why are we supposed to consider these situations bad?
Answer that question first, and then the premise can be considered.

(And, by the way, feel free to provide plausible countervailing considerations that would outline rightmaking characteristics for such actions as performed by an omnipotent and omniscient being, since that could help aid our analysis and understanding of some subsequent premises in the argument.)
I offered one which mirrored the exact opposite of the premise.
You offered one which simply got it back to zero.

If the premise is really as bad as you make it sound, then it should be an easy task for you.
Consider it done repeatedly.

This has been shown in detail, multiple times by multiple posters, to be false. As already shown, this objection is predicated on willful ignorance on your part concerning what premises like (7), (8), and (9) assert. At this point, it is unconscionable that you would persist in this objection.
No such detail exists, because my claim stands.
7-9 allow for some counterbalancing, but conclude none exist.
7: no rightmaking characteristics that we are aware of...
8: no rightmaking characteristics that we are aware of...
9: no rightmaking characteristics—including ones that we are not aware of...

Unconscionable?
Sure, LJ.
Whatever you say.

But that is false, because this statement simply does not follow from premise (1).
As stated, your imagined right scenario has God just ignoring the creatures involved, keeping them from suffering and death.
But that's not really the opposite of suffering, is it?
If so, don't you need to demonstrate that?
Just sayin'.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]All that means is basically that it counts seriously (weightily) toward making the action wrong, in the absence of further, and perhaps countervailing, considerations.
So--- if I'm hearing the explanation aright, if the game ended after that there first premise, the score is... 1-0?
Nearly 1-0?
Almost 1-0?
Hey-if-things-don't-turn-around- ...[text shortened]... ally the opposite of suffering, is it?
If so, don't you need to demonstrate that?
Just sayin'.[/b]

Yeah. I'm not buying it any more.

I don't believe anyone can be this dense and not be doing it on purpose.

You are simply playing at being stupid for kicks.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yeah. I'm not buying it any more.

I don't believe anyone can be this dense and not be doing it on purpose.

You are simply playing at being stupid for kicks.

If I'm playing, that doesn't bode well for you.