An Inductive Argument from Evil

Originally posted by Rajk999
#1, that death is necessarily an evil thing.

You kinda skipped the whole 'suffering' bit. The animal dies an agonizing death. The child eventually dies, after lingering suffering.

Do you think suffering is a bad thing?

Originally posted by LemonJello
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....

It's a labored 'therefore' scaffolding along side an invisible building with a predetermined conclusion on the 17th floor.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
It's a labored 'therefore' scaffolding along side an invisible building with a predetermined conclusion on the 17th floor.

This sounds like an argument [of sorts] arguing against 'Inductive Argument' rather than a contribution to the discussion of the OP.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
It's a labored 'therefore' scaffolding along side an invisible building with a predetermined conclusion on the 17th floor.

If it is really 'predetermined' rather than well-supported, you ought to be able to put a dent in one of the 'floors'.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
If it is really 'predetermined' rather than well-supported, you ought to be able to put a dent in one of the 'floors'.

Originally posted by LemonJello
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. [Who is "allowing..."?]

2. Our world contains animals that die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children who undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer. [Reiterates the painfully obvious to no apparent purpose.]

3. An omnipotent being could prevent such events, if he knew that those events were about to occur. [Presumes to know the "omnipotent being's" plan and rationale for events which occur within it.]

4. An omniscient being would know that such events were about to occur. [Reiterates the painfully obvious to no apparent purpose.]

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. [Who is the "being"?]

Flimsy/inconsequential substance laboriously presented as a bedrock premise; apropos of a high school debaters club.

What would be an example of a right-making counterbalancing action?

The logic falls down on step 7 as you are aware. It is the classic
escape clause for the theist; the omniscient deity knows why
suffering is a good thing even though we poor mortals do not.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
The logic falls down on step 7 as you are aware. It is the classic
escape clause for the theist; the omniscient deity knows why
suffering is a good thing even though we poor mortals do not.

Explain "escape clause" in terms of the logic flow of the OP.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by LemonJello
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. [Who is "allowing..."?]

2. Our world con ...[text shortened]... al substance laboriously presented as a bedrock premise; apropos of a high school debaters club.

It's called rigor. Yes, philosophical arguments tend to sound like they are stating the obvious at times. But that is mainly to anticipate the various ways that simpler words might be misinterpreted.

Your question for 1) - "who is allowing" - does not matter yet. It can literally be any intelligent being with power to intervene. That has not been defined yet.

People in general need to stop anticipating the conclusion. Take the premise exactly for what it says, and do not try to add anything more than is there. Evaluate the premise, and make a note of whether you agree, or disagree, with the premise.

This answers your complaint about premise 2). It is not a mere reiteration. It is saying that the situation in 1), which was hypothetical, actually happens in the real world. So,

1) is a value judgment (situation X is bad, or at least, contains a 'bad' component).
2) is just saying "situation X actually happens." It is NOT a value judgment.

Now, ugggggh. Your objection to 3). You would get an "F" in critical thinking with this kind of crap. You are jumping ahead to your preconceptions, and anticipating the argument's contradiction of them. Not kosher. Stop adding to the premise! Just evaluate what it says, and state whether you agree or disagree.

Your objection to 4) - wrong! 4) is not a reiteration. It introduces omniscience for the first time. If you don't believe me - check 1), 2) and 3) again. No mention of it!

Your objection to 5) - you have not been told who the 'being' is yet. You must be patient. WAIT for it. For now, just evaluate the premise and state whether you agree or disagree with it. (This is not that hard.)

You call this presentation a 'high school debaters club' level - even though it was taken from a collegiate website. Your responses so far indicate that you would get trounced in a high school debater's club. Seriously, if they ever offer to let you stand as a guest debater, you would do well to practice on LJ's presentations here, to avoid embarrassing yourself in front of the kiddos.

Originally posted by SwissGambit to Grampy Bobby
Your responses so far indicate that you would get trounced in a high school debater's club.

I reckon Grampy Bobby might think you saying this is not "civil conversation". 😉

Originally posted by FMF
I reckon Grampy Bobby might think you saying this is not "civil conversation". 😉

It's funny. I wrote that sentence as a slam (of course), but the more I thought about it, the more I started thinking, "this really IS for his own good." 😛

... Deleted

Originally posted by SwissGambit
It's called rigor. Yes, philosophical arguments tend to sound like they are stating the obvious at times. But that is mainly to anticipate the various ways that simpler words might be misinterpreted.

Your question for 1) - "who is allowing" - does not matter yet. It can literally be any intelligent being with power to intervene. That has not be ...[text shortened]... l to practice on LJ's presentations here, to avoid embarrassing yourself in front of the kiddos.

"4. An omniscient being would know that such events were about to occur. [Reiterates the painfully obvious to no apparent purpose.]" LJ/gb

"Your objection to 4) - wrong! 4) is not a reiteration. It introduces omniscience for the first time." SG

Painfully obvious in that "An omniscient being would know that such events were about to occur." To quote LJ, "Duh."

It's hardly a compelling exercise if the overall thrust distills to a dreary, pedestrian: "God doesn't exist".
___________________________________

Premise: "God doesn't exist".

Q. "So, what in hell are we going to do now?"

I'd get interested enough to pay the online forum admission.

A. Except that He always has existed, exists now and always will exist. I for one look forward to being in His presence.

This thread may be a dream vehicle to display debaters' technique but in the scheme of things doesn't weigh much.

Good night, SwissGambit. Thanks for your reply. -Bob

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"4. An omniscient being would know that such events were about to occur. [Reiterates the painfully obvious to no apparent purpose.]" LJ/gb

"Your objection to 4) - wrong! 4) is not a reiteration. It introduces omniscience for the first time." SG

Painfully obvious in that "An omniscient being would know that such events were about to occur." ...[text shortened]... the scheme of things doesn't weigh much.

Good night, SwissGambit. Thanks for your reply. -Bob

Last I checked, good arguments do not depend on how 'dreary' the opposition may find the conclusion. I think running away from unpleasant conclusions is a sign of fear, and unsatisfactory for an intellectually curious person.

None of these threads 'weigh much' in the scheme of things. And yet, here we all are.

Good night.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Last I checked, good arguments do not depend on how 'dreary' the opposition may find the conclusion. I think running away from unpleasant conclusions is a sign of fear, and unsatisfactory for an intellectually curious person.

None of these threads 'weigh much' in the scheme of things. And yet, here we all are.

Good night.

Driving west after midnight through Texas on our way to California, an all night radio program host was taking calls on listeners' definitions of "freedom". One I never forgot, "Easy in harness." Consider the alternatives: bondage or anarchy.