Theodicy Debate (for TGBaker)

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Theodicy Debate (for TGBaker)

 Hi TGB,

Go ahead and repost the argument here, and let's discuss it.  I'll be back in a few.


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Is this a fair simplified

God = {df. That being who's necessarily omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect}

 

(1) The existence of God in the actual world G strictly implies the nonexistence of evil in G;

(2) Evil exists in G;

Therefore, God does not exist in G.

 

(Is this a fair simplified representation of your argument?)


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Sorry to but in, one and

Sorry to but in, one and only post on this thread.

TGBaker wrote:

I would offer again my theodicy argument:

 

1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p). 

 

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over  possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

 

3)x necessarily would not allow  q

 

4)p--> not q

 

5) It is possible that god is x

 

6)q --> not p

 

7) Our world=q therefore not p

 

8)not p

 

9)not p--->not x

 

10)not x

 

11)god= not x

 

 Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being.

 

 Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being. Also a  world of limitless well being would necessarily exist in all possible worlds. Since it does not do in ours then it is not necessary and therefore is a choice of many worlds.  A limitless good entity, god or such would choose the best to create. Since we do not live in that world no limitless good being/god actualized our world.

 

The argument at least places the question as to whether our attributes of god in conflict with themselves show that they are really in conflict with his actual properties and therefore invalid or simply relative compliments of worship that are not literal but poetic. 

 

Again definitions become important as to perfect being, morally perfect and what have you.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 I saw that, but I would

 I saw that, but I would rather simplify it.  I wanted to check with him if my simplification was okay.  I think so, but I want to know what he thinks.


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 My first response,

My response, assuming that I've understood the argument properly, is that this doesn't seem to be much of an argument at all.  It's just the classic problem of evil formulated under a modal axiom system.

The answer, as always, is that God could have good reasons for permitting evil to occur--morally permissible reasons, at that.  The first premise is false; God can exist and so could evil.  

The argument is refuted.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:My

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

My response, assuming that I've understood the argument properly, is that this doesn't seem to be much of an argument at all.  It's just the classic problem of evil formulated under a modal axiom system.

The answer, as always, is that God could have good reasons for permitting evil to occur--morally permissible reasons, at that.  The first premise is false; God can exist and so could evil.  

The argument is refuted.

I posted to ex-minister:

Thanks ex-minister. I haven't had a theist object to its flaw ( and I built one in there ) yet. It still stands as true It is written loose enough that people who are not familiar with logic or are not interested can still follow. An OA only works if you start with it rather than the definitions and you have an audience that is convinced by it ( so Plantinga) It reaffirms a theist faith but is never convincing to any one else. Thus Plantinga admitted that it warranted the argument as rational and valid but does not prove the truth of its claim. OH mine does.

Well it is roughly reformulated in a modal logic and it addresses the classic problem of evil.  But is the flaw really the lack of address to "morally permissible reasons?"   Rather than defining god my focus is on possible worlds and the relation to the actual world:

1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p).

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over  possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow  q

4)p--> not q

5) It is possible that god is x

6)q --> not p

7) Our world=q therefore not p

8)not p

9)not p--->not x

10)not x

11)god= not x

If there is a possible world of only well-being ( and lets assume that well-being entails freewill)  could god actualize it.? And would he actualize this over a world containing evil or suffering? If not then this goes to the definition of GOD. If he does then  it is normally assumed that he does and corresponds to normal theism. Note also I am stating a capable and not necessarily an omnipotent being.
PS I meant to thank you for complementing my wife.  We are biased and think our son is the prettiest of us.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism