A Formal Proof that if Evil Exists then the Theists' God Does Not

[Shadow Wolf]

By the way. Dante was a playwrite and painter. He wrote Dante's Inferno, A Devine Comedy. A joke you see? The painting was a spoof. Hell evolved much the way Christ-mass evolved into a meaningless tangle of pomp, tinsel, food, parties, gifts, lights, to cover it's pagan origins. Hey. I may not be right at all. I've only been a serious student of our bible for 20 years. I'll never get "it" all right.
The Bible is the most fascinating book I've ever read and I never stop learning about how it makes meaning.

Alighieri was a poet, and he did not write The Divine Comedy as a joke. It is a serious work that is loaded with bits of history and hefty doses of theology that were considered of utmost importance back then (you even have to know a deal of Greek philosophy and the philosophers themselves to fully appreciate the poem). Even the way Hell is structured and located reflects the views of people from that time.

 

[Skwim]

Your entire argument, all 10 points, fails miserably because not every theist defines god, or the nature and origin of good and evil, in the same way. Without further specifying what sort of god and specifically what beliefs, you have presented a non-working argument.

If it doesn't apply, then feel free to ignore it.

Why make life anymore difficult for yourself than necessary?

 

[Andywelikandy]

Alighieri was a poet, and he did not write The Divine Comedy as a joke. It is a serious work that is loaded with bits of history and hefty doses of theology that were considered of utmost importance back then (you even have to know a deal of Greek philosophy and the philosophers themselves to fully appreciate the poem). Even the way Hell is structured and located reflects the views of people from that time.

The Holy Scriptures of the Bible are ever timely and living. Why? Because they are all the Words given to mankind by an All-knowing Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of Almighty God and Jesus Christ, Christ and Almighty God being the same infallible Persons as the Holy Spirit. He is called the Holy Ghost in the KJV Bible. The KJV Scriptures being the Infallible Word of Almighty God, breathed out by the Holy Ghost, for the sake of the English-speaking world.

2nd Timothy chap. 3: 15 And that from a child (i.e. Timothy) thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[Andywelikandy]

Came across this formal disproof of god's existence. What do you think of it?

(1) If God exists he is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good.
[Hypothesis that the theists' God exists]

(2) Evil occurs.
[Statement of the undisputed fact of evil]

(3) If someone did not prevent the occurrence of evil despite having full knowledge in advance that it would occur if he were not to prevent it and despite also having unlimited power to prevent it, then that person is morally culpable for its occurrence.
[Generalized principle of command responsibility]

(4) By virtue of his omniscience, God knew in advance that evil would occur unless he was to prevent it.
[From 1 by definition of omniscience]

(5) By virtue of his omnipotence, God had the ability to prevent the occurrence of evil.
[From 1 by definition of omnipotence in terms of absence of nonlogical limits to God's ability]

(6) God did not prevent the occurrence of evil.
[From 2 by double negation]

(7) God had the ability to prevent evil from occurring and knew it would occur if he did not prevent it.
[From 4 and 5 by conjunction]

(8) God is morally culpable for the occurrence of evil.
[From the conjunction of 3, 6, and 7 by modus ponens]

(9) God is not wholly good.
[From 8 by definition of "wholly good"]

(10) God does not exist.
[From 1 and 9 by modus tollens]
7.4 Conclusion

The theist's God was supposed to be morally perfect as well as omnipotent and omniscient. But from the undisputed fact that evil exists in the world whose existence he supposedly brought about, it follows--by the unassailable moral truth expressed in the Generalized Principle of Command Responsibility--that he can't have all three properties at once. Ipso facto, such a God does not now, and never did, exist. It is the logic of the new Down-Under Disproof, not of Plantinga's Free Will Defense, that triumphs.

source
​

The Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent God of the Holy Bible knowing full-well that Adam and Eve were going to "fall" into the "trap" of Satan, allowed Satan to trick Eve into eating the Forbidden Fruit and thus fall into the first ever sin of mankind.

Why? Because if God had not allowed sin in mankind then no human being would know what it is to make a wrong choice towards the Creator God. Nobody would know what kind of evil person Satan is. It's like this: If planet earth was flat and stood under the sun in one place, who would know what night is like? We know night because of day-light. Another one: If you never had a toothache in your life how would you know the pain your friend is going thru' if he had an unbearable toothache?

All-knowing God allowed evil in mankind so we would know how evil Satan could be. Btw, He did not allow evil and sin thereof any otther creature on planet earth.

The Creator God allowed evil in heaven among His Holy angels and thus we have Satan and his cohorts wreaking havoc among human beings. ISIS in these days is a good example of Satanic evil among human beings.

 

[Skwim]

The Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent God of the Holy Bible knowing full-well that Adam and Eve were going to "fall" into the "trap" of Satan, allowed Satan to trick Eve into eating the Forbidden Fruit and thus fall into the first ever sin of mankind.

Why? Because if God had not allowed sin in mankind then no human being would know what it is to make a wrong choice towards the Creator God.

This is like letting children play with matches so they know what burning themselves feels like.
Why not create humans who would always choose god, just as they choose to eat? And what's the big deal about having to know what it is to make a wrong choice towards the Creator God, unless. that is, god is a sadist who enjoys watching those who fail to make the grade.
Furthermore, what's with all the melodrama of creating a tree of forbidden knowledge, telling A & E not to touch it, and putting a lying serpent into the mix, when all god would have to have done is make sure people went to hell unless they followed his rules?

Nobody would know what kind of evil person Satan is.

So why even bother creating Satan in the first place? Or how about getting rid of him? Is he god's best bud?

It's like this: If planet earth was flat and stood under the sun in one place, who would know what night is like? We know night because of day-light.

Why would it be important to know of something that doesn't exist?

If you never had a toothache in your life how would you know the pain your friend is going thru' if he had an unbearable toothache?

So why not make sure that everyone is born with Down syndrome so we could know what those that have it go through? Or how about making sure that everyone breaks a leg in their life so we all know how much our neighbor is struggling with theirs. Besides, what's so important about knowing the pain your friend is going thru' if he had an unbearable toothache? And you do realize don't you, that not everyone gets toothaches.

All-knowing God allowed evil in mankind so we would know how evil Satan could be.

So knowing how evil Satan could be is actually worth allowing evil in the world? That's one hell of a high price to pay for such a stupid piece of knowledge. Exactly what are we supposed to do with it that warrants the price?

The Creator God allowed evil in heaven among His Holy angels and thus we have Satan and his cohorts wreaking havoc among human beings.

He did, huh. Why? Why would a loving, beneficent, compassionate, and praiseworthy being do such a thing: allowing such an ugly manifestation to exist? Any human being doing the same would be considered psychotic.

 

[McBell]

The Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent God of the Holy Bible knowing full-well that Adam and Eve were going to "fall" into the "trap" of Satan, allowed Satan to trick Eve into eating the Forbidden Fruit and thus fall into the first ever sin of mankind.

Why? Because if God had not allowed sin in mankind then no human being would know what it is to make a wrong choice towards the Creator God. Nobody would know what kind of evil person Satan is. It's like this: If planet earth was flat and stood under the sun in one place, who would know what night is like? We know night because of day-light. Another one: If you never had a toothache in your life how would you know the pain your friend is going thru' if he had an unbearable toothache?

All-knowing God allowed evil in mankind so we would know how evil Satan could be. Btw, He did not allow evil and sin thereof any otther creature on planet earth.

The Creator God allowed evil in heaven among His Holy angels and thus we have Satan and his cohorts wreaking havoc among human beings. ISIS in these days is a good example of Satanic evil among human beings.

Wait...
Are you saying that the best your all knowing, all powerful deity could come up with is to set man up to fail?

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

Okay (nothing new here).

Why? Why saddle all of humanity with the sin of two people? No loving and just human being would ever do this with another group of people. Would you? Would you hold a whole country, say, guilty for what its despotic leader does? I would hope not. And here we have a supposedly all-loving and all just-god doing just this. Two of his creatures slip up so he afflicts all of humanity that follows, approx. 107 billion of us.

I may not hold individuals of a country individually guilty for what its despotic leader did, but unfortunately they may be punished as a result by things such as embargoes & the like. Perhaps something similar happens with humanity but it does not mean God in a direct way punishes all of humanity. I think of the situation as God having setting up principles & one of those principles causes the suffering resulting from the first sin (perhaps in an indirect way). So as a child is burned after putting their hand in a fire (not directly willed by God), what follows from the first sin has to take place as result of simply how God created all things & especially free-will (without which we would perhaps be more like robots & not children of God). This may not be a consolation to those in the midst of suffering but the meaning of life is really to get to Heaven. No matter what happiness you can achieve in this life, you still have to die, so what is the ultimate meaning of that happiness?

Okay (nothing new here).
Okay.

Yup, with some, maybe many of us going to his hell. As I said: he goes ahead anyway because the rate of failure is tolerable. Think this is a nice thing to do when he has the opportunity of not doing it?

As written before, ppl go to the Hell of the damned on account of abusing free-will. Catholics believe if you have abused free-will in such a radical way, you can still be saved if you repent before you die.

I would argue that humans don't have freewill either, but that's another discussion. In any case, god knew, absolutely knew for a fact, that some of his humans would fail his test---freewill or not. Say its 10%. What of all these poor souls (713 million of today's world population)? Think letting 700 million go to hell is worth putting 6.4 billion in heaven, when in reality he could choose to make sure that all 7.125 billion got into heaven?

Actually, Catholic belief is such that in reality He could not (at least not without taking away free-will.) But if He took away free-will, we would be more like robots & not children of God. I am not even sure whether any such robotic creatures could exist in Heaven. The only alternative to absolutely preventing anyone going to the Hell of the damned, it would seem, would be not to create anything. The First Vatican Council stated that the world was created for the glory of God.

Just what kind of just and loving god does such a thing? Where is the benefit in putting 700 million in hell? There is none. Just what kind of just and loving god does such a thing?

God loves us, but He is also just. And as written before, I think of it more as a principle of justice that God has established for all human beings, such that if we abuse free-will in such a radical way (& do not repent) then there is only one possible outcome. As previously written, God seems to have created humanity as a whole without being able to absolutely prevent specific individuals from being damned (which happens from the abuse of free-will with no repentance). Catholics believe God creates a guardian angel for each human being who can help that human being not be damned, but the angel cannot absolutely prevent the soul from being damned.

When you refer to God being all-loving & all-just you must take into account what this really means. In a similar way as I wrote about omnipotence (shown below), all-loving & all-just is limited in some sense.

Omnipotence refers to being able to do all things that are possible (ref. Catholic Encyclopedia, CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Omnipotence). It is not possible for God to be able to change a person's will to good from evil because of the integrity of free-will that we believe human beings have.

 

[Skwim]

I may not hold individuals of a country individually guilty for what its despotic leader did, but unfortunately they may be punished as a result by things such as embargoes & the like.

But god's action wasn't a matter of incidental collateral damage. He made certain that each and every human would be afflicted.

Perhaps something similar happens with humanity but it does not mean God in a direct way punishes all of humanity.

Sure it does. What part of humanity wasn't invested with wages of sin? Punished for the transgression committed by A&E

I think of the situation as God having setting up principles & one of those principles causes the suffering resulting from the first sin (perhaps in an indirect way). So as a child is burned after putting their hand in a fire (not directly willed by God),

But god did "directly will" that every human be a sinful human.

As written before, ppl go to the Hell of the damned on account of abusing free-will. Catholics believe if you have abused free-will in such a radical way, you can still be saved if you repent before you die.

I don't buy freewill so it's a moot point. However, what of those who never had the opportunity to repent, either because they were mentally incompetent, missed their chance (suddenly killed in an accident), confronted by an inept preacher who did a lousy job of selling the sin/redemption story, or never heard that such an opportunity even existed?

God loves us, but He is also just.

Exodus 12:29 (KJV)
29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt . . . ..​

 

[Spiffy]

(3) If someone did not prevent the occurrence of evil despite having full knowledge in advance that it would occur if he were not to prevent it and despite also having unlimited power to prevent it, then that person is morally culpable for its occurrence.
[Generalized principle of command responsibility]

It doesn't necessarily follow that God would prevent the occurrence of evil. It may be that He desired and planned it. Evil, once it's run its course (like a pathogen), may be the best thing for humanity. Our inability to know this admittedly could (and probably would) bring us to the conclusion that God would be wrong not to stop evil, but the possibility that reality is ordered such that evil will eventually produce a greater good renders the above argument weak.

What follows from it would be likewise weakened, especially the derivation that God's not good.

 

[Skwim]

It doesn't necessarily follow that God would prevent the occurrence of evil.

Certainly not the god of Abraham. He was all for it.

It may be that He desired and planned it.

Absolutely.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.​

Evil, once it's run its course (like a pathogen), may be the best thing for humanity.

Why do you think it it will run its course? And even if it does why might it be the best thing for humanity?

Our inability to know this admittedly could (and probably would) bring us to the conclusion that God would be wrong not to stop evil, but the possibility that reality is ordered such that evil will eventually produce a greater good renders the above argument weak.

Not the old; "god knows best" rhetoric again.

 

[Quagmire]

Not the old; "god knows best" rhetoric again.

Why of course not. I think you've successfully established by now that you know best and that God's just too stubborn to go along with your plan.

 

[Skwim]

Why of course not. I think you've successfully established by now that you know best and that God's just too stubborn to go along with your plan.

I know what's logical, and that's good enough for me. So if logic dictates that when the chips fall where they may they will stink, then no amount of rhetoric will eradicate the stink.

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

But god's action wasn't a matter of incidental collateral damage. He made certain that each and every human would be afflicted.

Read what I wrote previously concerning there being a principle established for all human beings and God not being able to create in any other way. Once again there is the issue of free-will.

Sure it does. What part of humanity wasn't invested with wages of sin? Punished for the transgression committed by A&E

Once again refer to what I wrote about a principle of justice. The result was that humanity was invested with the wages of sin, but God perhaps only created the 'law-punishment rule'. Perhaps He did not directly will the punishment, but instead directly willed the 'law-punishment rule'. There is a difference. Catholics interpret Sacred Scripture in a particular way & Protestant theology is different. You may get to the wrong conclusions because of this.

But god did "directly will" that every human be a sinful human.

No He didn't. Refer to 'law-punishment rule' above. Catholic theology is different to Protestant theology. If you explain this point in more detail, I might better be able to try to expound the Catholic doctrine concerning it.

I don't buy freewill so it's a moot point.

Perhaps herein lies the whole problem with what we are discussing.

However, what of those who never had the opportunity to repent, either because they were mentally incompetent, missed their chance (suddenly killed in an accident), confronted by an inept preacher who did a lousy job of selling the sin/redemption story, or never heard that such an opportunity even existed?

Once again, there is a difference between Catholic theology & Protestant theology. What does it mean to repent? Catholics believe that those who have not been formally baptised and do not even know of the gospel, even atheists, can be saved (even if they die in such a state of ignorance).

Exodus 12:29 (KJV)
29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt . . . ..​

But it does not mean they were damned. They may be in Heaven now. Once again there is the issue of the 'law-punishment rule' and scriptural interpretation (Catholic theology is different to Protestant theology.)

----------------------------------------------------------------

"Lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of thy mercy." - Fatima prayer of the rosary.

 

[Spiffy]

Why do you think it it will run its course? And even if it does why might it be the best thing for humanity?

It's not important what I think. The point is that your defense of God as "bad" for not preventing evil is predicated on a weak presupposition.

Not the old; "god knows best" rhetoric again.

You posted what appears in the op to be a logical approach to what I assume to be one of your beliefs. I countered accordingly. Now you retreat into an emotional response with no attempt to show how what I posted is invalid. So who's really tossing out rhetoric here? It's reasonable to assume that a being with the properties God is said to have could design a creation in which evil, which appears as "bad" to us can actually be good. There are a number of examples in everyday life which support this. I'm not saying your argument is wrong, I'm saying the premise is weak.

Call it rhetoric if you like. Insistence on trying to force truth to conform to empirical premises is the typical circular reasoning of the atheist.

 

[Quagmire]

I know what's logical, and that's good enough for me. So if logic dictates that when the chips fall where they may they will stink, then no amount of rhetoric will eradicate the stink.

Sounds like someone just had an epiphany.

 

[Skwim]

Read what I wrote previously concerning there being a principle established for all human beings and God not being able to create in any other way. Once again there is the issue of free-will.

I did. Read what I wrote previously concerning there being a principle established for all human beings and God not being able to create in any other way.

No He didn't. Refer to 'law-punishment rule' above. Catholic theology is different to Protestant theology. If you explain this point in more detail, I might better be able to try to expound the Catholic doctrine concerning it.

Sorry, but your concocted 'law-punishment rule' doesn't hold any weight.

But it does not mean they were damned.

Perhaps not, just deprived of life.

 

[Skwim]

Sounds like someone just had an epiphany.

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

Sorry, but your concocted 'law-punishment rule' doesn't hold any weight.
....................
Perhaps not, just deprived of life.

A madman decided one day to kill his whole family and he did this by setting the house on fire. When confronted at court, he defended his actions by saying that if God had not created fire capable of killing people, then his whole family would not have died, and so he blamed God for his actions.

 

[Skwim]

A madman decided one day to kill his whole family and he did this by setting the house on fire. When confronted at court, he defended his actions by saying that if God had not created fire capable of killing people, then his whole family would not have died, and so he blamed God for his actions.

Yeah, I'd be scratching my head too if I posted such drivel.

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

Yeah, I'd be scratching my head too if I posted such drivel.

Actually, I was trying to reflect your reasoning.