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

[Kilgore Trout]

i already proved these exist:

Ha! - You're on your way to becoming as revered as the legendary Jesuits with logic like that.

 

[Skwim]

Here's something i don't get. The above is an assertion that this proof "triumphs" over Plantiga's. But it doesn't address Platinga's argument. If god exists, is omnipotent (which I've always believed implies omniscience), and wholly good, then he could ensure no evil occurs. However, in order for free agents to exist, god has to allow grant them to act against his wishes (e.g., by doing evil). The proof doesn't address whether agency at all.

Yeah, that does come off as a non-sequitur. It's part of Raymond D. Bradley's (creator of the argument) argument against "Plantinga's Attempted Refutation of the Logical Disproof." See the link I provided (source) in the OP.

 

[Skwim]

Proofs against the existence of god(s) are about as necessary as arguments denying the existence of the Sasquatch.

Next up - proof against the existence of unicorns.

To each his own.

 

[Draka]

My mistake in thinking that those answering would recognize the argument for what it was; an exercise in formal logic wherein it can be demonstrated that if evil exists then god, who is commonly considered to be omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good, could not. I wasn't expecting anyone to question the truth of the premises, and if they did, couldn't assume for the sake of argument that they are true. As I say, my mistake.

You are playing it as if this is some fault of ours and not yours for presenting a faulty argument.

Again, even IF "evil" exists, there is nothing saying that the particular god described is the god that all theists believe in. And even IF a god is seen to be all powerful and could see everything and could stop things, it doesn't mean that stopping them would be the "good" thing to do in every given situation. I believe I noted as much in my response, that even if something is considered "bad" or even "evil" to us it doesn't mean that it isn't necessary to happen because stopping it would result in something even worse. Or that the "evil" thing done isn't actually a catalyst for people to pull together for "good" and actually cause more love and comraderie in the world. A deity given such attributes would be able to see and know all would it not? Something which may seem horrendous to us may just look like the means to a better end to it. Who knows? I too have issues with that concept of deity which is why I don't adhere to it. Point is, there are many ways to look at it and there is no one commonly held concept of deity that permeates throughout all theists. So the initial premise of a "theist's god" makes the entire "logic" fail in the first place as it is built upon a faulty base. Again, if the argument is meant to discredit a PARTICULAR concept of god then it should be specific in its arguments and not try to take a narrow argument over a wide subject by using the terms it did.

 

[waitasec]

maybe someone already brought this up...
maybe this is an argument against the notion that god is an exclusively benevolent god.
there was knowledge of good and evil before knowledge of good and evil were attained.
so god, i guess, is both good and evil, he just didn't want us to know about it

 

[Songbird]

To be fair, Skwim, you did ask what people think of it, and it really is a proof most theists don't ascribe to. You didn't specify that people should only focus on the logic. The summary outright tells theists what they believe, and who would be willing to then dissect the formula with that tone?

 

[HiddenDjinn]

maybe someone already brought this up...
maybe this is an argument against the notion that god is an exclusively benevolent god.
there was knowledge of good and evil before knowledge of good and evil where attained.
so god, i guess, is both good and evil, he just didn't want us to know about it

Actually, the consensus seems to be, if you'd bother reading the thread, that any god that exists is above morality, therefore immune to classification as either good or evil.

 

[waitasec]

Actually, the consensus seems to be, if you'd bother reading the thread, that any god that exists is above morality, therefore immune to classification as either good or evil.

i wanted to respond to the OP...is that alright with you?

guess not, tooo bad

 

[HiddenDjinn]

i wanted to respond to the OP...is that alright with you?

guess not, tooo bad

It would make sense that one who came in with such a response would make oneself aware of the discussion that has already taken place. Otherwise, the person comes across as both ignorant of the discussion and too lazy to keep up.

 

[waitasec]

It would make sense that one who came in with such a response would make oneself aware of the discussion that has already taken place. Otherwise, the person comes across as both ignorant of the discussion and too lazy to keep up.

thats why i said MAYBE someone already said this...


whats up with you?

 

[9Westy9]

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]​

Already been mentioned but only relevant if the theist agree's. For the sake of the thread I'll agree.

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

Evil is subjective. Although the alternative seems to be that what we view as Evil is acceptable by God

(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]

Agreed

(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]

Agreed

(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]

Agreed

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

Agreed

(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]

Agreed

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

Agreed

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

Agreed

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

Agreed

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

If we accept 1 and 2 then the argument seems sound. Although there are always ways to wriggle out of it.

1) God can't be held accountable morally because he's omniscient and therefore knows more than us. (If sure this can be debated)

2) All the 'evil' in the world has some beneficial purpose that cannot be achieved in any other way (similar to 1 above)

There may be more but I can't think of any right now

 

[waitasec]

In other words, "Accept my damn strawman or ****." I don't think so. If you insist on posting an inane argument, expect it to be attacked.

it's better than :ignore: a posters remarks to the OP and just respond with remarks that have NOTHING to do with the thread...right?


impressive....not.

 

[Super Universe]

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
​

God is not wholly good. God is everything that exists, good and bad.

This criticism you make of God, you don't even realize that it applies to you as well but of course you don't take responsibility for anything outside your room, you just blame God.

What have you ever done to prevent evil?

Anything?

 

[waitasec]

What have you ever done to prevent evil?

Anything?

i reported this one too....

 

[Koldo]

The first premise is certainly problematic as a standalone. The problem of evil is used against a particular kind of God that possesses certain traits, not against the whole concept of God. That is why it is always possible to avoid it if one rejects at least one of the three omni attributes.

On the other hand, i have to disagree with other posters here when they disregard the second premise so easily. This point can actually bring a pretty interesting debate in itself.

 

[Skwim]

To be fair, Skwim, you did ask what people think of it, and it really is a proof most theists don't ascribe to. You didn't specify that people should only focus on the logic. The summary outright tells theists what they believe, and who would be willing to then dissect the formula with that tone?

In hind sight you're quite right. It was my fault to think everyone would recognize the argument as one constructed in formal logic, and address it as such. Won't make that mistake again.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

everyone would recognize the argument as one constructed in formal logic, and address it as such. Won't make that mistake again.

One way, IMO, to force people to focus on the validity of a formal logic argument is to present it formally. I would imagine that copying or approximating symbols and all takes time, but it's harder to ignore the "formal" part of "formal logic" if one adds to the English sentences formal equivalents such as:
∀(x)[God(x) --> (Omni(x) & AllGood(x))] where Omni covers both omniscient and omnipotent.

 

[Quagmire]

Does this mean you consider god to be neither good or bad, but sort of amoral?

I don't consider God at all in that respect.

Actually the thread title is that of Raymond D, Bradley who used it as the introduction to his argument, which I presented here (see link).

Then tell him to stop saying 'the theists".

How about the reality in which the Sun rises and sets everyday.

I didn't say "which reality", I said "it depends on how real you want to be" (about this reality).

All our perceptions of reality are subjective, so using terms like "in the real world" is just another way of saying "in this world as it relates to me".

Since we're talking about God, not Skwim, it's only fair to approach this from (to whatever extent it's possible for us) His perspective.

In other words, are we talking about "real" in the sense of our own subjective reality? Or are we talking about "real" beyond that, ie., as close to objective reality as we can get.

And what I see as the flaws that so far have been pointed out are nothing more than a misunderstanding of formal logic. Not a big deal in as much as few people have much familiarity with it, but it is a critical component here.

I understand the idea of "if you don't accept the permises none of this applies to you", but I think it's a cop out.

Put it this way:

If a Christian made a debate thread entitled: "
A Formal Proof that if God Exists then the Bible is His word and all atheists are going to hell" and then went on to create an OP that looked like this:

(1) If the Bible is the inerrant word of God then everything in it is undeniably true.

(2) The bible says God exists.

(3) All morality comes from faith.

(4) By virtue of their lack of faith, atheists are immoral.

(5) By virtue of their inherent lack of morality, atheists sin continually.

(6) God allows them to sin in order to allow us to have free will.

(7) The price of sin, as the Bible tells us, is eternal fiery torment in hell.

(8) Atheists willingly choose to go to hell.

(9) Modern science confirms all of the above."


If anyone came into that thread and started pointing out the flaws in the OP's premise, would it be acceptable for the author of the OP to say "Well, if you don't beleive all the premises in the OP, obviously none of this applies to you and you have no business participating in this thread"?


Even if this sort of strategy was acceptable, your thread title is making a definitive claim (not a provisional one). "A Formal Proof that if Evil Exists then the Theists' God Does Not".

 

[Draka]

In hind sight you're quite right. It was my fault to think everyone would recognize the argument as one constructed in formal logic, and address it as such. Won't make that mistake again.

And again you are trying to make out like those who disagree with it simply are too stupid to understand it. That's how this is coming off, you realize that? It's not that we simply don't see that it's "constructed in formal logic", it's that the very premise of the whole thing is false and one cannot logically build an argument on a false premise and expect people to say it's a good argument. In fact, it would be illogical for one to do so. You don't build an argument based upon stereotypes and generalities and play it like a trump card and just say that if anyone disagrees they don't "get it".

 

[Orias]

I prefer meself an "evil" God, death is something that atheists and theists alike find fascinating.

If they can't agree on the conclusion, well then I guess we will all "see" one day then won't we?

Atheists and Theists, bla and shplepbla, a sound argument is one that doesn't consist of what someone else says.

Because after all you can only truly observe your own thoughts.