• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

9Westy9

9Westy9

Sceptic, Libertarian, Egalitarian
Premium Member
eselam said:
by such a way of reasoning it would be correct of me to say that knives and guns are evil so we should destroy all knives and all guns. does either of you believe that my view is correct?
Click to expand...

guns and knives are tools, God is not.
 
Koldo

Koldo

Outstanding Member
eselam said:
by such a way of reasoning it would be correct of me to say that knives and guns are evil so we should destroy all knives and all guns. does either of you believe that my view is correct?
Click to expand...

First, knives and guns are not evil.
And i don't even see a reason to get past this point. :p
 
Gharib

Gharib

I want Khilafah back
Koldo said:
First, knives and guns are not evil.
And i don't even see a reason to get past this point. :p
Click to expand...

guns and knives kill people. just as many other things do, what do you think an armed robbery means? what do guns do in war? what do they do to innocent lives?
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
eselam said:
guns and knives kill people. just as many other things do, what do you think an armed robbery means? what do guns do in war? what do they do to innocent lives?
Click to expand...
Guns and knives do not kill people.
People kill people.
Guns and knives might make it easier for people to kill people
but guns and knives do not do anything without people.

Now let us pretend there were never any guns and knives...
Do you honestly think that people would not kill people?
Or do you think that people would still be killing people, just using other methods?
 
Koldo

Koldo

Outstanding Member
eselam said:
who creates good, man or God?
Click to expand...

I will quote Mestemia post because my opinion is described very well through his words:

Mestemia said:
Guns and knives do not kill people.
People kill people.
Guns and knives might make it easier for people to kill people
but guns and knives do not do anything without people.

Now let us pretend there were never any guns and knives...
Do you honestly think that people would not kill people?
Or do you think that people would still be killing people, just using other methods?
Click to expand...
 
Warren Clark

Warren Clark

Informer
Well the only arguments come from those that don't believe in the traditional God most Christian theists come to believe in. In which their God is perfect in every way. But their logic would assume that evil may not be imperfect. In which they go into circular logic.
 
Draka

Draka

Wonder Woman
eselam said:
guns and knives kill people. just as many other things do, what do you think an armed robbery means? what do guns do in war? what do they do to innocent lives?
Click to expand...

By that argument, lots of thing are "evil" because they can used to kill people. Hands, feet, piano wire, stairs, thumbs, pencils, cars, rat poison, plastic bags, glass bottles, rope, lead pipes, candlesticks, and so on and so forth. These things are not evil and they don't kill people...they are tools used by people. A rope does not get up on its own and strangle the life out of someone, it is used by another person to achieve that end. Otherwise, by itself, it is just a tool used for carrying or pulling or so on. Like a gun and knife. The gun may normally be used to go hunting for food and the knife used to skin and cut up the animal in question, but if either are turning upon another person...it is the person holding them that is at fault, not the tools in their hand. The knife or gun doesn't do anything on its own nor do they somehow command or persuade their holder to kill someone. They are but mere tools of a person.
 
Matthew78

Matthew78

aspiring biblical scholar
Skwim said:
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
​
Click to expand...

I really like Dr. Bradley's argument. When I first began studying it, I was extremely impressed with it. However, after giving it some deeper thought, I realized that the argument has its problems. I still agree with the argument and think the gist of it is solid. I realized, however, that the way the argument is worded is problematic. It's not as sound as I initially thought it was when I began studying it in-depth. I think the argument can be worded in ways that make it stronger and I suspect that a sound logical argument can be produced.

The problem with the way it's worded is that the second premise, "Evil occurs" is ambiguous. The problem is that Bradley has taken for granted that everyone agrees on what evil is and that it does occur. He didn't bother to define evil. That's why you have seen some quibbles in this thread. Bradley left himself open to criticism for this and now, it's up to folks like me, to try to polish the argument by wording it in such a way as to eliminate ambiguity and formulate a sound wording of it. This is not easy to do. I'll have more to say in future posts on this thread. But for now, I just want to give my current impression of it. I am working on ways to not only fine-tune Bradley's argument but also to futher expand on his critique of Plantinga's work and close any loopholes that he might have left open.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top