If you are human then you are selfish. Do you live only meeting the minimal needs of air, food, water, and shelter? If you have anything more than what is necessary for survival then you are selfish.
Well, aren't we both selfish then?
The first problem with your argument, misunderstanding of the word logical. Logic is the study of the modes of reasoning and the use of valid reasoning. It has nothing to do with finding truth. It has to do with a person's premise agreeing with their following arguments. A valid argument can be wrong.
You make it sound like I never took a course in logic. I have. Two of them, in fact. I took a course in "Introduction to Logic" and "Formal logic". You're not telling me anything that I didn't learn. Although the textbook for my "Formal logic" class did say that the point of constructing an argument was truth-perservation, especially with regards to constructing deductive arguments. In a logically valid argument, the conclusion must necessarily follow from the premises.
A valid argument can be wrong; this is the difference between a
sound argument and a
unsound argument. Consider the following:
1.) All glass skyscrapers are in New York City.
2.) The Empire State Building is a glass skyscraper
3,) The Empire State Building is in New York City.
This is a logically valid argument. However, it's not sound. However:
1.) All men are mortal
2.) Socrates was a man
3.) Therefore, Socrates was mortal
This is both logically valid and logically sound. In my OP, I presented my argument as one that is logically valid but the soundness is open to debate. That is why people, including me and you, are discussing it.
For example:
All men wear hats. John is a man. Therefore John wears hats. This is a completely valid argument and it is also completely wrong.
Look, I don't need a tutorial in formal logic. I appreciate your attempts to educate me but I have taken logic courses.
The word logical can also mean something that is expected. You expect that if God exists and He is all powerful then He has a responsibility to prevent injustice from ever happening in His universe.
My argument attempts to show that the conjunction of attributes given to any divine being would result in a contradiction between a divine being with these attributes and the occurrence of injustice. I don't "expect" responsibility, I attempted to argue that this derives from the attribute of being necessarily just.
Second problem, applying human rules to God. God does not HAVE to prevent injustice from occuring if that injustice is for a greater good.
Yes, I have heard the "utility" argument before. Pain, suffering, evil, and injustice can be permitted if it brings about a greater good. You think I have never heard of this before? You may be surprised to know this but I have read the attempts of theists, like William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, and Peter Kreeft to argue for the utility theodicy.
My argument, in response, is that a divine being with the attributes listed in the OP can choose means that avoid negligence. In fact, 9-10ths Penguin made precisely this point by arguing that if a doctor is capable of providing a vaccine without inflicting pain that results from a needle but doesn't, then that doctor is acting injustly. In fact, a divine being who is all-powerful and all-knowing can cure a child without the need for a vaccine altogether.
Matthew
