Best of all possible worlds and atheism

Post Reply New Topic

I was putting in the part that I considered most relevant, and rephrased the rest in my own words. Read more carefully, and you will see that I have not been dishonest in the least.


Well... yes. What is your point? He argued that the argument given was valid (that Christianity ultimately requires that this be the best of all possible worlds) and rejected the conclusion of the argument, thus requiring that one or more premises be rejected. I mean, do you not understand the following form?
p implies q
not q
therefore not p


Not only wrong, but also basically incoherent. What extra premise? Go back to that argument in the OP.
1 AND 2 AND 3 implies 4
Not 4
Therefore Not (1 AND 2 AND 3)

The only "extra premise" is the claim "not 4" and AG has argued for why we should accept "not 4."


No missing premises. Suffering could be brought into the debate, but is not strictly necessary. Your objection to using evidence to establish a premise is quite frankly insane.


You really need to pay more attention to things you read. That's not an argument, and was never put forward as such. That's just a list of premises that were held up as incompatible (that is, all four of them can not be true at the same time). Since they are incompatible, you must reject at least one of them. Now, you desire to reject 4, correct? You believe that this is actually the best of all possible worlds?

The following argument:
1) The actual world was created by an omnipotent and perfectly good being.
2) An omnipotent being can actualize any possible world.
3) A perfectly good being always chooses the best outcome from among its choices.
Therefore,
4) The actual world is the best of all possible worlds.
is valid. (You can see premise-premise-premise-conclusion). However, the conclusion seems absurd, which would lead any sane individual to question the truth of the premises.

In accordance with your own testimony, I would say you should be talking to the author of the definition in question.

@Orwell

Let me just post this, AG posted it on page 3

That being said, you have not contested the logical soundness of this argument, which I am arguably implicitly making here:
1) An omnipotent being can actualize any possible world.
2) A perfectly good being always chooses the best outcome from among its choices.
3) This is not the best of all possible worlds.
4) Therefore this world is not made by God.
5) If God exists, then he is the maker of this world.
6) Therefore God does not exist.

Response

Do you see the missing premiss between two and three?

Now let's look at your post. While making the effort to distinguish between posts and arguments.

You state (about the OP argument)

Well... yes. What is your point? He argued that the argument given was valid (that Christianity ultimately requires that this be the best of all possible worlds) and rejected the conclusion of the argument, thus requiring that one or more premises be rejected. I mean, do you not understand the following form?

Response

I do not have a problem with the logical form of this argument, let's just clear this up so you cannot wriggle around the issue so much.

The issue I have here relates to the argument AG made to defeat the fourth premiss of the OP argument. He made an evidential argument from suffering and attempted to draw an absolute conclusion from it. I repeatedly pointed this out, he stated he did not distinguish between logical and probabilistic arguments as much as I did and considered the evidential argument just as good. I pointed out that the 'evidential argument from evil' assumes the logical consistence of God suffering.

Then AG gave me a spiel about evidential arguments. I attempted to get him to distinguish between evidential argument in general and the evidential argument from evil specifically. I pointed out, that he could not conclude from the evidential argument that his conclusion that this IS NOT the best of all possible worlds was refuted by his own use of the evidential argument. I further advised him that all he could conclude from his evidence was 'most likely'. He then repeatedly argued that I was full of it and had no clue what I was talking about.

Now here is the question for you: do you understand this objection I made to the OP and AG's evidence?

You stated

You really need to pay more attention to things you read. That's not an argument, and was never put forward as such.

Response

Not true, look at the top of this post. The smaller argument on page 4 had the same issue and had been put forward, by AG, as an argument on page 3. The argument on page three has the same missing premise. Therefor it is logically invalid. Do you see this objection?

You stated

Do you think this is the best of all possible worlds?

Response

I will answer this question, partially in the hope, that you will answer mine. It is the best possible world for the purposes that God has for it. I find the statement itself a bit emotionally misleading, so I don't really like the premiss as written; it gives the indication of being more subjective than it really is. It also does not clarify some of the things AngelRho has stated; such as when God made the world (in that it was not made five minutes ago for the benefit of our own happiness) and the need for free will (as in, it is not free of the consequences of our actions).

The only thing that would need to be added, for sake of clarity, is the claim (which follows from 1 and 2) that a perfectly good omnipotent being would create the best possible world. Perhaps also add the definition "God is a perfectly good omnipotent being." You certainly do not object to either of those claims.

What do you think of this form?
1) An omnipotent being can actualize any possible world.
2) A perfectly good being always chooses the best outcome from among its choices.
3) Therefore, a world created by a perfectly good omnipotent being will be the best of all possible worlds.
4) This is not the best of all possible worlds.
5) Therefore this world is not made by a perfectly good omnipotent being.
6) If God exists, then he is the maker of this world and a perfectly good omnipotent being.
7) Therefore God does not exist.

There is absolutely no failing of the logic in the above argument. If you wish to reject the conclusion (7), you must reject at least one of the premises (1,2,4,6). Rejecting 1 would require substituting an incorrect definition of "omnipotent." Rejecting 2 requires a psychotic redefinition of "good." Rejecting 4 is extremely difficult, as AG demonstrated from the evidence. Rejecting 6 undermines traditional Christian theology, although the notion of a somewhat less-than-omnipotent God (for instance, the Open Theistic God) avoids the problem.


OK, well AG's argument reduces to exactly the same form.


OK, so here is where we get to your most egregious mistake. It is 100% correct and kosher to use evidence to establish a premise. A premise established from evidence can be fed into a logical argument. Now, the logical argument he made was valid (that is, the conclusion followed from the premises). You do acknowledge that, correct? And the only premise that seems to be contested (by you at least) is whether this is in fact the best of all possible worlds.


And he was entirely correct. What you've just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent post did you come close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

And actually, what you just said doesn't form any meaningful statement in English, which is why I gave the sarcastic response rather than any response to the incoherent substance. Try to write more clearly. Specifically, "I pointed out, that he could not conclude from the evidential argument that his conclusion that this IS NOT the best of all possible worlds was refuted by his own use of the evidential argument." does not mean anything. What on Earth are you trying to communicate here?


Your objection made no sense. It simply indicated that you do not understand the difference between a premise and an inference.


I mean that what you reposted literally is not an argument. It is a list of premises. And if you want to argue that there is a missing premise, say explicitly what that premise is. You seem to be under the impression that an extra premise is required to state "This is not the best of all possible worlds." You are simply wrong.


In short: yes, you believe that this is the best of all possible worlds, but you are using a definition of "best" that is utterly meaningless in any human context.

^^^^
That is so typical for Christian arguments. And don't forget in another thread 91 just admitted he just take free will by FAITH. I don't see how he justifies this world being the best.

Um... I'm also a Christian, actually. Not the same branch as 91, obviously. The issue here is his complete dishonesty in admitting which premise he wants to reject. It took 9 pages for us to drag out from him an admission on what he actually disagrees with here, and he still hasn't really been clear on that point. He's clinging to some notion that he got by misreading an evangelical fraud that this question is somehow moot because there is a hypothetical infinetesimally small chance that he is actually correct in claiming that this is the best of all possible worlds.

@Orwell

You state

1) An omnipotent being can actualize any possible world.
2) A perfectly good being always chooses the best outcome from among its choices.
3) Therefore, a world created by a perfectly good omnipotent being will be the best of all possible worlds.
4) This is not the best of all possible worlds.
5) Therefore this world is not made by a perfectly good omnipotent being.
6) If God exists, then he is the maker of this world and a perfectly good omnipotent being.
7) Therefore God does not exist.

Response

Logically the argument is sound.

I would reject the fourth premiss. Just as it is difficult to show the fourth to be wrong, it is equally difficult to show that it is true. Now this is not really a big issue of you want to oppose the argument, since the burden of proof is with the person making it. This premiss would essentially be a retreat behind a burden of proof, so, the argument would fail. This is essentially why the logical problem of evil failed.

You state

OK, so here is where we get to your most egregious mistake. It is 100% correct and kosher to use evidence to establish a premise. A premise established from evidence can be fed into a logical argument.

Response

True

You state

Specifically, "I pointed out, that he could not conclude from the evidential argument that his conclusion that this IS NOT the best of all possible worlds was refuted by his own use of the evidential argument." does not mean anything. What on Earth are you trying to communicate here?

Response

I have been making this point for a while now. I have established it quite clearly, often. Now I am writing this posts from an IPad, I jmoved house and have no other internet access (until sometime next week), so if you have ever tried to make philosophical arguments on this device you would understand the difficulty involved. Your sarcasm seems more for your benefit than anyone elses, please refrain.

You seem to be making the same, or a similar mistake to AG. You are confusing an evidential argument with the specific 'evidential argument against from suffering'. As the sources I posted show; the evidential argument admits to the logical consistency between God and suffering.

From this AG attempted to use an evidential argument from suffering to establish his position.

His position was that this IS not the best of all possible worlds.

For his position to be justified it would have to conclude with a definite conclusion. If it did not establish this, the premise would not be true.

The evidentialist claim is that God and evil are MOST LIKELY not compatible.

AG's claim was a logical certainty. His argument was a probabilistic one that refutes the logical certainty. Hence it is self refuting.

From the evidentualist argument (not all evidentualist arguments), AG's argument refuted his premiss.

Do you get this?

Condescending much?

We can discuss the wider argument later. If you want make a absolute conclusion, make sure it is true. Also, there is an academic consensus that the logical problem from evil has failed. Most present arguments made from evil are evidential.

Also, if you think Craig and Plantinga are frauds, why not email them and tell them. Dr. Craig takes a question from someone on any of his work, once a week. He has been doing it for years. If you want to tell him that the logical argument from evil is not dead and make a case for it, then do it. Seriously, put your money where you mouth is. Go to reasonablefaith.org and send him your argument.

OK, so now there is no disagreement on questions of logic. The question is "Is this the best of all possible worlds?" and that is simply a question of fact.


Difficult to show with 100% certainty that it is true? Perhaps. But premises do not have a 100% certain threshold for being considered legitimate. AG already pointed out that in the classic example we cannot know with 100% certainty either that Socrates is a man, or that all men are mortal. So your objection is incredibly weak.


You have not established it clearly. At no point has this objection made any sense, unless you were trying to claim that a premise cannot be established by evidence, and you just now agreed that a premise can be established by evidence.


The iPad keyboard isn't that bad. It's a little smaller than I like, but I have big hands.


You seem not to get the point. There is a logical consistency between God and suffering if suffering is absolutely necessary to attain God's ends (thus the best possible world includes some amount of suffering) or, most obviously, if some evil is for the sake of a greater good. The argument that "this is not the best of all possible worlds" draws on the extreme implausibility of the claim that every evil in the world is actually justified.


Correct, or at least that there is far more reason to believe that this is not the best of all possible worlds than there is to uphold this being the best of all possible worlds.


See, you misunderstand here. The claim is "God and a greater level of evil than is absolutely necessary are not compatible." Put another way, "God and a sub-optimal world are not compatible."


His claim followed from his premises. Premises still have to be established as true or false.


That was in defense of a specific premise. Did you or did you not just agree that it is legitimate to use evidence to support a premise?


I have no idea what you think you're saying here.


He did not refute any premise.


You aren't making very much sense at all.

@Orwell

You say

You have not established it clearly. At no point has this objection made any sense, unless you were trying to claim that a premise cannot be established by evidence, and you just now agreed that a premise can be established by evidence.

Response

Correct

You say

That was in defense of a specific premise. Did you or did you not just agree that it is legitimate to use evidence to support a premise?

Response

I see where you are going wrong. It is legitimate to use (an) evidential argument. However, if you (the) evidential argument from suffering to prove (the) logical argument from suffering, you refute (the) logical argument from suffering. AG did this, therefor his premiss is not necessarily true. His argument fails here.

You state

You seem not to get the point. There is a logical consistency between God and suffering if suffering is absolutely necessary to attain God's ends (thus the best possible world includes some amount of suffering) or, most obviously, if some evil is for the sake of a greater good. The argument that "this is not the best of all possible worlds" draws on the extreme implausibility of the claim that every evil in the world is actually justified.

Response

You have just switched claim to the evidential argument from evil. I called AG dishonest for switching whenever I mentioned the other. That way, he never had to really justify either.

As to the evidential argument, the 'extreme implausibility' you cite is not established, you are just assuming it. If God can have an explanation for ANY level of evil, the amount of evil is irrelevant; adding more does not necessarily add logical inconsistency (you have an unjustified assumption in your statement). The evidential argument, most often fails due to it's burden of proof. AG attempted to make this certainty through the logical problem from evil. Thought he used the evidential argument to do this.

In general statement:

Evidential arguements from evil do not usually use 'logical possible worlds' to establish their position. This is due to the problem that it is always possible that some world and the level of evil are logically compatible. Most make an argument relating to God's nature and need to reveal a reason in order to be all loving. Just a hint to all you strident atheists.

@Orwell

I am actually hoping that you will understand what I am talking about here.

Um... I am not going wrong here, 91, you just don't understand how logic works. Now, the premise "this is not the best of all possible worlds" is not "necessarily" true, but you have acknowledged that the logical inference is valid- you have accepted AG's claim that "if this is not the best of all possible worlds, then God does not exist." The only evidence AG used was to establish one of his premises; the evidence itself was not, directly, a part of the logical argument.


You are completely mistaken in what AG is saying. The evidential argument here is only in attempt to establish a premise- namely, that this is not the best of all possible worlds.


No, it is quite well established.


Wrong. The logical inconsistency comes from any amount of evil that is unnecessary. One unnecessary evil would make this world worse than the best possible world, and thus satisfy the premise "this is not the best of all possible worlds."


Yeah, you're still just not comprehending the argument that's being made. AG made the logical argument, and when a premise was challenged he used evidence to defend that premise. Where is the mistake? There isn't one.

The issue is that you are flat wrong, as you have been for the last 10 pages. We can run around in circles as much as you want, but nothing will change the fact that you're wrong.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejbz4RVh0oU&feature=related[/youtube]

^^^^

Tell me about it...


@Orwell

From the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Online Version, Problem of Evil)

'If a premise such as [God] cannot [have a reason] at least at present, be established deductively, then the only possibility, it would seem, is to offer some sort of inductive argument in support of the relevant premise. But if this is right, then it is surely best to get that crucial inductive step out into the open, and thus to formulate the argument from evil not as a deductive argument for the very strong claim that it is logically impossible for both God and evil to exist, (or for God and certain types, or instances, of evil to exist), but as an evidential (inductive/probabilistic) argument for the more modest claim that there are evils that actually exist in the world that make it unlikely that God exists.'

You cannot use an argument that only claims likelihood to conclude something as a logical certainty: like this IS not the best of all possible worlds.

Sorry Orwell, you are wrong.

Last edited by 91 on 10 Feb 2011, 11:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Are we there yet?