Best of all possible worlds and atheism

Post Reply New Topic

I think you're on the right track. The only thing I see wrong is #1i: God is all loving...

This is an easy mistake to make. God IS loving. The Bible demonstrates that "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..." When God led the Israelites to victory in Canaan, that shows His love for them and willingness to fulfill the covenant obligations He made to them.

But "all-loving" is a mistake. God hates sin, ergo God never intended evil to exist in this world. The victories over Canaan shows God's love for the Israelites, but it is not a loving act on the Canaanites. I'm sure He loved the Canaanites and it grieved God to destroy them--but I'm sure we agree that vengeance against someone to the extent that genocide is decreed is clearly not a "loving" act. Using Biblical language, God "despised" Jesus by allowing Him to suffer and die on the cross; but the very same act was intended to save the world He "loved." Revelation informs us God will one day destroy the earth--once again, NOT an act of love.

Logically, you can't have it both ways. You can't have a God who loves AND hates AT THE SAME TIME. What I mean is God can't love evil and hate evil. It has to be one or the other. Therefore, God is loving, but not ALL-loving. You're argument could still hold without saying that God is all-loving, and assuming God is "omni-beneficent" actually hurts your argument rather than helps it.

Now, all-POWERFUL, yes. On that I'll agree. Your argument holds without omni-beneficense, and it is not harmful to the faith, either, to leave that out.

@AngelRho

That's a quite interesting position. Ill tell you what my view has always been. I have never held that the logical contradiction, that some have argued, exists within the divine attributes. God hates sin, yes, but how can this show a contradiction in the divine makeup, or God's claim to be all loving? Well the answer, in my view, is the Trinity. Craig and Plantinga have argued that we can see the reconciliation of the attributes in the Trinity. For example, God's justice is satisfied, by the Father, in the punishment of the crucifixion and his mercy and love are satisfied by the Son's sacrifice on the cross. In this God can hate sin and still be all-loving. This is the basis of my argument with Unitarian and Islamic conceptions of God, no trinity means that the traits do becomes contradictory.

91, I literally have never in my life encountered this much stupid in one person, and that includes Inuyasha.

Let's try this one more time.

Tell me what a premise is, and what an inference is. Describe the difference between the two, and the relationship between "truth" and "validity." We will proceed from there. You are still misstating AG's argument, but I'll leave that alone for now. You clearly aren't ready to jump straight to that.

@Orwell

An argument is necessarily true if the premesis are vail. This would mean the argument holds regardless of the truth of each point.

However, from Websters online dictionary (logical arguments).

A fallacy is an invalid argument that appears valid, or a valid argument with disguised assumptions.

Example: A witness reasoned: Nobody came out the front door except the milkman therefore the murderer must have left by the back door. (Hidden assumption- the milkman was not the murderer).

1) God created this world.
2) God can create any possible world
3) God must choose the best choice of his options.
4) This is not the best possible world

Without a hidden assumption that is true the fourth premise cannot flow from the first three. The conclusion comes out of nowhere and is found nowhere in the argument. Therefor it contains a hidden premise. It is invalid here. The hidden assumption is not necessarily true, it fails here because the premise is false. So take your pick. Do you want it to be invalid or untrue? Either way, it is a bad argument.

Also, ease off the rhetoric. Dont bet too much on an invalid argument.

Last edited by 91 on 09 Feb 2011, 9:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

I don't have a problem with that. Also, the next chance I get (incidentally) I'm going to give "On Guard" a good read. I get "for God so loved the world..." meaning every human life is valuable and God wants to save us and not condemn us ("us" meaning "all people"). I don't think I've ever read that God claimed to be omni-beneficent, though. Do you have a scriptural source for that? God obviously DOES hate sin--but that means there is at least one thing that God does not love. Therefore, God, regardless of whether "God's justice is satisfied," is still not omni-beneficent. The Trinity doesn't change that (I'm Trinitarian, also, btw). Hatred in and of itself is not sin nor is it a "fault" of God. What makes hate a sin is the driving motivation behind it--it is wrong, for example, for Christians to hate homosexuals because, even though they are sinful creatures, we ourselves also are sinful creatures and God's image-bearers together with homosexuals. That does NOT mean, however, that we are to "tolerate" or "accept" homosexual behavior as morally appropriate behavior, nor are we to condone it. To speak out against homosexuality is not "hate" or "hate-speech." It is merely affirming what the Bible has to say and an effort to bring human behavior into consistency with the behavior God desires from all those who believe in Him. If God hates any one thing, then God cannot be ALL-loving. God hates sin. Therefore...

===

I'm only vaguely familiar with Craig and not at all with Plantinga. AG has sparked my interest in Molinism--which I think expresses something I've inferred on my own, but the actual formulation of which I find unattractive because of its complexity. Craig does a decent job of explaining it, and I get "middle knowledge." I'm not ready to dive quite that deep yet. I'm just one step closer than I was a year ago. "On Guard" looks to me like something I'd find accessible and probably a good introductory book for any Christian.

I think of the debate like a chess game--something else I'm horrible at. I only know two ways to get a checkmate. The main one is to sacrifice every piece save for two rooks and/or one rook and a queen in order to capture every opposing piece. Then I back the opposing king into a side row or column before placing a rook or queen there. It's an amateurish way to play the game, but it works.

To me, discussions pro/against God are like the game. Any chess player with any experience knows it is possible to get a checkmate in the first two moves of the game. This is like attacking the arguer's logic, especially when younger or immature atheists mistakenly think because they are atheists they are automatically exempt from logical rules and immune to logical mistakes. Their argument or counter-argument was doomed from the beginning.

It's a neat trick, but it only works against amateurish "players." Someone like AG would avoid those mistakes on such an elementary level.

I have no problem going against amateurs. But neither am I satisfied with my current knowledge and skill. Good chess players memorize entire games, especially games played by grandmasters. I'm thinking it's time to start digging into "the Masters," though the Bible will always be my best companion.

Last edited by AngelRho on 09 Feb 2011, 9:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

@AngelRho

On Guard is fantastic for some good solid in plain English explanations. Also check out ReasonableFaith.org there are heaps of resources online there. Specifically, check out the RF podcasts. You can also subscribe to them on iTunes.

Wrong. Try again.

Hint: The concept of "validity" does not apply to premises. Now, you have four words to define:
Premise
Inference
Validity
Truth

Let's see how you do. Please try to use your own words rather than quoting a dictionary, especially a general-purpose dictionary like Webster.


We will get to this after we establish a basic working knowledge of logic. Until then, you don't seem able to understand your mistake.


I'm not "betting" on anything. You simply don't understand what you are reading or what you are writing. It's very disturbing, actually.

@Orwell

Clarification, in my last post I was discussing validity in relation to the truth of the implication statement, not the conclusion.

My definition of logical validity was perfectly acceptable, to everything except a spell check that is. Logical validity flows from the logic of the argument, not the truth of each premiss. If the argument is logically valid and the premises are correct it is necessarily true. The argument lacs logical form, hence it is invalid. You don't seem to think that an argument can be rendered invalid by showing that it lacks logical form.

For example, you stated:

Logical questions apply only to inferences drawn from the premises, not to the truth or falsehood of the premises.

True, somewhat. Logical questions can and are aimed at the link between the premises and the conclusion they reach. If they are based on a hidden assumption the argument is invalid.

You also stated

Hint: The concept of "validity" does not apply to premises

Wrong. A premise can be invalid if it is not mentioned (if it is assumed).

I have exactly zero intention of wearing this smug misplaced condescension.

Last edited by 91 on 09 Feb 2011, 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

I will try butting in just once more, then I will leave you to crioss purposes [CROSS purposes - how delightfully multivalent!]

A:

1) God created this world.
2) God can create any possible world
3) God must choose the best choice of his options.
4) This is not the best possible world

IS NOT

B

1) God created this world for me
2) God can create any possible world
3) God must choose the best choice for me of his options.
4) This is not the best possible world for me

Solipsists beware.

Innocent query:
If a solipsist is also a theist - how many persons will he have?

Presumably God can do anything It wants to do. So why is #3 the case?

#3 implies that God is not omnipotent or along with #4 it implies God is not fully competent.

Which is consistent with TNKH which said God was astounded that men built the great zigarat on the Plains of Shinar, the so-called Tower of Babel.

ruveyn

@Ruveyn

This is AG's argument. Not mine. You should ask him that question.

Correct. Thus a valid argument can have false premises, which means the conclusion may or may not be true.


Correct. However, if the premises are false, we know nothing about the conclusion. The conclusion is not necessarily false simply because a premise is false.


You misunderstand, badly. You have not shown a logical contradiction or an invalid inference, but rather you have claimed that one of AG's premises is false. You have yet to succeed in a correct restatement of AG's argument, leading me to believe that you simply don't understand what he has said.


Not "somewhat." This is an absolute fact. It is more fundamental than 1+1=2.


The "link between premises and the conclusion" is called an inference. In the statement "p implies q" "implies" is the inference, "p" is the premise.


Incorrect. An argument may be invalid if it fails to include a necessary premise, but any premise is merely true or false, not valid or invalid.


Look, you clearly don't understand logic, and that's where the confusion of the past 7 pages has come from. You have demonstrated, repeatedly, that you are not conversant in the most elementary concepts of logical reasoning. If you think it is "condescending" of me to explain these basic principles to you here, then I suggest you purchase a copy of Discrete Mathematics with Applications by Susanna Epp and study the introductory material. When you have done that, we can proceed.

@Orwell

You state

You misunderstand, badly. You have not shown a logical contradiction or an invalid inference, but rather you have claimed that one of AG's premises is false. You have yet to succeed in a correct restatement of AG's argument, leading me to believe that you simply don't understand what he has said.

Response

Yes I have. I have claimed both, that his argument does not contain a necessary premise. It is dead right there. Then I showed that the premise he left out cannot logically support the conclusion, hence it is false. This argument is so bad it is both invalid and false.

This argument is a dead parrot. It is not pining for fjords its dead. Passed on, expired.

You state

The "link between premises and the conclusion" is called an inference. In the statement "p
implies q" "implies" is the inference, "p" is the premise.

Response

I am specifically attempting to keep the jargon to a minimum.

You state

Incorrect. An argument may be invalid if it fails to include a necessary premise, but any premise is merely true or false, not valid or invalid.

Response

Wrong. An assumed premise makes the argument invalid not false.


'Often an argument is invalid because there is a missing premise the supply of which would make it valid.'
Webster Online Dictionary

If you want to get technical it is called a enthymeme.

If you don't like Webster here is a peer reviewed source.

Sorensen, Roy A (1897), 'Are Enthymemes Arguments?'

'There is academic consensus that all enthymemes are invalid arguments' pp. 155

You quite plainly don't even understand what AG wrote. You can't pretend to refute it if you have no idea what it says.

And even in this sentence, you are demonstrating yet again that you don't know the difference between validity and truth, or between premises and inferences.


What a load of crap. The distinction is relevant, and basic. You are not "keeping jargon to a minimum," you have no f*****g clue what you are saying.


Learn to read. What does my above sentence say? "An argument may be invalid if it fails to include a necessary premise." The premise itself is not invalid. A premise is either true or false. Valid and invalid refer only to arguments and inferences, not to premises.

Last edited by Orwell on 09 Feb 2011, 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

@Orwelll

An enthymemic premise is invalid because it renders the argument invalid. You seriously need some classroom time on these subjects.

You state

What a load of crap. The distinction is relevant, and basic. You are not "keeping jargon to a minimum," you have no f***ing clue what you are saying.

Response

For a chap who claims to know more than me about philosophy you throw a lot of personal attacks around.

How is it relevant. His argument has a missing premiss. His evidential argument refutes the missing premise and renders the conclusion unjustified. Do you really not see it at all? Your the one that is trying to make this about a philosophy dictionary. I have no need to use the jargon in this case and your use of it is wrong.

If you want me to write a bloody peer-review level article before you accept any of my points then your asking too much for a response to a rebranded logical problem from evil on a forum. If you want I will send you my qualifications and publication history.

Seriously Orwell, what about what you are saying is going to save this argument. Your trying to be too clever by half. The logical problem from evil is dead, this argument makes the case from suffering therefor it is dead. The fact that the premise was missing means the argument was invalid. What more do you want?

The argument is a carcass swinging in the wind, just bloody cut it down.

Last edited by 91 on 09 Feb 2011, 1:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Orwell is correct according to three college level logic text-books I have recently recorded.

True/False refers to premises which in classical logic have to be one of four categorical declaritives.

Valid/Invalid refer to the argument itself. Does the argument have the right form, whether or not it is an enthymeme. Once converts the enthymeme to a sequence of categorical syllogisms which are either valid or on invalid. If any of the the syllogisms are invalid then the enthymeme is invalid regardless of whether any of the premises are true or false.

As to modern formal logic (usually first order logic) an argument is valid if it has the correct form. If the premises are not all true, then the conclusion cannot be detatched by application of modus ponens.

ruveyn

ruveyn