Two Transcendental Arguments from Evil 1) If God exists,…

I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I said.	Alan Greenspan

About this Entry
Posted by: mr_jargon Original: 5/12/2008 4:41 PM Comments: 59 eProps: 26 Read Comments Post a Comment Back to Your Xanga Site

Who gave the eProps?
2 eProps from: MysteriumFidei LSP1 nequam_lacuna In_Reason_I_Trust ThAtOnEGuY85 Daveyh8 musterion99 Tarmel Anrwaluin darkwolfofvoid AskTheGodQuestion believeordoubt Andrea_TheNerd 0 eProps from: mike_clifton82

Read or Post Comments

Monday, May 12, 2008

Two Transcendental Arguments from Evil

1) If God exists, then God has sufficient power to prevent all instances of non-disciplinary evil.
2) If God exists, then God has sufficient motive to prevent all instances of non-disciplinary evil.
3) Non-disciplinary evil exists.
4) If non-disciplinary evil exists and God exists, then either God must lack either sufficient power or sufficient motive to prevent non-disciplinary evil.
5) Therefore, God doesn't exist.

1) If NNT (naturalistic non-theism) is true, then objective moral values do not exist.
2) If NNT is true, then intrinsic goods do not exist.
2) If objective moral values & intrinsic goods do not exist, then evil (loss in relation to objective value or intrinsic good) does not exist.
3) Evil exists.
4) If evil exists, then objective moral values & intrinsic goods must exist.
5) Therefore, NNT is false.

My position is that both arguments are cogent.

EDIT: Over 40 comments in and I am surprised no has asked this already; but assuming the form of the arguments is valid, how would someone come to grasp the meaning and know the truth of the premises?

Posted 5/12/2008 4:41 PM - 59 comments

recommend
recs0
give stars
votes1
email
sent0

Give eProps or Post a Comment

59 Comments

browse comments: next › | last »

"If God exists, then God has sufficient [power and] motive to prevent all instances of non-disciplinary evil."

Why is this this true regarding motive of prevention? Motive of eradication or vindication I can (possibly) accept, but motive of prevention? I don't buy the premise.

The second argument is interesting.

Posted 5/12/2008 6:43 PM by MysteriumFidei - reply

There is a similar discussion going on at - http://www.xanga.com/Extremegoatmaster.

# 2 is implied but not necessarily true. We don't know that God has motive to prevent all instances of non-disciplinary evil.

#4 - Just because God lacks the motive, doesn't prove he doesn't exist. It could well be our lack of knowing what his motives are.

2) [If objective moral values & intrinsic goods do not exist, then evil (loss of value or good) does not exist]

Evil could still exist, it just wouldn't be objective. Each person could define for themselves what they consider evil.

Posted 5/12/2008 7:27 PM by LSP1 - reply

@MysteriumFidei -

Why is this this true regarding motive of prevention? Motive of eradication or vindication I can (possibly) accept, but motive of prevention? I don't buy the premise.

I assume that a maximally powerful, absolutely invulnerable agent has a moral obligation to prevent the occurrence of non-disciplinary evil according to ability and risk to self.

Posted 5/12/2008 10:33 PM by mr_jargon - reply

Evil could still exist, it just wouldn't be objective. Each person could define for themselves what they consider evil.

Thanks, I have clarified the definition of evil in my second argument.

Just because God lacks the motive, doesn't prove he doesn't exist. It could well be our lack of knowing what his motives are.

I agree, but there is a point in theological reasoning when pushing the brake of ignorance is not sufficient to prevent the destructive collision.

# 2 is implied but not necessarily true. We don't know that God has motive to prevent all instances of non-disciplinary evil.

What reason is there to assume that all instances of apparent evil are actually instrumental goods? There are certain instances of evil (rape, child molestation, genocide) in which there is a prima facie moral obligation (a) to prevent its occurence or (b) to employ as instruments to greater goods only if no other possible alternative exists. The classical definition of omnipotence implies that God's power to execute (a) is infinite such that (b) is never an actual state of affairs.

Posted 5/12/2008 10:50 PM by mr_jargon - reply

@mr_jargon -

[What reason is there to assume that all instances of apparent evil are actually instrumental goods?]

I'm not assuming that to be true. I believe it's the result of a world where sin has come into it. If Adam had never sinned, do you think there would be non-disciplinary evil?

Posted 5/12/2008 11:53 PM by LSP1 - reply

@LSP1 -

The Fall of Adam does not answer the question of why you assume that all instances of evil are really instruments to some greater good; this, if true, would only provide an explanation for the origin of evil

Posted 5/13/2008 12:00 AM by mr_jargon - reply

@mr_jargon -

[The Fall of Adam does not answer the question of why you assume that all instances of evil are really instruments to some greater good]

I don't assume that it does. Maybe you misunderstood me. God can bring good into a person's life that has experienced evil, but that doesn't mean that the evil experienced was an instrument for greater good.

Posted 5/13/2008 12:07 AM by LSP1 - reply

God can bring good into a person's life that has experienced evil, but that doesn't mean that the evil experienced was an instrument for greater good.

I agree with what you are saying, but the point of the first argument is that if X were true then there would be no instances of evil that did not serve some greater good. It could be the case that I don't know what the greater good is, but if I affirm that there is none then I've established the truth-conditions of premise 3 of the first argument. My second argument is an internal critique of naturalistic non-theism, and the real target of my first argument is the natural theology program it presupposes. Unfortunately, the central dogmatic claims of Catholicism and Protestantism also presuppose the validity of that program and for that reason the first transcendental argument from evil can be successfully employed against them. I'm only outlining the argument here; I will attempt to defend it in a future post.

Posted 5/13/2008 12:22 AM by mr_jargon - reply

@mr_jargon -

[I agree with what you are saying, but the point of the first argument is that if X were true then there would be no instances of evil that did not serve some greater good.]

You didn't say all instances of evil. You said non-disciplinary evil. But I see where I misunderstood what you said. Maybe another question would be that if the only reason that evil exists in this world is the result of Adam and Eve's sin, then why does God have to responsibl then to prevent all instances of non-disciplinary evil? I don't think he has to. He is allowing us to reap and experience the results of a world in which we have allowed sin to come into, and that world has instances of non-disciplinary sin. If he intervened in one circumstance, then he would be obligated to intervene in every circumstance. You could say that the ultimate example of suffering for non-disciplinary evil, would be Jesus himself. He did not deserve to be crucified, yet God allowed it. God foreknows that the final ending will be good to those that are saved, even though they might have experienced non-disciplinary evil. I agree that this is a very hard question to answer and this is what makes sense to me at this time.

Posted 5/13/2008 1:14 AM by LSP1 - reply

I agree with Mysterium...the first argument doesn't necessarily work *unless* it is directed toward a specific god...like an arminian/pelagian view of God re:libertarian free will.

Even then, the argument doesn't prove God doesn't exist...though it would demonstrate that if the Arminian/Pelagian god existed, he would not be omnipotent.

Posted 5/13/2008 7:53 AM by nequam_lacuna - reply

Gotta love item #1 in the second argument. Sounds like an utterly unfounded assumption. But, that doesn't surprise me. For starters, I don't think any naturalist would disagree with the idea that the preservation of life is good in itself, because we have some rather objective data to support that. But, whatever. Ramble on.

Posted 5/13/2008 8:05 AM by In_Reason_I_Trust

- reply

@H_loves_C -

What objective data leads one to believe the preservation of life is *good*?

Posted 5/13/2008 9:06 AM by nequam_lacuna - reply

The first part of my comment was delted. Disregard the above.

@nequam_lacuna -

Virtually every living, sentient creature behaves in manners that aim at the preservation of its own life, and often also aims to preserve the life of its kin or even other unrelated beings of its own species. I'm no geneticist, but from what I've read there seems to be ample genetic basis for this, and perhaps also evidence from other fields (Dawkins' The Selfish Gene is a great resource.) If I point a gun to the head of a close relative of yours, your instinct will almost certainly kick in and cause any number of reactions...but it is highly unlikely that indifference will be among those possible reactions. You'd be hard pressed to find people that are utterly indefferent at an imminent threat to his/her own life, or the life of his/her offspring or close relatives. All this leads to the notion that the preservation of life seems to be an almost "built-in" characteristic of all sentient beings - the avoidance of pain and suffering, especially that which could be fatal. That alone undermines the assumption that there is absolutely no intrinsic goods, as stated in the first two premises of the second argument here. That obviously renders the entire argument invalid, as it is built on flawed assumptions.

Posted 5/13/2008 9:29 AM by In_Reason_I_Trust

- reply

Here we Go, such a vital flawed arguement because it starts with man's feeble ability to understand things of God. Check this, First, Christ was thought of before the sin of Man. God did not prevent them from eating from the tree of good and evil because he knew about Christ. All sin, and I mean ALL SIN will be Disciplined, but our feeble minds tend to think of the here and now, if God caused Justice to occur before Christ, we wouldn't even exist in order to talk about such insane ideas. Christ's death on the cross transcends time since Christ himself is an eternal being since he is God. All of what we experience is a bi-product of that grace that is given from that sacrifice. It was planned out beforehand and continues to be God's plan throughout time. Salvation on the other hand is not dependent on man because of this. It is solely dependent upon God in granting us grace that we do not merit since we are sinners and fall short. The role of man in reconciliation between him and God is this........ Nothing...
Eph 1 clearly states that it is on God's Good Will. Romans 8-9 is a strong reiteration of this idea.
All sin will be punished, the question is does Christ's death on the cross pay the penalty for your sin(Mercy) or did he JUSTLY leave you to die in your own sin(Justice), either way, God gets the Glory for his wrath or Mercy.
No sin will go unpunished, we just want immediate punishment for others who sin against us and we forget that we are indeed the sinners in which would be receiving this punishment. How good are you compared to Christ, not compared to Hitler...
-M

Posted 5/13/2008 10:01 AM by ThAtOnEGuY85 - reply

"All this leads to the notion that the preservation of life seems to be an almost "built-in" characteristic of all sentient beings - the avoidance of pain and suffering, especially that which could be fatal. That alone undermines the assumption that there is absolutely no intrinsic goods"

Not really. Humans have alot of 'built-in' responses to different stimuli. In fact, the same 'selfish gene' that causes a human to fight for his own life, or the life of his family...is likely similar to the gene that causes him to cheat or steal so he and his family can have a better life.

If you'd like to ascribe objective intrinsic moral goods to any universal natural reaction among humans...you'd simply be raising greed to the determining factor. Unfortunately, the greed of human beings most often overlaps and causes conflict.

Posted 5/13/2008 10:23 AM by Daveyh8 - reply

Aren't we defining power and motive in human terms? Unfortunately, God's terms for power and motive are beyond our comprehension! I agree that both arguments are cogent - in human terms and reasoning. Due to the nature of God, He can never be fully comprehended by the human mind - therefore while we may create a convincing argument in human terms, we can never create or comprehend fully a logical dictum created by God.

Posted 5/13/2008 12:24 PM by mike_clifton82 - reply

@LSP1 -

You said non-disciplinary evil. But I see where I misunderstood what you said.

By that label, I indicate all instances of evil that are non-disciplinary or non-instrumental, that is, not intended by God to serve as an instrument to some greater good (moral improvement of suffering agent, prevention of some greater evil, etc.) The first argument is, if X were true, then there would be no evils of this kind.

Maybe another question would be that if the only reason that evil exists in this world is the result of Adam and Eve's sin, then why does God have responsible then to prevent all instances of non-disciplinary evil?

I am excluding from the first argument all evil that serves some greater purpose.

@nequam_lacuna -

I agree with Mysterium...the first argument doesn't necessarily work *unless* it is directed toward a specific god...

Indeed, the argument is target at the God-in-General of natural theology; the ultimate theological basis of the Filioque and Reformed predestinarianism. God himself is ultimately deprived of freedom in the Reformed model.

@H_loves_C -

Explain the flaw in my second argument with clearly defined terms and articulated premises.

@mike_clifton82 -

Aren't we defining power and motive in human terms? Unfortunately, God's terms for power and motive are beyond our comprehension! I agree that both arguments are cogent - in human terms and reasoning.

Since I am attacking natural theology, this is more than sufficient.

Posted 5/13/2008 12:42 PM by mr_jargon - reply

@mr_jargon - I already did in my response to nequam_lacuna. The assumptions in the first two premises in that second "argument" are at the very least highly questionable. In any case, I'm not interested in debating you, and I don't care what you or anyone thinks of that.

Posted 5/13/2008 12:54 PM by In_Reason_I_Trust

- reply

@H_loves_C -

In any case, I'm not interested in debating you, and I don't care what you or anyone thinks of that.

If you want to talk about the "utterly unfounded assumption(s)" of the arguments presented on my blog, then you must be willing to substantiate or at least discuss the contents of your claim when asked. If you're not willing to do this, then I will have to ask you to stop commenting on my blog.

Posted 5/13/2008 1:07 PM by mr_jargon - reply

@mr_jargon - Whatever, man. I already pointed out the flaws. Now, if you want me to say the same thing in your typical ultra-complex philo-babble, then I'll pass. Knock yourself out. The argument is still flawed.

Posted 5/13/2008 1:19 PM by In_Reason_I_Trust

- reply

@H_loves_C -

I will show you how easy this is. Take your statement:

All this leads to the notion that the preservation of life seems to be an almost "built-in" characteristic of all sentient beings - the avoidance of pain and suffering, especially that which could be fatal. That alone undermines the assumption that there is absolutely no intrinsic goods...

Argument: Since the preservation of life is an almost built-in characteristic of sentient beings, it is clearly not the case that there are no intrinsic goods.

I see no necessary connection between premise and conclusion unless the relevant terms are being defined in some non-conventional manner, for from the sole fact that an individual or group of individuals are wired to desire something is not sufficient to make that object of desire an intrinsic good (some end that should be desired and pursued independent of whether or not it actually is.)

Posted 5/13/2008 1:45 PM by mr_jargon - reply

@H_loves_C -

"Virtually every living, sentient creature behaves in manners that aim at the preservation of its own life, and often also aims to preserve the life of its kin or even other unrelated beings of its own species. I'm no geneticist, but from what I've read there seems to be ample genetic basis for this, and perhaps also evidence from other fields (Dawkins' The Selfish Gene is a great resource.)"

What you're describing isn't "good"...you're describing "what is". Arguing from "what is" a genetic fact to a person "ought" to behave in such and such manner, is a non sequitur...Good/evil are *values* we bring to the table apriori. We operate on the assumption of things being good/evil, we don't find empirical data to prove these things. You may test the temp of a swimming pool, for instance...you may "know" that the optimum temp for swimming is 78 degrees...you cannot test for "optimum temp", you may confirm the temp with a thermometer, however, and conclude *based on your presupposed value* that the pool is, in fact, and an optimal temp. Values (such as morality) are deduced, not induced.

Consider your example where someone puts a gun to one of my family member's heads...what makes him *wrong*? His genetic disposition has led him to this point...if it comes down to genes, who's genes are right?

That's the thing...you can't say any genes are "right" when it comes to morality. You may describe people's makups and their behavior, but you have no reference point for "good". I don't care if "most people believe x is wrong"...there will be a person who think x is just fine. If you try to argue with them on why x is wrong, are you going to appeal to your genes? In which case, he'll appeal to his own.

So if you're correct, genetic determinism is our reality...different people have different genetic makeups...saying anyone *ought* to behave in any particular way must appeal to an objective standard...otherwise, any imposition of a system of right/wrong on a given population is *arbitrary*.

"Good/Evil" from your worldview, are vacuous terms. They mean nothing.

Posted 5/13/2008 1:56 PM by nequam_lacuna - reply

@nequam_lacuna - Good, in its broadest sense, is what preserves a creature's life and prevents it from suffering unnecessarily. We are wired to avoid suffering. Yes, there are people that actually get off on pain/self-mutilation, etc. Show me a rule and I will show you exceptions, ALWAYS. But, that doesn't make the whole idea wrong. Evil would be acts that unnecessarily generate suffering in beings that did little or nothing to deserve it.

If (notice I said IF) your basis for morality is the word of your god/the bible, then you're resting on an utterly inconsistent basis. Your god is a very whimsical being that acts very erratically. Of course, you and all other apologists will have excuses, er arguments, to explain away all of those inconsistencies. I've heard them all. And I always wonder why doesn't your god defend himself and rely on such puny little insignificant creatures such as humans.

Posted 5/13/2008 2:09 PM by In_Reason_I_Trust

- reply

Why should we require God to fit neatly in our box of logical suppositions? Shouldn't the Creator of the universe have an exemption from His creation trying to define His 'power and motives'? I realize that seems like a cop out but what if our inability to fully explain His attributes etc. is a natural function of the laws that He put in place?

Posted 5/13/2008 2:41 PM by mike_clifton82 - reply

@H_loves_C -

H loves C says: "Yes, there are people that actually get off on pain/self-mutilation, etc. Show me a rule and I will show you exceptions, ALWAYS. But, that doesn't make the whole idea wrong."

Can you show me why people getting off on pain/self-mutilation is *wrong*? I think you would benefit to read my previous comments again...here's some worth pondering:

>>>>What you're describing isn't "good"...you're describing "what is". Arguing from "what is" a genetic fact to a person "ought" to behave in such and such manner, is a non sequitur...Good/evil are *values* we bring to the table apriori. We operate on the assumption of things being good/evil, we don't find empirical data to prove these things

>>>>Consider your example where someone puts a gun to one of my family member's heads...what makes him *wrong*? His genetic disposition has led him to this point...if it comes down to genes, who's genes are right?

>>>>I don't care if "most people believe x is wrong"...there will be a person who think x is just fine. If you try to argue with them on why x is wrong, are you going to appeal to your genes? In which case, he'll appeal to his own.

>>>>So if you're correct, genetic determinism is our reality...different people have different genetic makeups...saying anyone *ought* to behave in any particular way must appeal to an objective standard...otherwise, any imposition of a system of right/wrong on a given population is *arbitrary*.

Until you can actually deal with these sort of problems...you have no foundation to argue from. Genetic determinism affects more than just morality...logic becomes arbitrary as well...

H loves C said: "I've heard them all."

I doubt as much...otherwise you wouldn't offer such an old, tired argument for good/evil. Atheism has been pimp-slapped more often than any other worldview...Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, Francis Schaeffer, Ken Gentry,Gary DeMar, Rushdoony,Ravi Zacharias, R.C. Sproul, James White, Gene Cook, Vox Day, Matt Slick, Norman Geisler, *and more* have demolished atheistic arguments.

Posted 5/13/2008 3:12 PM by nequam_lacuna - reply

browse comments: next › | last »

Choose Identity

Xanga Network

Anonymous (Sign up for free!)

Give eProps (?)

2 eProps

1 eProp

0 ePropsComment Only

Post a Comment

Add Link | Preview HTML

comment help

Say it with Minis! (?)
- Awesome!
- You've captured my heart...
- You know you want me...
- Lots of Love
View All Minis »
[mini text]

[mini credits]

reset

Profile Pic:

Default | Choose » (?)

Back to mr_jargon's Xanga Site!

Note: your comment will appear in mr_jargon's local time zone:
GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)

Say it with Minis! (?)

Welcome to Xanga!

Stay connected!

Say it with Minis!