[Vision2020] Wayne, God, Plantinga, Wilson, and Evil

[Michael]

Wayne Writes:

[1]    Just because Plantinga asserts something about trends in
philosophical/theological discussions, does not mean you should ovinely
accept it and bandy it about with evidence.  How does he know this?  Did he
make a valid, reliable, and methodologically correct survey of all the
philosophical and theological articles from all the different publications
were such articles are likely to occur?  If not, it would be foolish to
believe this knowledge claim based purely on his personal experience.  

 

And Wayne Also Wrote Elsewhere:

In my message today, I noted that you blindly accepted Plantinga's word and
attempted to use his apparently unresearched assertions on a matter clearly
calling for data to make your point.  If this is your normal mode of
operation, you are best advised to avoid those selling stock in silver
mines, aluminum siding salespersons, and Douglas Wilson.

 

Me:

I gave evidence to believe that most philosophers have given up on the
deductive version of the Problem of Evil argument;  Plantinga doesn't need
to make 'surveys' of philosophical articles in order to make a statement
about the current world of philosophy; he is part of the very life blood of
analytic philosophy. Further, this is an academic Oxford University Press
publication, heavily scrutinized by philosophers (and even laymen) around
the world, and Plantinga, as I noted, provided half a page of footnotes that
were attached directly to this very claim. I'd be happy to see evidence that
would disprove Plantinga's position.  But I'm not inclined to think that I
just consulted the local Witch Doctor on the matter. 

 

Wayne Wrote:

[2]    The cite you quote from Stanford.edu does not support your claims but
are counter to them in two ways: 

    [A]     The cite appears to use the word "induction" in the sense in
which I previously described, not in the unorthodox way you use in the cite
below.

     [B]    The point of the cite is that some of the premises used in
various statements of the problem of evil rest upon observations.  To the
extent they rest upon observations, they are not absolutely true.  That is
not in dispute.  The theory of gravity also rests on observations as does
the statement "Evil exists."  Though either statement may not be absolutely
true, the probability of the statement that evil exists is about the same as
that of the statement when an apple falls from a tree, barring a strong
wind, it will fall earthward.

 

Me:

Here's the quote again: "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." To paraphrase: It is surely best to formulate the argument not as a
deductive argument but as an inductive, probabilistic argument.  And this is
precisely what my original claim was.

 

Wayne Wrote:

You are using the word "induction" in a quite mysterious, unorthodox way.
In ordinary language induction the word is used by logicians, scientists,
lay people, etc thusly:  Observations are made, hypotheses are constructed,
expected observations are deduced from the hypotheses, tests are made to
determine if the expected observations occur.  How is the induction you
speak of different?  Is there some mysterious element that is missing from
the above?  

 

Me:

Induction is the process of weighing evidence, where as deduction is
syllogistic.  The differences between the two that I laid out is, as far as
I can tell, common orthodoxy in the Universities.  I see rain clouds coming
and so I believe "it will rain."  Then I walk into my living room and see
the weather channel which tells me it will not rain.  Now my original
conclusion is weakened, but I still think it will rain.  Then I see the sun
coming out and the rain clouds moving in a different direction.  This third
piece of evidence now makes my original conclusion very weak and I no longer
think it will rain. Plantinga calls me up and tells me Doug Wilson has told
God to make it rain; now I know with certainty that it will rain.  This is
pretty basic cognitive stuff, and any higher level hypothesis formation,
deductions, confirmation theories, and the like, are going to be built out
of this basic cognitive behavior.  

 

Wayne Writes:

Slight change of subject:  Two questions (one is multi-part) for you:

[Q1]    In practice when Christ Church pundits (and other Christian
Apologists/Advocates) make knowledge claims about their alleged god, they
support these claims with quotations from the bible.  What words in the
bible assert that your alleged god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent?

 

Me:

This is a surprising question, and so I'm not sure how to answer it. But
here is a first attempt:

 

All Good:

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our
eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Life-and
the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to
you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to
us-what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that you also may
have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and
with His Son Jesus Christ.  And these things we write so that our joy may be
made complete.  And this is the message we have heard from Him and announce
to you, that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.  If we
say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie
and do not practice the truth.  1 John 1:1-5

 

All Powerful:

And what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe.
These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might, which
He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and seated Him
at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority
and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age,
but also in the one to come.  And He put all things in subjection under His
feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body
the fullness of Him who fills all in all. Eph. 1:19-23

 

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth,
visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or
authorities. All things have been created by Him and for Him.  And He is
before all things, and in Him all things hold together. Col. 1:16-17

 

Wayne Wrote:

[Q2]    Suppose you were presented with a statement of the problem of evil
whose premises were as highly probable as any premises based on observation
could be.  Suppose further, that the arguments in this statement of the
problem of evil were all demonstratively valid.

Would you then admit that the assertion of the existence of an omnipotent,
omnibenevolent being leads to a contradiction, and thus any alleged
instantiation of same is logically improbable/impossible?  In other words
would you accept the results of true premises/valid arguments which
demonstrated the improbability/impossibility of an omnipotent,
omnibenevolent being?

 

Me: No. I would come to the belief that the problem of evil is a good
argument for the non-existence of God.  I might even believe that there is a
likely-hood that this good argument could end up making my own belief in the
existence of God epistemically weak, when considered as a part of my total
body of evidence. Of course, there is no way to be sure of this second
possibility since my total body of evidence is massive and changing from day
to day.   

 

How do I correct the quote marks?  I can't figure out what problem you are
referring to.

 

Thanks

Michael Metzler

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051104/45534293/attachment-0001.htm