<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City" downloadurl="http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1027" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Wayne Fox Writes:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>“The existence of evil is not an argument for the existence or
nonexistence of some god. If there is a god, then this god may be
indifferent to humankind, totally or partially amoral, have a totally different
conception of good/evil, or be partially or totally evil in the terms of
humankind. If some people are seriously arguing that evil exists means
there is no god of some kind, they need to retake Logic 101. The question
of the existence or nonexistence of an object with certain qualities
whether it be a black hole, a unicorn, or some alleged god is a matter of
reasoning <strong><b><font face="Times New Roman">and</font></b></strong>
verifiable evidence, not just fanciful and/or linguistically
nonsensical speculation.”<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Me: <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Wayne</span></font></st1:City></st1:place>,
you are correct. The problem of evil is not necessarily an argument for or
against the existence of some actual god. Rather the problem of evil is an
argument against any god who is all knowing, all good, and all powerful. Of
course, the Christian God must be all three of these things, so if it is shown
that any god who is all knowing, all good, and all powerful does not exist,
then you have by default an argument also against the Christian God. And since
human beings are usually not concerned about whatever dozens of ‘logical
possibilities’ might be out there (see discussion with Ted), the
non-existence of the Christian God is typically the ultimate goal behind this
sort of argumentation. I’m not sure if all philosophers with PhD’s
who have given their lives to this subject matter need to “retake Logic
101.” I’m beginning to wonder who really is for or against
contemporary academia, the secularist or the fundamentalist? Have
fundamentalists successfully taken over our public schools at the graduate
level already? But I now speak merely rhetorically, so I’ll go on.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Wayne</span></font></st1:City></st1:place>
Writes:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>However, all of what you argue below is irrelevant to the central point
of my post, which is:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>If god did not know, then it/she/him is not omniscient.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>If god did know, then it/she/him is not omnibenevolent.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Me:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I’m not sure how all I wrote is irrelevant to this central point.
Your claim here is that if god-x knows the evil in the world, then god-x cannot
be truly good. Obviously the assumed premises here are 1) a truly good god-x
is also all powerful, and 2) a truly good god-x would use this power to keep
evil non-existent. Also obvious is that it is this second assumed premise that
does all the work for you. In fact, this argument is so stream-lined and
simple (in its archaic deductive form), it would seem that we should just state
the argument by stating this premise: a truly good god-x would use this power
to keep evil non-existent. The existence of evil is clearly a premise accepted
by all people normally participating in this particular discussion. Therefore a
god-x who is all good and all powerful cannot exist. Certainly, we need not
worry ourselves about the logical possibility of a god-x who doesn’t know
anything, just as we need not worry about Zeus or Athena, or other logically
possible metaphysical oddities. So to stream line the argument even further, at
the expense of removing all the beauty of its more historical and complex form,
here’s the gist of the argument: an all good (and all powerful) god-x
would not permit all this evil in the world. Therefore, an all good (all
powerful) god-x must not exist. The real contention here is obviously the
moral one. And if it were not the Christian God that was ultimately in the
cross-hairs, we would not be currently having this discussion to begin with.
Thus, the primary contention boils down to this: the goodness claimed by the
Christian God is called into question by all the evil in the world. The
suffering, the blood, and the torment rebuke the claim to goodness Christians
make for this so-called God. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>This deductive form of the argument has apparently been abandoned for
about 20 years among philosophers because of the issue of
‘free-will.’ The logical possibility of the freedom of the will of
man I guess reeks havoc to the deduction; but this is beyond my understanding.
Since most philosophers are concerned about the more interesting inductive
approach, I haven’t found the deductive form a fascinating field of
study. The free-will problem is with regard to the “all powerful”
attribute of god-x, but I’m willing to grant that there is no important
‘limit’ to the power of God regarding the problem of evil. So it
is the “all good” attribute we now must confront. You say that any
all good god-x could not permit evil, and so therefore the particular Christian
God could not permit evil. In response, I say that regardless of how all the
other logical possible god-x’s fair on this matter, the Christian god-x
could permit evil. In other words, God’s goodness is not incompatible
with a sovereign permission and sustaining of evil in the world. In turn, of
course, if the Christian God’s goodness is not incompatible with evil,
then your more general claim about any god-x could not be true. Only one
possible god-x would refute your claim.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>And this last point is important given some of your claims about the
problem of evil. Even if the Christian God were not in your cross hairs, all I
must do to refute your more general claim about god-x is propose one logically
possible god-x who’s goodness is compatible with evil. Now, the fact
that the Christian God is not some sort of “alleged” deity,
proposed religion, or metaphysical hypothesis needs to be stressed. The
Christian God is not something thought up by a philosophy graduate student in
the last few years. This is the Hebraic, ancient religion that goes back
further than western philosophy and that spans the course of much of the
world’s recorded history and culture. It is something that has commanded
kinds, brought arrogant men to their knees, and is claimed to indwell the hearts
of children. So ultimately, we should not accept an analysis of the Christian
God as if ‘he’ were merely some new scientific,
‘alleged’ hypothesis, up for scrutiny by the minds of weak and
finite people. With that qualification strongly noted however, I reiterate
that all I need to do, for the sake of argument, is propose a logically
possible god who’s goodness is not incompatible evil, and your deductive
argument fails. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate, merely on the logical level, to
discuss the uniqueness of only the Christian God. Perhaps there is no other
god-x will do. Perhaps you have successfully mounted an argument against
Allah, or the Great Unicorn. I’m right with you; I’d be happy to
help further the cause. I’m sure that Allah and the Great Unicorn
don’t weather your argument very well. However, I think the unique
character of the Christian God, as revealed in church tradition, the testimony
of believers, and the scriptures, is immune to your deduction. His goodness is
compatible with evil; in fact the nature of His goodness is immensely
compatible with the world’s evil. The world’s evil is what will
display the goodness, glory, grace, truth, and mercy of the eternal God
forever. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Wayne</span></font></st1:City></st1:place>
Writes: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>“Further, there is a great hypocrisy and fallacy in rejecting the
deductive approach: In order to reject it, you must use it.
Further, in rejecting the deductive approach [specifically reductio ad absurdum
and modus tollens], you are rejecting tools upon whose application in great
part all mathematics, science, and everyday practical knowledge
is discovered and used. If logic is not applicable to statements
about some alleged god, then knowledge thereof, in the ordinary meaning of
"knowledge", is not possible.”<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Me:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Actually, I don’t think this is true of deduction. Most our
acquired knowledge and most of the arguments we are able to really ‘make
stick’ are inductive in nature. Certainly, math is highly axiomatic, but
science is primarily inductive. Deductive syllogisms are very simple, and in
disagreement and debate, it is always one of the premises that is found to be
wanting, the truth of which is usually decided through inductive means. Also,
to say that the deductive approach to a particular argument doesn’t work does
not in any way call into question ‘deduction’ itself. It just
means that induction is going to have to ultimately settle the matter. But
this will have to just play itself out naturally; for now, I’m willing to
go with the deductive way you’ve laid out your argument, but this just
means I have to dispute one of the premises, namely, that goodness and evil are
incompatible for any god-x. I will do this by ‘proposing’ a
particular god-x for which this is not true.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Wayne</span></font></st1:City></st1:place>
Wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>“If some alleged god is knowable, then so far humankind hasn't an
inkling based upon the millions of different contradictory religious claims of
its/her/his properties.”<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Me:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I’m not following you here <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Wayne</st1:City></st1:place>.
However, I think Ted and I have already taken this up a little bit, but
we’re still waiting for Ted’s response (which he informed me he
still plans to give). Just because everybody in the world does not believe a
statement is not necessarily evidence for the fact that the statement is not
true. In fact, just the opposite is the case. Most statements we currently
take as true about science, medicine, politics, and religion have not been
thought true by most people (as far as I can tell). <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Wayne</span></font></st1:City></st1:place>
Wrote: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Your last paragraph below (and the attempts by many philosophers and theologians)
is a classical example of equivocation -- using "good" in one
way when referring to humankind and another way when referring to
some alleged god. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Me: <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I really don’t think you have yet established equivocation on my
part. I compared contemporary secular intuitions about what is
‘good’ for something like a Christian God with classical Christian
intuitions about what is ‘good’ for something like a Christian God.
We can disagree about what would truly be ‘good’ without
equivocation. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Michael Metzler<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>