<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: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="City" downloadurl="http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"/>
<!--[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;}
p
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
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><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'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>“I doubt that this statement is true [philosophers have abandoned
the deductive form of the problem of evil argument]. Perhaps you can produce a
survey of philosophical and theological literature for the last 20 years to
demonstrate it.” <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'>Plantinga writes, <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>“Now until twenty of twenty-five years ago, the favored sort of a
theological argument from evil was for the conclusion that there is a logical
inconsistency in what Christians believe…At present however, it is widely
conceded that there is nothing like straightforward contradiction or necessary
falsehood in the join affirmation of God and evil; the existence of evil is not
logically incompatible (even in the broadly logical sense) with the existence
of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good 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'>His footnote to this claim is half a page long on page 461, Warranted
Christian Belief, Oxford University Press, 2000. <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'>I did a search and only looked at one site, in which I quickly found
support for this claim. On Stanford.edu:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN style='font-size:12.0pt'>“If
a premise such as (1) cannot, 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.”<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'>“Induction, in a nutshell, works thusly:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Observations are made, data is collected, etc. A theory/model is
developed during this process (such development also continually uses deductive
processes, but for brevity, I leave it to you to discover this)…..The
second - n tests of an inductive theory/model are deducing expected
observations from it and then seeing if those observations occur…..”<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'>By inductive, I was referring merely to the most basic epistemic
analysis, the most general. It is how I think Brian Skyrms (sp?) explains it,
and how the introductory textbook material I’m familiar with sets it out.
I’m not speaking about something more specific such as collecting data,
scientific hypothesis, and the like. Rather, induction is most properly
considered, when considered only generally, an evidential weighing of
premises. Deduction is a simple, certain, syllogistic relation between
premises and conclusion; a deductive argument is either valid or invalid.
Induction, on the other hand, is just the only other kind of relationship there
is between ‘premises’ and conclusion: the evidential kind.
Induction is not an On/Off sort of thing; rather, an inductive conclusion is
always more or less ‘strong’ or ‘weak.’ There is no
certainty in an inductive argument, in virtue of the way evidence works; a very
strong inductive argument can become very weak with the addition of only one
piece of evidence, as was the case with the man who was locked up for 18 years
(recent Vision post); we had strong enough evidence to lock this man up and
then with just one piece of DNA evidence 18 years later, we set him free with
our apologies. Induction is pretty potent stuff. This understanding of
induction is necessary for understanding my original post on the Problem of
Evil.<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'>Thank You,<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>