A Formal Proof that if Evil Exists then the Theists' God Does Not

[Skwim]

Came across this formal disproof of god's existence. What do you think of it?

(1) If God exists he is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good.
[Hypothesis that the theists' God exists]

(2) Evil occurs.
[Statement of the undisputed fact of evil]

(3) If someone did not prevent the occurrence of evil despite having full knowledge in advance that it would occur if he were not to prevent it and despite also having unlimited power to prevent it, then that person is morally culpable for its occurrence.
[Generalized principle of command responsibility]

(4) By virtue of his omniscience, God knew in advance that evil would occur unless he was to prevent it.
[From 1 by definition of omniscience]

(5) By virtue of his omnipotence, God had the ability to prevent the occurrence of evil.
[From 1 by definition of omnipotence in terms of absence of nonlogical limits to God's ability]

(6) God did not prevent the occurrence of evil.
[From 2 by double negation]

(7) God had the ability to prevent evil from occurring and knew it would occur if he did not prevent it.
[From 4 and 5 by conjunction]

(8) God is morally culpable for the occurrence of evil.
[From the conjunction of 3, 6, and 7 by modus ponens]

(9) God is not wholly good.
[From 8 by definition of "wholly good"]

(10) God does not exist.
[From 1 and 9 by modus tollens]
7.4 Conclusion

The theist's God was supposed to be morally perfect as well as omnipotent and omniscient. But from the undisputed fact that evil exists in the world whose existence he supposedly brought about, it follows--by the unassailable moral truth expressed in the Generalized Principle of Command Responsibility--that he can't have all three properties at once. Ipso facto, such a God does not now, and never did, exist. It is the logic of the new Down-Under Disproof, not of Plantinga's Free Will Defense, that triumphs.

source
​

 

[Sunstone]

So far as I know, not all theists assert their deity or deities are wholly good. Otherwise, an interesting argument.

 

[Draka]

Came across this formal disproof of god's existence. What do you think of it?

(1) If God exists he is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good.
[Hypothesis that the theists' God exists]​

Not all theists have the same concept of deity. So the presumption fails.

(2) Evil occurs.
[Statement of the undisputed fact of evil]

Evil is a concept not all agree even exists. Another fail.

(3) If someone did not prevent the occurrence of evil despite having full knowledge in advance that it would occur if he were not to prevent it and despite also having unlimited power to prevent it, then that person is morally culpable for its occurrence.
[Generalized principle of command responsibility]

It is not the responsibility of anyone to prevent anything as even if they have the power to prevent something it doesn't mean that there would not be repercussions to preventing it that may be worse than the supposed "evil" in the first place. If someone were to have foreknowledge to know that something bad was going to happen they may also have the foreknowledge to know that it has to happen in the long run or else things could be worse.

(4) By virtue of his omniscience, God knew in advance that evil would occur unless he was to prevent it.
[From 1 by definition of omniscience]

Again, presumes only one concept of deity and presumes concept of evil. Both faulty presumptions.

(5) By virtue of his omnipotence, God had the ability to prevent the occurrence of evil.
[From 1 by definition of omnipotence in terms of absence of nonlogical limits to God's ability]

See answer to 3 and 4

(6) God did not prevent the occurrence of evil.
[From 2 by double negation]

See 5

(7) God had the ability to prevent evil from occurring and knew it would occur if he did not prevent it.
[From 4 and 5 by conjunction]

See 5

(8) God is morally culpable for the occurrence of evil.
[From the conjunction of 3, 6, and 7 by modus ponens]

And again.

(9) God is not wholly good.
[From 8 by definition of "wholly good"]

And again.

(10) God does not exist.
[From 1 and 9 by modus tollens]
7.4 Conclusion

Given the faulty presumptions throughout this "proof" this conclusion is faulty as well.

The theist's God was supposed to be morally perfect as well as omnipotent and omniscient. But from the undisputed fact that evil exists in the world whose existence he supposedly brought about, it follows--by the unassailable moral truth expressed in the Generalized Principle of Command Responsibility--that he can't have all three properties at once. Ipso facto, such a God does not now, and never did, exist. It is the logic of the new Down-Under Disproof, not of Plantinga's Free Will Defense, that triumphs.

source

This may be all well and good if talking about a particular god concept. But when just generalized as "the theist's god" it fails miserably.

 

[Quagmire]

I see a few problems with this:

Came across this formal disproof of god's existence. What do you think of it?

(1) If God exists he is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good.
[Hypothesis that the theists' God exists]

(2) Evil occurs.
[Statement of the undisputed fact of evil]​

Evil is not an undisputed fact, it's a subjective designation.

(3) If someone did not prevent the occurrence of evil despite having full knowledge in advance that it would occur if he were not to prevent it and despite also having unlimited power to prevent it, then that person is morally culpable for its occurrence.
[Generalized principle of command responsibility]

From God's perspective, Evil may not be evil.

(4) By virtue of his omniscience, God knew in advance that evil would occur unless he was to prevent it.
[From 1 by definition of omniscience]

(5) By virtue of his omnipotence, God had the ability to prevent the occurrence of evil.
[From 1 by definition of omnipotence in terms of absence of nonlogical limits to God's ability]

(6) God did not prevent the occurrence of evil.
[From 2 by double negation]

He did/does not prevent us from designating certain things "evil". Not the same thing.

(7) God had the ability to prevent evil from occurring and knew it would occur if he did not prevent it.
[From 4 and 5 by conjunction]

(8) God is morally culpable for the occurrence of evil.
[From the conjunction of 3, 6, and 7 by modus ponens]

In as much as "evil" is a designation based on a subjective perspective, God, being all-knowing/seeing would be immune from subjectivity. Therefore there would be no "evil" from God's perspective. Nothing to be morally culpable for.

The theist's God was supposed to be morally perfect

Not morally perfect, morally immune. Morality is also subjective.​

 

[HiddenDjinn]

(1) If God exists he is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good.
[Hypothesis that the theists' God exists]

Unsupported assertion and attempt at creating a strawman.

(2) Evil occurs.
[Statement of the undisputed fact of evil]

Asserted without evidence.

(3) If someone did not prevent the occurrence of evil despite having full knowledge in advance that it would occur if he were not to prevent it and despite also having unlimited power to prevent it, then that person is morally culpable for its occurrence.[Generalized principle of command responsibility]

Need to provide evidence of 1 and 2 before beginning to state 3.

(4) By virtue of his omniscience, God knew in advance that evil would occur unless he was to prevent it.
[From 1 by definition of omniscience]
(5) By virtue of his omnipotence, God had the ability to prevent the occurrence of evil.
[From 1 by definition of omnipotence in terms of absence of nonlogical limits to God's ability]

(6) God did not prevent the occurrence of evil.
[From 2 by double negation]

(7) God had the ability to prevent evil from occurring and knew it would occur if he did not prevent it.
[From 4 and 5 by conjunction]

(8) God is morally culpable for the occurrence of evil.
[From the conjunction of 3, 6, and 7 by modus ponens]

(9) God is not wholly good.
[From 8 by definition of "wholly good"]

(10) God does not exist.
[From 1 and 9 by modus tollens]

7.4 Conclusion
The theist's God was supposed to be morally perfect as well as omnipotent and omniscient. But from the undisputed fact that evil exists in the world whose existence he supposedly brought about, it follows--by the unassailable moral truth expressed in the Generalized Principle of Command Responsibility--that he can't have all three properties at once. Ipso facto, such a God does not now, and never did, exist. It is the logic of the new Down-Under Disproof, not of Plantinga's Free Will Defense, that triumphs.

This is the weakest "Argument from evil" that I've seen in a while. Come back when you have some substance.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Unsupported assertion and attempt at creating a strawman.

Asserted without evidence.

Need to provide evidence of 1 and 2 before beginning to state 3.

This is the weakest "Argument from evil" that I've seen in a while. Come back when you have some substance.

You can still come across arguments against the problem of evil that are even weaker. After all, how many people have a background in logic, philosophy, and/or theology? The argument may be weak, but that's just because it's simplified. As this recent paper shows, the debate is still ongoing: A neo-ontological solution to the problem of evil

 

[HiddenDjinn]

You can still come across arguments against the problem of evil that are even weaker. After all, how many people have a background in logic, philosophy, and/or theology? The argument may be weak, but that's just because it's simplified. As this recent paper shows, the debate is still ongoing: A neo-ontological solution to the problem of evil

True, I've seen weaker, but for something this flimsy to be posted as "proof"? That's nothing less than a horrid example of the quality of the education system that produced the one who considers those 10 statements, alone, to be proof of anything other than the ignorance of someone who takes it as proof. I know the debate is still ongoing, and, to be honest, i typically don't post these arguments due to their inherent flaws.

 

[Skwim]

Skwim (1) If God exists he is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good. [Hypothesis that the theists' God exists]

Not all theists have the same concept of deity. So the presumption fails.

Unsupported assertion and attempt at creating a strawman.

Please note that this a contingency statement: "IF," so if you don't agree with the description or can't take the premise as a given then there's no sense in your continued participation.

Skwim (2) Evil occurs. [Statement of the undisputed fact of evil]

Evil is a concept not all agree even exists. Another fail.

Asserted without evidence.

Evil is not an undisputed fact, it's a subjective designation.

I assume then that all three of you agree that the word "evil" has no actual referent in real life. This too then makes your continued participation here meaningless.

In formal arguments the premises must be taken as true in order to make what follows logically meaningful.

This argument was constructed for those who
1) Believe that if god exists he is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good. and those who
2) Believe evil occurs.

OR those who, for the sake of argument, are able to regard them as true. Don't believe both are true or are unable to regard them as such for argument's sake then there's no reason to participate.

However, I do appreciate what you have said about his nature and evil. It goes toward understanding what is and is not accepted as true.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Skwim (1) If God exists he is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good. [Hypothesis that the theists' God exists]



Please note that this a contingency statement: "IF," so if you don't agree with the description or can't take the premise as a given then there's no sense in your continued participation.

Skwim (2) Evil occurs. [Statement of the undisputed fact of evil]




I assume then that all three of you agree that the word "evil" has no actual referent in real life. This too then makes your continued participation here meaningless.

In formal arguments the premises must be taken as true in order to make what follows logically meaningful.

This argument was constructed for those who
1) Believe that if god exists he is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good. and those who
2) Believe evil occurs.

OR those who, for the sake of argument, are able to regard them as true. Don't believe both are true or are unable to regard them as such for argument's sake then there's no reason to participate.

However, I do appreciate what you have said about his nature and evil. It goes toward understanding what is and is not accepted as true.

In other words, "Accept my damn strawman or ****." I don't think so. If you insist on posting an inane argument, expect it to be attacked.

 

[Skwim]

In other words, "Accept my damn strawman or ****." I don't think so. If you insist on posting an inane argument, expect it to be attacked.

I expect it to be understood for what it is, and hardly consider your post or those of the others to be any kind of attack. If you don't understand formal logic so be it.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

I expect it to be understood for what it is, and hardly consider your post or those of the others to be any kind of attack.

Yeah, whatever, yet you seemed so upset that we responded against it. Get over yourself.

 

[Quagmire]

Skwim (1) If God exists he is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good. [Hypothesis that the theists' God exists]

I'm a theist, and as far as good or bad goes, I've already said that I think God is immune to morality.

Morality is subjective/God, being all-seeing.knowing is immune to subjectivity/ therefore God is immune to morality.

Please note that this a contingency statement: "IF," so if you don't agree with the description or can't take the premise as a given then there's no sense in your continued participation.

Then quit saying "the theists"

Skwim (2) Evil occurs. [Statement of the undisputed fact of evil]

I assume then that all three of you agree that the word "evil" has no actual referent in real life.

It depends on how real you want to be.

This too then makes your continued participation here meaningless.

Showing you the flaws in your equation is actually a valid reason to participate, as far as I'm concerned.

In formal arguments the premises must be taken as true in order to make what follows logically meaningful.

So you're only looking for input from people who already agree with you?

This argument was constructed for those who
1) Believe that if god exists he is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good. and those who
2) Believe evil occurs.

Oh, those are the "the theists" you meant. Sorry, I mistakenly took "the theists" to mean "the theists".

OR those who, for the sake of argument, are able to regard them as true. Don't believe both are true or are unable to regard them as such for argument's sake then there's no reason to participate.

OK then.

However, I do appreciate what you have said about his nature and evil. It goes toward understanding what is and is not accepted as true.

Thanks.

Now I'm off to start a thread entitled "Proof that the atheists habit of eating babies is unhealthy". If you're an atheist but don't eat babies, don't worry about it.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

It seems everyone else has already said it, but I'll say it again: this is based on this particular definition of god, which not all theists may hold to. It's a great argument against this particular definition of god, but not against the existence of all gods.

Edit: and now I feel like an idiot, for just now noticing the very first word in the thesis: IF.

 

[Skwim]

It seems everyone else has already said it, but I'll say it again: this is based on this particular definition of god, which not all theists may hold to. It's a great argument against this particular definition of god, but not against the existence of all gods.

Edit: and now I feel like an idiot, for just now noticing the very first word in the thesis: IF.

At least you understand what it means.

 

[Skwim]

I'm a theist, and as far as good or bad goes, I've already said that I think God is immune to morality.

Morality is subjective/God, being all-seeing.knowing is immune to subjectivity/ therefore God is immune to morality.

Does this mean you consider god to be neither good or bad, but sort of amoral?

Then quit saying "the theists"

Actually the thread title is that of Raymond D, Bradley who used it as the introduction to his argument, which I presented here (see link).

It depends on how real you want to be.

How about the reality in which the Sun rises and sets everyday.

Showing you the flaws in your equation is actually a valid reason to participate, as far as I'm concerned.

And what I see as the flaws that so far have been pointed out are nothing more than a misunderstanding of formal logic. Not a big deal in as much as few people have much familiarity with it, but it is a critical component here.

So you're only looking for input from people who already agree with you?

What is there to agree with? I haven't made any assertions one way or the other. All I've done is present someone else's argument and ask for comments.

Now I'm off to start a thread entitled "Proof that the atheists habit of eating babies is unhealthy". If you're an atheist but don't eat babies, don't worry about it.

Actually, I'd love to see such an argument. Please don't disappoint.

 

[Draka]

I saw the "IF", however, it said "IF God exists HE IS omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good." It made a statement about "the theist's god" and IF that god exists then he IS so on and so forth. It is a blanket statement about theists believing in one particular concept of god. That, and the arbitrary concept of "evil", is the main hinging premise of the entire argument. If it wanted to deal with one particular concept of deity then that should have been explained, but one cannot argue deity in general with that argument.

Also, if you are going to chalk up some of our responses to the argument you posted as "meaningless" then you really shouldn't have said: "Came across this formal disproof of god's existence. What do you think of it?" If you didn't want to see the answers you shouldn't have asked for them. Were you only wanting people to agree with it like it was profound and correct?

 

[Skwim]

Also, if you are going to chalk up some of our responses to the argument you posted as "meaningless" then you really shouldn't have said: "Came across this formal disproof of god's existence. What do you think of it?" If you didn't want to see the answers you shouldn't have asked for them. Were you only wanting people to agree with it like it was profound and correct?

My mistake in thinking that those answering would recognize the argument for what it was; an exercise in formal logic wherein it can be demonstrated that if evil exists then god, who is commonly considered to be omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good, could not. I wasn't expecting anyone to question the truth of the premises, and if they did, couldn't assume for the sake of argument that they are true. As I say, my mistake.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It is the logic of the new Down-Under Disproof, not of Plantinga's Free Will Defense, that triumphs

Here's something i don't get. The above is an assertion that this proof "triumphs" over Plantiga's. But it doesn't address Platinga's argument. If god exists, is omnipotent (which I've always believed implies omniscience), and wholly good, then he could ensure no evil occurs. However, in order for free agents to exist, god has to allow grant them to act against his wishes (e.g., by doing evil). The proof doesn't address whether agency at all.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Proofs against the existence of god(s) are about as necessary as arguments denying the existence of the Sasquatch.

Next up - proof against the existence of unicorns.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Proofs against the existence of god(s) are about as necessary as arguments denying the existence of the Sasquatch.

Next up - proof against the existence of unicorns.

i already proved these exist:

Logically they must! After all, if I say "All unicorns are white," then for this to be false, it must be the case that there is some unicorn which is not white.