quote:

Assumption (1): God exists.

Assumption (1a): God is all-knowing.

Assumption (1b): God is all-powerful.

Assumption (1c): God is all-loving.

Assumption (1d): Any being that did not possess all three of the above properties would not be God.

Premise (2): Evil exists.

Premise (3): An all-knowing being would be aware of the existence of evil.

Premise (4): An all-powerful being would be able to eliminate evil.

Premise (5): An all-loving being would desire to eliminate evil.

Conclusion (6): Evil does not exist. (from (1),(3),(4),(5))

Contradiction: But evil does exist. (from (2))

Conclusion (7): There is no being that is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly loving. (from (2),(3),(4),(5))

Conclusion (8): God does not exist. (from (7),(1d))



Applies to all monotheistic religions.

ahahaha

How incredibly juvenile.

"Evil", "sin", "ignorance", etc, are all just the lack of something. This something, in this context, is GOD.

But in another sense, since everything is God, nothing can be away from God...Although that gets a bit confusing if one tries to pin point the location of conciousness and thought. http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

hahaha, here is my proof:

A)God is all powerful, knowing, loving, and being.

B)Evil is the lack of God

C)Existence is defined as and by God(since God is everything).

D)Only nothing is evil.

C)All things are good.

E)Hail Eris!)

[This message has been edited by Rizzo in a box (edited 02-12-2007).]

C)All things are good.

*fucks a child*

But to be serious, I think the OP's argument is valid but unsound, since the premises can be questioned.

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

But to be serious, I think the OP's argument is valid but unsound, since the premises can be questioned.

Indeed.

Would have been better if he defined "evil".

Either Good and Evil exist, and my argument holds up: God doesn't exist.

Or Good and Evil don't exist, and my argument still holds up: God doesn't exist.

quote:Originally posted by Pyronos:

Either Good and Evil exist, and my argument holds up: God doesn't exist.

Or Good and Evil don't exist, and my argument still holds up: God doesn't exist.

Please define "good" and "evil".

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

Would have been better if he defined "evil".

And "Good". Good in itself or good because God says so? Based on logic, it would have to be the latter, and therefore all this suffering could be good in the eyes of God. Yet good wouldn't really exist, it'd merely be a point of view.

"Good" and "Evil" are determined through societal norms... This whole debate is subjective.

quote:Originally posted by Jove:

"Good" and "Evil" are determined through societal norms... This whole debate is subjective.

Which is what I practically said with "it's good because God says it's good, not because it's good in itself".

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

Which is what I practically said with "it's good because God says it's good, not because it's good in itself".

true...

Note he said "Applies to all monotheistic religions." Regardless of the reality of good and evil, all (major) monotheistic religions claim that good and evil exist, and that not everything is "good" to God (so good and evil have an existance apart from God, apparently) - so this argument works for them.

[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 02-12-2007).]

Plus someone could argue that God knows about evil, but chooses not to eliminate it because it's somehow 'good' for us within His whole master plan thingy.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

Note he said "Applies to all monotheistic religions." Regardless of the reality of good and evil, all (major) monotheistic religions claim that good and evil exist, and that not everything is "good" to God (so good and evil have an existance apart from God, apparently) - so this argument works for them.



This is the point I was trying to convey in my second post.

Morality is an intrinsic part of all religion. If morality is subjective, God cannot be 'good' in a definite sense, and therefore does not exist.

(Unless you're worshipping a God with no moral ideals attached.)

Well, the God of the Old Testament isn't good exactly. He commits murder and genocide, but it don't matter becuase He's God, and there's nothing you can do about it. For a God like that, this argument doesn't really work.

It makes sense for the Christian and Muslim God, though.

quote:Originally posted by Kykeon:

Well, the God of the Old Testament isn't good exactly. He commits murder and genocide, but it don't matter becuase He's God, and there's nothing you can do about it. For a God like that, this argument doesn't really work.

It makes sense for the Christian and Muslim God, though.

Allah is just as fire and brimstone as Jehovah...

quote:Plus someone could argue that God knows about evil, but chooses not to eliminate it because it's somehow 'good' for us within His whole master plan thingy.



If God was truely omnipotent there would be no need for us to endure evil in the name of a greater good because God could just create the greater good without any evil consequences. God is omnipotent right?

If you believe evil is due to the existence of freewill then again, you would be mistaken. God, being omnipotent and omniscient, would just create beings that due to God's omniscience God would know would only make 'good' choices or atleast choices that are not 'evil'; whatever your definition of each may be.

In my experience, most Christians would add another assumption to your definition of God, that is relevant to your argument. And if you do not include it, then you have simply disproved a parody, a strawman.

Assumption (1e): Though we cannot yet know how, God can co-exist with evil.

This pretty much eliminates conclusion 6 and hence conclusion 7.

It seems to us, outside the religion, as specifically designed to fill in this problem of evil. But the way I see it, it's their religion, so they get to define what they believe in, not the people who would disprove it.

quote:Originally posted by Jove:

"Good" and "Evil" are determined through societal norms... This whole debate is subjective.

No.

We can know that humans by nature avoid and recoil from pain, be it physical or emotional. Therefore, to act in accordance with our nature, we should avoid causing unnecessary harm to others. We just have to figure out how to minimize unnecessary harm to continue living as we naturally desire to.

Morality is acting in a way that minimizes unnecessary harm.

But seriously, whether or not arguments like yours are valid or sound is irrelevant because it's not going to change anyone's mind. I find it is much better to simply focus on the more obvious stuff, like how there are a lot of religions that all require faith because they can't provide hard evidence, and the absurdity of needing to pick one of those above the others no matter where you were born. This lets you conclude that it doesn't matter what religion you believe in assuming that if there is a God he is omnipotent omniscient and benevolent like Christianity and Islam claim.

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

No.

We can know that humans by nature avoid and recoil from pain, be it physical or emotional. Therefore, to act in accordance with our nature, we should avoid causing unnecessary harm to others. We just have to figure out how to minimize unnecessary harm to continue living as we naturally desire to.

Morality is acting in a way that minimizes unnecessary harm.

Check this out: http://www.cuyamaca.edu/bruce.thompson/fallacies/naturalistic.asp

[This message has been edited by fallinghouse (edited 02-13-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

Note he said "Applies to all monotheistic religions." Regardless of the reality of good and evil, all (major) monotheistic religions claim that good and evil exist, and that not everything is "good" to God (so good and evil have an existance apart from God, apparently) - so this argument works for them.

If you had read the Koran and Old Testament, you'd know it is good because God says so, not good in itself. In fact, Muslims openly admit this because if it was Good in itself and not simply because God made it and said "that's good", then God wouldn't have made everything and therefore is not the creator of the universe - i.e. everything.

My point stands.

quote:We can know that humans by nature avoid and recoil from pain, be it physical or emotional. Therefore, to act in accordance with our nature, we should avoid causing unnecessary harm to others. We just have to figure out how to minimize unnecessary harm to continue living as we naturally desire to.

I teach you the last man: he says we have found happiness and blinks.

Epicurus had a much simpler/elegant version of that....

But to all the critics, why not just replace evil with suffering?

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:



Assumption (1e): Though we cannot yet know how, God can co-exist with evil.

This pretty much eliminates conclusion 6 and hence conclusion 7.

No it does not. That he can somehow co-exist with evil says nothing of the imperative he must have to do away with it given premise 5 (i.e. Premise (5): An all-loving being would desire to eliminate evil).

If we accept that he is all loving, and that he has a desire to eliminate evil, then his ability to "co-exist" with evil is a non-issue; whether he can or cannot co-exist with evil, does not change the desire he should have of eliminating it. Adding that assumption you suggest, by itself, does not refute the deductive argument given.

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:



But to all the critics, why not just replace evil with suffering?

There is no need to do so if we acknowledge that all (or the vast majority) of monotheistic religions hold certain things as "good" and certain things as "evil". What those things are (i.e. the definition of "good" and "evil") is irrelevant, the important thing is that "evil" exists (according to all, or most of them) when it should not.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-13-2007).]

That's right, Rust. The point of the argument is to demonstrate a contradiction that is inevitable within the religion's own framework. It gets you to a fork, neither horn of which most theists want to accept: either what [insert holy document here] says is good/evil is not really good/evil, or God does not exist. Either way, something is wrong.



Entheogenic

Where's the definition of evil?

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

Where's the definition of evil?

Whatever is defined "sin" or "wrong" by the holy document.

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

Whatever is defined "sin" or "wrong" by the holy document.

Which holy document? The OT and the NT would differ heavily in what they consider evil. NT is all about the spirit of being chill to one another, whereas the OT is "follow what the demiurge and what the patriarchs have said or we'll stone you to death."

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

Where's the definition of evil?

To ask "Where's the definition of evil?" is to miss the point.

The definition of evil doesn't have to be provided if we accept Premise 2 (i.e. Evil exists) as true. Most, if not all, of monotheistic religions claim that evil exists in some form, thus Premise 2 is true in their eyes. Evil exists, according to them. Whether we define that "evil" as sinning, killing, laughing or "the color blue", is unimportant; the argument follows as long as we can say "Evil exists".

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-13-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

To ask "Where's the definition of evil?" is to miss the point.

The definition of evil doesn't have to be provided if we accept Premise 2 (i.e. Evil exists) as true. Most, if not all, of monotheistic religions claim that evil exists in some form, thus Premise 2 is true in their eyes. Evil exists, according to them. Whether we define that "evil" as sinning, killing, laughing or "the color blue", is unimportant; the argument follows as long as we can say "Evil exists".



What the HELL are you talking about? How could the definition of evil NOT be important? How can you argue about something if you don't even know what you're arguing about?

There's a big difference between saying the color blue and God exists and saying suffering and God exists, or something.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

What the HELL are you talking about? How could the definition of evil NOT be important? How can you argue about something if you don't even know what you're arguing about?

Because we're not arguing the definition of "evil", that's why.

The deductive argument being given does not rest on the definition of "evil". If "evil" is defined as "the color blue", it works. If "evil" is defined as "sinning", it works. If "evil" is defined as "dog shit", it works. As long as we can say "evil exists", it works.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Because we're not arguing the definition of "evil", that's why.

The deductive argument being given does not rest on the definition of "evil". If "evil" is defined as "the color blue", it works. If "evil" is defined as "sinning", it works. If "evil" is defined as "dog shit", it works. As long as we can say "evil exists", it works.



How can you go from premise 2 to premise 5 without defining evil? Why would God want to get rid of the color blue?

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

How can you go from premise 2 to premise 5 without defining evil? Why would God want to get rid of the color blue?

It doesn't matter why, it just matters that there is evil and that the being wants to eliminate it.

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

If you had read the Koran and Old Testament, you'd know it is good because God says so, not good in itself. In fact, Muslims openly admit this because if it was Good in itself and not simply because God made it and said "that's good", then God wouldn't have made everything and therefore is not the creator of the universe - i.e. everything.

My point stands.

I've read the Old Testament. If you could point me to a verse that says that good and evil don't have an existance outside of God, I'd be grateful. I have never read the Koran, though.

I'm not sure exactly what your point is, though. Assuming things are only good because God says so, the Bible and Koran still claim that God finds some things to be not-good. The argument stands.



[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 02-13-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

How can you go from premise 2 to premise 5 without defining evil?

Because nowhere in the argument is the definition of "evil" necessary! The definition of "evil" doesn't matter. What matters is that to the monotheistic religion it exists. If to them it exists, and if their god is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent, then the argument stands.

Does X religion believe evil exists? Is the god of X religion omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent? If you answer "yes" to both those questions, regardless of how you define "evil", the argument stands.

quote:

Why would God want to get rid of the color blue?

Who knows? I don't have to answer that question for it to be a possibility, do I? The fact of the matter is that if there were a god, he could want to get rid of the color blue because he believes it to be "evil".



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-13-2007).]

Rust's point (and it is a correct one) is that the argument--like any good deductive argument--does not rely on a semantic understanding in order to go though; only the syntax needs to be consistent.

You can replace "evil" with "blarghaf" and as long as the conclusion still follows necessarily from the premises, the argument remains valid.

Take a more simple example:

All luffs are truffs.

All truffs are skuffs.

Billy is a luff.

Therefore, Billy is a skuff.

This argument is perfectly valid (that is, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises) even though we have no idea what "luff" "truff" or "skuff" means; it is the logic that counts, not the meaning of the words.

Abstract this even further, and you get (roughly):

A -> B

B -> C

A

Therefore, C

"But what do A, B, and C stand for?" It doesn't matter! The argument is deductively valid even with variables.



The only way to defeat the OP's argument (at least with regard to premise 2) would be to claim that evil does not exist--something most theists are unwilling to do, as this statement causes other problems for most religions.

Entheogenic



[This message has been edited by Entheogenic (edited 02-13-2007).]

Are you guys fucking with me or something?

quote:Premise (2): Evil exists.

Premise (3): An all-knowing being would be aware of the existence of evil.

Premise (4): An all-powerful being would be able to eliminate evil.

Premise (5): An all-loving being would desire to eliminate evil.



Premise 5. Look at it. It's assuming love is something that is against evil. Is that true? I don't know, you didn't even DEFINE WHAT YOU'RE FUCKING TALKING ABOUT.

Why would an ALL LOVING BEING want to destroy THE COLOR blue?

the premise is flawed, what is so hard to understand about that?

Do all truffs want to kill skruffs? Why/why not?



[This message has been edited by Rizzo in a box (edited 02-13-2007).]

That's a poor wording of the premise--omnibenevolent (all good) would be better. The idea is that God opposes everything that is evil--whatever precisely evil is. Don't latch on to the "blue" thing; that was just an illustration. The point is the relationship between whatever "evil" stands for and whatever "god" stands for; if we make the assumption that God opposes evil (whatever evil might be), then the argument goes through. Defining evil is indeed important, but remains a separate issue.



Entheogenic

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:



Premise 5. Look at it. It's assuming love is something that is against evil. Is that true? I don't know, you didn't even DEFINE WHAT YOU'RE FUCKING TALKING ABOUT.

So what? He doesn't have to.

We're not debating whether those premises are true or not, we're saying if they are true the argument stands. That's how deductive reasoning works. The power of the argument comes from the fact that most monotheistic religions hold those premises to be true. Most of the consider a god to be omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. They also believe that evil exists, and that he would wish to remove evil.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-13-2007).]

quote:That's a poor wording of the premise--omnibenevolent (all good) would be better. The idea is that God opposes everything that is evil--whatever precisely evil is. Don't latch on to the "blue" thing; that was just an illustration. The point is the relationship between whatever "evil" stands for and whatever "god" stands for; if we make the assumption that God opposes evil (whatever evil might be), then the argument goes through. Defining evil is indeed important, but remains a separate issue.



Then you're still assuming that good opposes evil. Is this just a fuckinge exercise in logic? Because if so, this should be moved to Humanities.

I agree, the logic is sound, if everything said is true. Which hasn't been established.

quote:So what? He doesn't have to.

We're not debating whether those premises are true or not, we're saying if they are true the argument stands. That's how deductive reasoning works. The power of the argument comes from the fact that most monotheistic religions hold those premises to be true. Most of the consider a god to be omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. They also believe that evil exists, and that he would wish to remove evil.



Yeah, once again, this is just an exercise in logic then. WTF is the point?

The point is that all of the premises are things that most theists believe. This argument shows that there is a fundamental contradiction in those beliefs, so one or more of them needs to be jettisoned.

The reason we don't need to argue for assumptions is just that--they are assumptions. This argument is designed to show what the consequences are if we assume all the assumptions are true which, again, is something most theists do.



Entheogenic

quote:Originally posted by Entheogenic:

The point is that all of the premises are things that most theists believe. This argument shows that there is a fundamental contradiction in those beliefs, so one or more of them needs to be jettisoned.

The reason we don't need to argue for assumptions is just that--they are assumptions. This argument is designed to show what the consequences are if we assume all the assumptions are true which, again, is something most theists do.



Entheogenic

quote:Applies to all monotheistic religions.



All or most?

Because if it's all that's wrong, if it's MOST then the OP is wrong.

All who accept church dogma. Virtually everyone who believes in God believes that omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence are necessary (if not sufficient) conditions for being God. Those who believe in a higher power that lacks one of these three attributes would have a difficult time convincing me that they believe in "God;" the term as it is commonly understood includes the three Os.



Entheogenic

This theory is greatly flawed.

Care to elaborate?



Entheogenic

quote:Originally posted by Pyronos:

Applies to all monotheistic religions.

If you fucking read the bible then youd know that the world WAS perfect. But then adam and eve sinned and now evil is in the world.

quote:Originally posted by Entheogenic:

All who accept church dogma. Virtually everyone who believes in God believes that omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence are necessary (if not sufficient) conditions for being God. Those who believe in a higher power that lacks one of these three attributes would have a difficult time convincing me that they believe in "God;" the term as it is commonly understood includes the three Os.



Entheogenic

So it's gone from "all monotheistic religions" to "anything that I consider dogma". Interesting.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

So it's gone from "all monotheistic religions" to "anything that I consider dogma". Interesting.

No. The three major monotheistic religions do accept these points as dogma. This argument won't, however, work for someone who has a radically different conception of what "god" is, even if that person happens to be a monotheist. The Bible, The Torah, and The Koran all assert the three Os (either explicitly or implicitly) as attributes of god.

Entheogenic

quote:Originally posted by GatorWarrior:

If you fucking read the bible then youd know that the world WAS perfect. But then adam and eve sinned and now evil is in the world.

There are two responses to that: first, if the world was "perfect," how was it even possible that Adam and Eve could have sinned in the first place? A world where sin is possible is surely not the most perfect world.

Second, even if you ignore the first objection, how is it that evil is allowed to endure? It seems that God should be able to stop it whenever He wants to--the argument still stands.



Entheogenic

quote:Originally posted by Entheogenic:

Care to elaborate?



Entheogenic

Na, I'll let you handle it, Entheogenic.



(I was refering to the original thread)



[This message has been edited by Lord. Better Than You (edited 02-13-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Entheogenic:

No. The three major monotheistic religions do accept these points as dogma. This argument won't, however, work for someone who has a radically different conception of what "god" is, even if that person happens to be a monotheist. The Bible, The Torah, and The Koran all assert the three Os (either explicitly or implicitly) as attributes of god.

Entheogenic

Yes, but what do they assert about evil?

Most theists don't believe that evil exists, but that evil is the absence of good. The OP's conclusion is wrong.

In any case, the idea of God is well beyond our mind's capacity. But nice try, atheists.

If god doesn't exist, then how come you're here?

quote:Originally posted by CheebaKing:

Most theists don't believe that evil exists, but that evil is the absence of good. The OP's conclusion is wrong.

In any case, the idea of God is well beyond our mind's capacity. But nice try, atheists.

Fair enough. This works as a response to Rizzo, as well. My point is that it doesn't matter HOW you define evil, as long as you define it as something that God opposes. Remove the premise about omnibenevolence, and replace evil with "things that God opposes." The argument still goes through. Even if evil is just the absence of good, I can ask why God allows good to be absent from any aspect of the universe.

Jester_420: Huh? That doesn't make much sense.



Entheogenic

quote:Originally posted by Entheogenic:

Fair enough. This works as a response to Rizzo, as well. My point is that it doesn't matter HOW you define evil, as long as you define it as something that God opposes. Remove the premise about omnibenevolence, and replace evil with "things that God opposes." The argument still goes through. Even if evil is just the absence of good, I can ask why God allows good to be absent from any aspect of the universe.

Jester_420: Huh? That doesn't make much sense.



Entheogenic

How could an all loving being oppose anything?

I think I finally see what you were saying, though.

Your proof is no more than the proof that god exists, except your proof only proves your eternal life in hell.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

Yeah, once again, this is just an exercise in logic then. WTF is the point?

"The power of the argument comes from the fact that most monotheistic religions hold those premises to be true."

You can quibble over whether the OP meant "all" or "most" or what have you, that will still remain true, making this nothing close to "juvenile".

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-14-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Pyronos:

This is the point I was trying to convey in my second post.

Morality is an intrinsic part of all religion. If morality is subjective, God cannot be 'good' in a definite sense, and therefore does not exist.

(Unless you're worshipping a God with no moral ideals attached.)

Exactly, god isn't good or evil. God is everything.

This is the riddle of Epicurus:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

quote:Originally posted by coolwestman:

Exactly, god isn't good or evil. God is everything.

Feel free to believe that, but recognize that you're rejecting millennia of church teaching, which would have you believe that God is entirely good and opposes everything that is evil in the universe.

If God is everything, then such ideas as sin, hell, atonement, and the like all go right out the window.



Entheogenic

The only way to defeat the argument from evil is to change God's definition, however, doing so then makes God inconsistent with the God described in the Torah, Koran and Holy Bible.

Either option leads to the destruction of said monotheistic doctrines as we currently know them.

No wonder traditional theists get so up in arms and begin writing/saying/yelling esoteric diatribes when the argument from evil is mentioned.

Btw - has anyone read Fyodor Dostoevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov"??



[This message has been edited by Daz (edited 02-14-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Check this out: http://ww w.cuyamaca.edu/bruce.thompson/fallacies/naturalistic.asp (http: //www.cuya maca.edu/b ruce.thomp son/fallac ies/natura listic.asp )



Those are pretty dumb arguments. I'm not saying that things that are "natural" are all correct and morally right.

However, humans naturally avoid pain, and that is where morality comes from. We desire to not feel pain and to feel pleasure. This is not about naturalistic principles, but about what humans are. We feel pain, but don't want to. We try to avoid it. Others can feel it too, so we don't want to hurt them.