Submitted by baileyjn8 t3_yw817y in philosophy
baileyjn8 OP t1_iwi7t7r wrote
Reply to comment by rejectednocomments in The Solution of Evil by baileyjn8
Their lack of assurance does not constitute a logical objection to the solution of the problem. The problem of evil is supposed to be an objection to the possibility of the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. It fails because of the reasoning in the post. That people aren’t sure God exists has nothing to do with the fact that the problem of evil fails to disprove God’s existence.
rejectednocomments t1_iwi869r wrote
Most philosophers agree that the deductive problem fails; it’s the inductive version that you should think about.
baileyjn8 OP t1_iwi8d1u wrote
Explain. I do not know what you mean by an inductive problem of evil.
rejectednocomments t1_iwi8yfk wrote
The deductive argument seeks to show that God cannot exist given the existence of evil. The inductive argument seeks to show that it is very improbable that God exists given the sheer amount of evil in the world.
baileyjn8 OP t1_iwia9be wrote
Can you link me something comprehensive about this? It seems ridiculous on its face. And improbability vs. impossibility and quantity of evil have nothing to do with induction vs. deduction.
rejectednocomments t1_iwiambc wrote
Ok_Meat_8322 t1_iwiy7om wrote
So in other words, the only version of the problem of evil you're familiar with/are attempting to resolve is the one that philosophers don't actually talk about anymore?
This makes your "not having read much more than their Hitchens book" comment rather unfortunate (and amusing).
baileyjn8 OP t1_iwk4pti wrote
After reading the Stanford article linked, I understand this to be a completely different issue than the one I’m addressing, and yes, it’s ridiculous on its face and throughout.
Ok_Meat_8322 t1_iwmyhvy wrote
>and yes, it’s ridiculous on its face and throughout.
What exactly is "it" referring to here?
baileyjn8 OP t1_iwnauaj wrote
The inductive presentation of the problem of evil. Like, the existence of evil doesn't disprove God, as my article shows, but the existence of a LOT of evil is supposed to PROBABLY disprove God? Like, how stupid can you be? And notice all of the assumptions made in that Stanford link. There's just so much evil and no use for evil! Well, my post demonstrates that there is a use for evil.
It, the inductive presentation of the problem of evil, is just so stupid. It reduces the logical analysis of the issue to a tantrum. Like, evil doesn't disprove God, so let's just whine.
Ok_Meat_8322 t1_ix5uh3t wrote
This is sort of impressive; literally every single sentence in your post is the opposite of what is the case.
The inductive PoE is evidently not "stupid", since hitherto not a single apologist or theologian has been able to refute or rebut it- you yourself failed to even attempt to raise a single substantive objection to it. If it were stupid, you would (hopefully) be able to at least attempt a substantive counter. If neither you nor any professional apologist are unable to rebut a "stupid" argument, what does that say about your intelligence (spoiler; nothing good)?
Nor did you manage to show that "there is a use for evil", in a relevant sense, as it pertains to a tri-omni deity. And indeed, the inductive version of the argument circumvents the single effective counterargument against the traditional deductive version- the logical possibility that God could have a sufficient justification for allowing gratuitous suffering, even if we can't imagine what it could be.
So indeed, this "stupid" argument remains undefeated, and succeeds in establishing the non-existence of a tri-omni deity to a high degree of probability. Oops, eh? Live and learn, I guess.
baileyjn8 OP t1_ix736h6 wrote
Of course I rebutted it. Anyone who rebuts the problem of evil has rebutted the inductive problem of evil.
And don’t contradict yourself. Gratuitous suffering is a synonym for unjustified suffering.
Bennito_bh t1_iwj8t24 wrote
Honestly he lost me at ‘legions of heathen internet trolls’.
I’m here for philosophy, not blind dogma.
Ok_Meat_8322 t1_iwmxumk wrote
they definitely seem to be lacking in the self-awareness/sense of irony department
baileyjn8 OP t1_iwmjqj3 wrote
You actually come off kind of like a heathen internet troll, TBH.
Bennito_bh t1_iwmpcyy wrote
Sounds like you apply that label to most people.
I actually self-identify as a heathen, but I only moonlight as a troll.
baileyjn8 OP t1_iwna533 wrote
Most people on the internet, yeah, but that doesn't mean I'm not meticulously discriminating. It means that the internet population is what it is.
Bennito_bh t1_iwjads1 wrote
We don’t disprove things though. You cannot disprove the existence of a flawless pink teapot floating in the asteroid belt, but that doesn’t mean anything. The burden of proof is not on the ‘legions of heathen internet trolls’, it is on those claiming a positive - ie the existence of benevolent deity. The PoE provides people like yourself the opportunity to answer its question. Nothing more.
baileyjn8 OP t1_iwk4dcr wrote
This has nothing to do with the failure of the problem of evil to disprove the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. You are aware that’s what the problem of evil is, right? It’s an effort to disprove God. It fails.
Bennito_bh t1_iwk6hwy wrote
Oh boy.
iiioiia t1_iwlsn8l wrote
> The burden of proof is not on the ‘legions of heathen internet trolls’, it is on those claiming a positive - ie the existence of benevolent deity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) > > > > The burden of proof is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position. > > > > Shifting the burden of proof: One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true.
It's interesting how the mind executes "logic" depending on the topic of discussion.
Bennito_bh t1_iwlz9ah wrote
PoE: There is an extraordinary amount of evil and suffering in the world. How can that fact be reconciled with the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent deity?
OP: We don’t know the reason there is evil, but we can assume it is necessary. You must prove it isn’t necessary or I’m right.
See how that works?
iiioiia t1_iwm3tgn wrote
> See how that works?
How you avoided the content of my comment? Yes, I do see how that works. One might think discussions in a philosophy subreddit might be above this, but one would be regularly disappointed.
EDIT: yet another pseudo-philosopher can't substantiate their claims so drops some snark and blocks the user so they can't reply. Maybe if mods did something about this this subreddit would become smarter over time.
> I responded directly to the content of your comment.
No, you did not.
> You are trying to apply something to one side of the conversation while ignoring what would happen if it were applied to both sides equally.
No, this is your imagination.
> This convo is going nowhere, but only because you are stopping it.
Says the person who blocked me so I can't reply to his comment.
Bennito_bh t1_iwm5qca wrote
I responded directly to the content of your comment. You are trying to apply something to one side of the conversation while ignoring what would happen if it were applied to both sides equally.
This convo is going nowhere, but only because you are stopping it.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments