Theodicy

[_Droopy]

I think the validity of the argument is beyond dispute, I think you might have had “soundness” in mind, where the argument has the correct logical form, but there are disputes about the premises. We need to resolve this first because there is no point is discussing an invalid argument, the horse would already be dead before I hit it with my bat.

Yes, I think the argument is unsound because one of the premises is questionable, but the problem with that premise (premise 2) is so severe as to give the appearance, at least, that the argument invalid as a matter of the conclusion not following necessarily from the premises, at least with premise 2 figuring as a major aspect of the entire argument. Why do I say this? Because the assumption of premise 2, that God's being all loving has some connection to the logical impossibility of a world in which non-belief is possible is not expressed in premise 2, but simply assumed, and that assumption is neither intuitive nor logically implied, in any necessary sense, within the concept of "all-loving."

Hence, the argument, although the form is valid when expressed symbolically, appears, when expressed in natural language, to be a non sequitur because, just given the premises that:

If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.

If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.

Reasonable nonbelief occurs.

One would not appear to be able, at all events, to leap from here to the conclusion that God does not exist. The conclusion appears not to have any specific logical relation to the premises because there is no clear logical or conceptual relation between belief, non-belief, and God's all-lovingness.

Admittedly, as a matter of formal logic, I'm perhaps splitting hairs, as the form is deductively valid. The problem lies in the conceptual nature of the terms used in the construction of the argument per se, not its form. The form, however, appears non-sequitur-like because premise 2 appears to create a huge logical gap that cannot be filled by the asserted conclusion.

Formal logic, however, isolated from an analysis of the concepts underlying the language forming the basis of the propositions upon which the argument is grounded, is of little usefulness in determining whether the existence of God is more or less likely, given those very underlying concepts.

[_mikwut]

Stak,

Premise 2 is unsound. It is at least asserted out of context. In Christianity it is of course true that God desires us to believe in his existence, but that amounts to a mere truism, because that isn't his primary goal. I agree with Peter Van Inwagen that in Christianity the devils believe in God but what good is that to them or God? In Christianity God has shown that relationship through atonement is his desire. My desire with my wife is much greater, richer and deeper then merely her acquiescence to my actual existence. That is a simple rational result of the actual state of affairs I desire. The scriptural examples are numerous, Christ was overly zealous about the primary need Thomas had for the type of unhiddenness he sought. The brothers of the rich man who was across the Gulf from Abraham and desired a message to be sent back to his brothers not do what he did, didn't seem to meet the state of affairs God values.

When love and atonement are properly contextualized rational unbelief is many times a desirous state of affairs. I have often used the analogy of love, many of us did not grow up in a loving home. When we become adults we don't have a framework or example to learn what love is, but we have an example of what love is not, at least a start and a positive state of affairs if that is the doxastic reality one finds themselves in. If God's way of guiding us and fulfilling an atoning relationship with him is subtle and complex like most personal relationships and involves trust in that complex nuance then rational non-belief can be a fertile doxastic place where a contrast between perceiving God's subtle love and not perceiving it can occur and be illustrated.

In fact, if God did provide signs or whatever your particular ideas of unhiddenness might be I think it quite conceivable that we empirically have examples of what that state of affairs would look like. You could take your pick of the many destructive forms of fundamentalist and dogmatic religion that emphasize above all else a simple propositional statement as the gold standard of religious being. God doesn't want that, in fact I would assert that is a less valued state of affairs than the atheist's doxastic position. He isn't seeking a sullen rational compliance with a proposition, God is seeking our trust, our devotion, our love, our faith, our acceptance of our sin, etc... it is a complex yet simple state of affairs.

I was disappointed when in debate William Lane Craig was asked by Christopher Hitchens would he prefer for Christopher Hitchens to be an atheist or radical Muslim. WLC was a bit of guard, but he should have answered an atheist, emphatically!

my regards, mikwut

[_Buffalo]

It's probably trite by now, but god behaves exactly as if he didn't exist. Actions speak louder than words, and when it comes to god, we have neither.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Hi Droopy,

I’m glad we could move past the issue of validity and dive into the 2nd premises, which I assume no self respecting theist would assume without explanation. With that said, let’s get down to it.

Why do I say this? Because the assumption of premise 2, that God's being all loving has some connection to the logical impossibility of a world in which non-belief is possible is not expressed in premise 2

Well, I assume that LDS theology affirms that God’s love for us is Agape. Let me re-quote my mention of Adams:

As the great Robert Adams puts it in his The Virtue of Faith, " There cannot be Agape at all without benevolence."

God’s love for us is so intense, that if God existed, it would follow that no reasonable doubt would exist, but reasonable doubt does exist, not just for the metaphysical concept of theism, but the Mormon position even more so.

Now this is the part where Free Agency is invoked, but I don’t think Free Agency solves the question. Let’s look at my working definition of reasonable doubt derived from Richard Swinburne:

S is inculpably in doubt about the truth of G if (i) S believes that epistemic parity obtains between G and ~G, and (ii) S has not knowingly (self-deceptively or otherwise) neglected to submit this belief to adequate investigation.

From what I read of Mormon Apologists on MD&D and here ( such as Bob Crocket or BCSpace), is that people never really leave the Church for good reasons. The harsher Apologists will invoke pride and sin, but even the softer approach openly questions if the apostate really understood the whole picture. Do you think apostates leave the Church on reasonable grounds? If so, what do you think the ratio is between reasonable doubters and non-reasonable doubters?

If God had eliminated reasonable doubt, that would still leave behind plenty of non-reasonable doubt, such as pride, anger, and sin. You would still have people making bad choices, people would still fornicate and abuse substances. Free Agency is still there.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Once I was told by a member of the Maxwell institute that they occasionally post new information here (this board) to test its ability to withstand criticism.

Really? Who told you that?

[Guest]

Once I was told by a member of the Maxwell institute that they occasionally post new information here (this board) to test its ability to withstand criticism.

Really? Who told you that?

It wasn't me, and I'm the only person affiliated with the Maxwell Institute who pays any real attention to this place.

I know of nothing -- nothing -- that was ever posted here in order to " test its ability to withstand criticism."

[_harmony]

Once I was told by a member of the Maxwell institute that they occasionally post new information here (this board) to test its ability to withstand criticism.

Really? Who told you that?

I want to know who did the posting here... who is "they"?

[_Doctor Scratch]

It wasn't me, and I'm the only person affiliated with the Maxwell Institute who pays any real attention to this place.

I'm not convinced that's the case, Dan.

I know of nothing -- nothing -- that was ever posted here in order to " test its ability to withstand criticism."

So I guess you're calling Lamanite a liar, then?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm not convinced that's the case, Dan.

So what?

You're who you are, and you believe (or pretend to believe) that I'm a habitual liar, so what you say is scarcely a surprise.

Nevertheless, it's a fact that I know everybody at the Maxwell Institute very, very well, and I'm the only one of them who pays any real attention to this place.

I would bet that the majority of the people at the Maxwell Institute don't even know that this board exists.

So I guess you're calling Lamanite a liar, then?

Nice try, you [descriptor deleted].

I'm saying that the claim that people at the Maxwell Institute post things here to test them is false.

There are several potential explanations for the claim, and I don't pretend to know which one to choose. But the claim is false.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I'm not convinced that's the case, Dan.

So what?

You're who you are, and you believe (or pretend to believe) that I'm a habitual liar, so what you say is scarcely a surprise.

That's not true at all. I would guess that most of the time you tell the truth. But I do think there are some things that, if pressed, you'd lie about. That's probably the case with 99.99999% of all people.

Nevertheless, it's a fact that I know everybody at the Maxwell Institute very, very well, and I'm the only one of them who pays any real attention to this place.

Oh, do you? No one there would dare betray you? You really are "The Kingpin" after all? Lol.

I would bet that the majority of the people at the Maxwell Institute don't even know that this board exists.

Maybe. Maybe not.

So I guess you're calling Lamanite a liar, then?

Nice try, you malignant obsessive.

I thought his sentence was pretty clear. I'm not really sure what other possibilities there are. I *am* guessing that it's safe to say that you've been PMing him obsessively in the last few minutes or so.

I'm saying that the claim that people at the Maxwell Institute post things here to test them is false.

People from the M.I. *do* post things here, don't they? And they're more than happy to lift quotes from here, too, without any attribution. Aren't they?

There are several potential explanations for the claim, and I don't pretend to know which one to choose.

I'm all ears.

But the claim is false.

I bet this is coming as something of a shock to Lamanite.