Chain Logic and God

Premise1:     If there is a God, God is defined as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
Premise2:     If God exists, there would be no evil in the world.
Premise3:     There is evil in the world.
Conclusion:   There is no God.

Here's an example:
Consider a babysitter taking care of your three year old. You come home to find out your kid drank a bottle of drain cleaner (the evil). The babysitter cannot have all four qualities of being there - able to prevent/stop it - knowing better - and being a 'good' babysitter, and still have the kid drinking drain cleaner. All four 'omni' qualities and evil are inherently mutually exclusive. Since evil exists, no such being exists.

Any thoughts on the evidential argument from evil? 

Is this a true story? Were you the kid? It's ok, you can tell us and we'll get in touch with social services for you

Is this a true story? Were you the kid? It's ok, you can tell us and we'll get in touch with social services for you

It's true. He also drank bleach, and boiling hot WD-40. Unfortunately, I still have some catching up to do.

Heh. Failure to find flaws in the argument means that you have to accept the conclusion. Any theists out there willing to participate? 

Heh. Failure to find flaws in the argument means that you have to accept the conclusion. Any theists out there willing to participate? 

I just can't be bothered to right now. It's an old argument with old answers.

Why are you treating religion like a science? It's almost as mad as treating FES like a science. There are an infinite number of counter arguments, just ask any zealot. Here is one answer you may hear: There was no evil until Adam and Eve sinned, after which time God made them imperfect, cast Satan The Devil (who is evil) down Earth (to rule over it) hence the situation we have today.

Why are you treating religion like a science? It's almost as mad as treating FES like a science. There are an infinite number of counter arguments, just ask any zealot. Here is one answer you may hear: There was no evil until Adam and Eve sinned, after which time God made them imperfect, cast Satan The Devil (who is evil) down Earth (to rule over it) hence the situation we have today.

I use science, logic and reason because it is superior.
This is not my argument but I found it to be thought provoking.
Those counterarguments are not logical, they are faith based.

Those counterarguments are not logical, they are faith based.

Guess what; so is religion.

What the hell do you think Religion is?

Since the idea of evil is subjective, you cannot continue your thought experiment.

Not that I disagree, but what is your definition of evil?

Harm physically, emotionally, or otherwise?
The absence of good? (what is 'good'?)
Obstruction of morals and ethics?

All definitions I can think of are still conflicting with omnibenevolence.

You're missing one vital piece of information. Satan rules Earth. Evil can run riot until such time as God rains down fiery destruction on all the evil and the Earth returns to perfection. I really don't understand this whole debate it makes zero sense.

I do not know how to simplify it further for you. But come to think of it, the concept of Satan goes to show God is not everywhere/everything and perfectly good. 

And if God does not have control of Satan, he is not all powerful.

Premise1:     If there is a God, God is defined as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
Premise2:     If God exists, there would be no evil in the world.
Premise3:     There is evil in the world.
Conclusion:   There is no God.

Here's an example:
Consider a babysitter taking care of your three year old. You come home to find out your kid drank a bottle of drain cleaner (the evil). The babysitter cannot have all four qualities of being there - able to prevent/stop it - knowing better - and being a 'good' babysitter, and still have the kid drinking drain cleaner. All four 'omni' qualities and evil are inherently mutually exclusive. Since evil exists, no such being exists.

Any thoughts on the evidential argument from evil? 

Maybe god knows that an event may seem evil to you, but serve the greater good. So I will say your definition of evil is flawed. What if the baby sitter being omnipotent knew that this child was going to grow up to be hitler?

Your reasoning is flawed. suicide.

Lesser evil is still a confirmation of evil. The grand plan involves evil but why not no evil altogether?

Lesser evil is still a confirmation of evil. The grand plan involves evil but why not no evil altogether?

Because how can we learn good here on Earth if we do not experience evil. What would the purpose of life be, if we learned nothing from it? I believe the very fact that god forgives your sins if you truthfully ask for forgiveness displays this point.

Not that I disagree, but what is your definition of evil?

I don't have a definition of evil because it doesn't exist. It was created, for what reason, I'm not sure. Perhaps to create a divide, to showcase one group's superiority; something along those lines.

Premise2: If God exists, there would be no evil in the world.

Why?

Premise1:     If there is a God, God is defined as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
Premise2:     If God exists, there would be no evil in the world.
Premise3:     There is evil in the world.
Conclusion:   There is no God.

Here's an example:
Consider a babysitter taking care of your three year old. You come home to find out your kid drank a bottle of drain cleaner (the evil). The babysitter cannot have all four qualities of being there - able to prevent/stop it - knowing better - and being a 'good' babysitter, and still have the kid drinking drain cleaner. All four 'omni' qualities and evil are inherently mutually exclusive. Since evil exists, no such being exists.

Any thoughts on the evidential argument from evil? 

Omniscience excludes omnipotence.  Namely, let us say that omniscience is true. This means that everything that will happen in future is already known. Specifically, there is knowledge about the truth value of every logical statement. But, then we know that the negation of any true statement is impossible. This means it cannot be done. This means omnipotence is false.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 13, 2008, 02:06:36 PM

Premise1:     If there is a God, God is defined as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
Premise2:     If God exists, there would be no evil in the world.
Premise3:     There is evil in the world.
Conclusion:   There is no God.

Here's an example:
Consider a babysitter taking care of your three year old. You come home to find out your kid drank a bottle of drain cleaner (the evil). The babysitter cannot have all four qualities of being there - able to prevent/stop it - knowing better - and being a 'good' babysitter, and still have the kid drinking drain cleaner. All four 'omni' qualities and evil are inherently mutually exclusive. Since evil exists, no such being exists.

Any thoughts on the evidential argument from evil? 

Omniscience excludes omnipotence.  Namely, let us say that omniscience is true. This means that everything that will happen in future is already known. Specifically, there is knowledge about the truth value of every logical statement. But, then we know that the negation of any true statement is impossible. This means it cannot be done. This means omnipotence is false.

Or  rather that God knows all possible futures and can make any possible future come to pass.

Quote from: John Jackson on February 13, 2008, 08:38:14 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 13, 2008, 02:06:36 PM

Premise1:     If there is a God, God is defined as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
Premise2:     If God exists, there would be no evil in the world.
Premise3:     There is evil in the world.
Conclusion:   There is no God.

Here's an example:
Consider a babysitter taking care of your three year old. You come home to find out your kid drank a bottle of drain cleaner (the evil). The babysitter cannot have all four qualities of being there - able to prevent/stop it - knowing better - and being a 'good' babysitter, and still have the kid drinking drain cleaner. All four 'omni' qualities and evil are inherently mutually exclusive. Since evil exists, no such being exists.

Any thoughts on the evidential argument from evil? 

Omniscience excludes omnipotence.  Namely, let us say that omniscience is true. This means that everything that will happen in future is already known. Specifically, there is knowledge about the truth value of every logical statement. But, then we know that the negation of any true statement is impossible. This means it cannot be done. This means omnipotence is false.

Or  rather that God knows all possible futures and can make any possible future come to pass.

Any possible, but not all of them at once in one Universe.

All that would be required is to change all the physical laws of the universe.

No.

What else would be required then?

Innumerably infinite number of parallel Universes with only one G-d.

And how is this a problem?

When I come to think of it, even then omnipotence is impossible. Namely, in not one of these Universes would it be possible for the statement:

If p is a logical statement, then "p and not-p is true" is true.

to be a true statement.

"I own a cat."

It is true when I say it and not true when my neighbor says it.

"I own a cat."

It is true when I say it and not true when my neighbor says it.

That is because it is not a logical statement in the strict sense of the word, but, instead, a predicative function. The 'I' is the predicative variable, which we can denote as X, so now your statement becomes:

"X owns a cat."

which has a definite truth value for any noun X.

But, I don't think this matters to the discussion.

To summarize. Is an omnipotent and omniscient being able to make itself not omniscient?

This does not seems to be a proof/disproof of god, or the concept of the entity of god as much as an attempted disproof of the definition of god as defined by major world religions. (as I see it)

If Premise 1 is false then the entire proof is null. I see no reason why god, or such an entity as god, if it were to exist need be omnipotent or omniscient, let alone omnibenevolent. How would this proof apply to the Deist concept of god, for example?