"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.This is a series of IF/THEN deductions. Let's take them one at a time.
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?" - Epicurus
(a) IF [Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able], Then [He is not omnipotent].
This is valid in form, but not sound; the premise is not viable for a deity, if omnipotence is presupposed as necessary. That requires a discussion of the necessity of omnipotence for a deity, and what omnipotence entails. Further, it is made trivial by (b'), below.(b) IF [He is able, but not willing]; Then [He is malevolent].
This is not sound, because the consequent does not follow necessarily from the premise. If God has a superior reason for allowing the presence of evil, such as allowing His creations to have free will and agency to deal with evil vs. good, then He is not malevolent; He is the opposite of malevolent. Non Sequitur. The valid and sound statement is this:(b') IF [He is able, but not willing, in order to provide a greater good], THEN [He is justified in not removing evil, AND He is all good, giving superior gifts]
(c) IF [He is both able and willing], Then [whence cometh evil]
If (b') is the case, then (c) is trivial.(d) IF [He is neither able nor willing], Then [why call him God]
If (b') is the case, then (d) is trivial.The Epicurus argument contains the fallacy of the consequent not being the necessary conclusion of the premise. The premise entails other possible conclusions than the one given. So the one given is prejudicial, and not necessary.
10 comments:
Stan
Since you're on the topic of logic.I'm busy reading Elements of Formal Logic,it's seems very advanced and contains many unfamiliar symbols and equations that I suppose is derived from math.Are you still planning on extending your Logic Class? I'm hoping in time you could clear up some of those equations for the layman.
Is that the book by Londey and Hughes?
Yep,that's the one.I think it was first published in 1965.
OK I found a used book on the web and ordered it. The symbols for formal logic are only sorta standardized, and the process for teaching is not even.
I haven't used formal logic; mathematical Boolean (engineering) logic, yes.
But it might be interesting to take a look into it a little further. I think it would be an academic exercise only, with little philosophical application, but I could be wrong.
I haven't found that much philosophy has been written in formal logic, despite the use of symbolic logic at patheos, and that demonstrates that any kind of logic, when misapplied and ungrounded, turns out gibberish, even symbolic equations.
Still, I'm thinking it would be an interesting project to condense it down to its essence, if that's possible.
That's correct,the author(s) specifically mention that the book avoids philosophy.The book also relegates the use of intuition,and calls it unreliable.Instead,it utilizes "truth-tables" as the most reliable method for validating or invalidating propositions.
What is your take on truth-tables?
It depends on what kind of truth tables. Binary (T/F) tables are fine; but there are other take-offs I've seen which irrc play the probability game of inference, abduction and induction. Those have their place, of course, in the various types of logics, but for the discriminatory difference between what is true (just one truth) vs the many types of not-truth, then the binary tables seem to be the right type.
For example in engineering, binary is used because it is the simplest, it differentiates properly, and it works.
Here's a tangent: back in the day we learned analog computing alongside digital computing. You can even integrate and differentiate using analog techniques. But the answers were mostly graphical (useful but not precise due to component tolerances, etc.), and numerical precision was on the side of digital, as was data handling and ultimately bandwidth and flexibility.
Where was I? Oh yes, engineering truth tables can be relied on.
My initial training on flight simulators in the USAF was on tube-based, servo driven analog simulators (circa 1967-1970). The answers were continuous solutions of equations, representing the flight equations. There were no binary solutions because there were no digital components. In 1970, I had the opportunity to learn and apply boolean logic and solid state analog/digital hybrid circuitry in more recent flight simulators. Circa 1973-1974, I began studying programming general-purpose digital computers, with application to flight simulation. I can personally attest that the capabilities of digital simulation far exceeded the capabilities of analog simulation (and provide the capability for relatively rapid changes, if required) AND that engineering truth tables CAN be relied upon.
Stan and Robert
Your engineering backgrounds give you guys an advantage in the fields of logic.
When I searched for the terms binary,boolean logic and engineering truth tables,it seems that math is once again the key/prerequisite/language/glue that connects all these fields together,like logic,engineering and science.
So the next step is obvious for me and anyone else that hope to master logic and science.MATH MATH MATH !
Improve my math skills before anything else.
I hadn't thought about this for a very long time, and something just jumped out at me. Analog computers were programmed with hardware variables, such as specific values of capacitors, and specific connections for addition, and so on. We had some analog computers in school, and they consisted of a wall full of tube op-amps with a whole lot of connections that could accommodate the student's wiring and components. I think the final op-amp was connected to an x-y plotter to give the graphical solution.
I still have a tube op-amp which is two tubes sitting on a large base containing the differential circuitry, which then sits upon the plug that goes into a single tube socket. It is still in the original box, with the instructions inside. I wonder what Antiques Roadshow would say about that?
atheistcrimes,
I don't think that learning a lot of math is necessary for learning logic. Math is a subset of logic, being the application of logic to numbers.
Maybe a knowledge of math does give a sort of overview of logic, if one uses it that way, but basically it is just in this sense:
Either two entities are equal, or they are not. There are lots of ways not to be equal; there is only one way for them to be equal.
A metanarrative of logic would be similar:
Either the conclusion is proved by the premise chain, or it is not. It is either true, or it is not. Again there are lots of ways not to be true, but only one way to be true.
That's deduction. For the other logics - induction, abduction, inference, etc. - the above does not hold, and in fact it is toward the opposite: there is no truth possible, only probabilities; the probabilities have lots of ways to be false and no actual chance of being the actual case (true).
Post a Comment