Turn on thread page Beta

A little logic about god to go among the cr*p.. watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It seems so obvious to me
    ah, noble intuition. now theres the mark of a scholar

    soul-making? anyone?

    is that seriously the most interesting philosophical problem you can come up with?

    perhaps one might like to look at the reasons an omnibenevolent god might have for allowing evil in the world. like erm.. soul making.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I dont know much about propositional logic - having only done it for a term at uni, but it's not exactly correct is it? The propositions must be verifiably true - which they are (or at least may) not be. Nice argument though
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loftx)
    I dont know much about propositional logic - having only done it for a term at uni, but it's not exactly correct is it? The propositions must be verifiably true - which they are (or at least may) not be. Nice argument though
    I was doing this at uni last term aswell, damn boring maths module.. :mad:

    (Original post by Seer)
    That's not a very logical argument; it assumes that evil's existence contradicts God's predicates but doesn't give any real explanation why...
    It's not meant to give a reason why, that's not the idea. Each step follows the defined rules and each step is completely logical.

    I don't think it is intended to give an argument against religion (and I wasn't trying to start that argument), it's just a simple example of logic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chris_)
    Seeing as there's so many monotonously boring threads today, I thought Id give you something to think about. I read this somewhere recently and thought I would share it with you. It's a little flawed but is correct according to the laws of propositional loigic.

    If god is unable to prevent evil, then god is impotent.

    If god is unwilling to prevent evil, then god is malevolent.

    If god exists, then according to the bible, god is neither impotent nor malevolent.

    If god is neither impotent nor malevolent then there is no evil.

    There is evil.

    Therefore, god does not exist.


    I think it's pretty common so you may have seen it before.
    Steps 1,2,3 and 5 are logical; step 4 is anything but.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seer)
    Steps 1,2,3 and 5 are logical; step 5 is anything but.

    I sense a contradition.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thefish_uk)
    Sorry.

    I meant "who really cares about whether there is a God, it doesn't really change that much does it?"
    Lol.. yeah that's exactley how I feel
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I'm still waiting for some religious person to come up with the free will defence
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ralfskini)
    I sense a contradition.
    typo!
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seer)
    typo!

    ok.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    Lol.. yeah that's exactley how I feel

    I think that the concept is appealing but the proof is non-existant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ralfskini)
    I think that the concept is appealing but the proof is non-existant.
    exactley.. I'm also against religion.. it brainwashes you and causes too much trouble in the world
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I can justify my atheism because there is simply no point in believing in God. And if there does turn out to be a God, he'd forgive me if he is benevolent, or if he isn't, then we're probably all going to Hell anyway.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seer)
    Steps 1,2,3 and 5 are logical; step 4 is anything but.
    If god is able and willing to prevent evil, then there would be no evil. Otherwise god would be impotent or malevolent. Seems perfectly logical to me..

    You have to remember it's working along the laws of logic, not upon religious principles.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chris_)
    If god is able and willing to prevent evil, then there would be no evil. Otherwise god would be impotent or malevolent. Seems perfectly logical to me..

    You have to remember it's working along the laws of logic, not upon religious principles.
    Lol at this... no you're saying, implicitly, Evil NECESSARILY (i.e. logically) contradicts God's predicates of omnipotence and omnibenevolance, which it doesn't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    exactley.. I'm also against religion.. it brainwashes you and causes too much trouble in the world
    something of a blanket statement without justification? what about the help that religion gives people in overcoming the trials and tribulations of every day life. what about the concept that even if god did not exist, religion itself would have value. you can't just make blanket statements like that without backing them up.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JayJay)
    something of a blanket statement without justification? what about the help that religion gives people in overcoming the trials and tribulations of every day life. what about the concept that even if god did not exist, religion itself would have value. you can't just make blanket statements like that without backing them up.
    To be honest, religion is just a waste of time. As Bill Gates said, "Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning."
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)
    I can justify my atheism because there is simply no point in believing in God. And if there does turn out to be a God, he'd forgive me if he is benevolent, or if he isn't, then we're probably all going to Hell anyway.
    or we can worship him, and if it turns out there wasnt a god, well we havt done wrong. If there was we would reap the benefits. Its called Pascal's argument
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seer)
    Lol at this... no you're saying, implicitly, Evil NECESSARILY (i.e. logically) contradicts God's predicates of omnipotence and omnibenevolance, which it doesn't.
    Ok, Im not even going to bother explaining this further, so Ill leave it at that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chris_)
    Seeing as there's so many monotonously boring threads today, I thought Id give you something to think about. I read this somewhere recently and thought I would share it with you. It's a little flawed but is correct according to the laws of propositional loigic.

    If god is unable to prevent evil, then god is impotent.

    If god is unwilling to prevent evil, then god is malevolent.

    If god exists, then according to the bible, god is neither impotent nor malevolent.

    If god is neither impotent nor malevolent then there is no evil.

    There is evil.

    Therefore, god does not exist.

    I think it's pretty common so you may have seen it before.
    I'll clear this up once and for all, you are wanting us to view this completely logically...... right, well steps 1, 2 and 3 are all fine.

    With 4 your problem is you don't explain why evil's existence logically contradicts omnipotence and omnibenevolance, this is entirely different to the conclusions reached from steps 1 and 2, which are necessary truths.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    or we can worship him, and if it turns out there wasnt a god, well we havt done wrong. If there was we would reap the benefits. Its called Pascal's argument
    Notwithstanding the fact that Pascal does not tell us which God to believe in, his theory is flawed in that his first two statements, that we cannot be sure of God's existence, and that is will be bad for our eternal soul if we do not believe and turn out to be wrong, are both assumptions. The problem, therefore, with the second statement, is that it only applies to Christians. So Pascal's second statement is reduced to something along the lines of "If you are a Christian, you should believe in God": highly an insightful and relevant comment.

    Furthermore, a benevolent God would surely forgive you for not believing in him; he would judge you on your merits as a person. Not only that, but if you chose to follow Pascal's wager, an omniscient God would see that you were you were only believing in him for personal gain. And it's probably impossible to just believe in an unspecified supreme being because many God's prefer to be worshipped in certain ways. Moreover, you will in fact have lost something through believing - as Bill Gates said - "there is a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning". Thus, Pascal's theory is not much use to us in choosing to believe or not.

    And hence it is really not any better to believe in God than it is to deny his existence, and the latter has more tangible benefits.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.