A modus tollens, also known as modus tollendo tollens, argument is the application of general logical truth that if a statement is true, then so is its contrapositive statement. Thus, confirming both are true.
Modus Tollendo Tollens Problem of Evil
- God exists.
- God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent.
- An omnibelevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
- An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils can be prevented.
- An omnipotent being has the power to prevent those evils from ever coming into existence.
- A being who knows every way in which all evils can come into existence, who is capable of preventing those evils from coming into existence, and who wants to prevent those evils from coming into existence, would prevent those evils from existing at all.
- If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
- Evil exists.
- Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.
rmfr
Edit: clarified #9
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Dammit, Arakish. How many times do you have to be told? You should know by now just as well as the rest of us heathens that none of that reasoning and logic matters in the slightest because.......
https://youtu.be/_wckDFW0pD4
@ Tin-Man
But I do have faith. Faith no theist can even understand the logic enough to know how to answer. Thus, the reason I used logical faith.
rmfr
Ummmm... Pretty sure "logical faith" is an oxymoron. *chuckle*
Stealing this...
Defence: "God" is all good by definition, and what appears to us mere mortal and limited human beings, as avoidable evil, is not evil at all. We do not have the capacity to know how it can be non-evil, but "God" does, and it is.
BTW I do NOT agree with this defence, but xtians will put it forward. So now, do your counter apologetics on the defence.
Mu.
What do you mean by `general logical truth?' Do you know that there are multiple formal logics and that modus tollens fails (or fails to a degree) for many logics that have been described explicitly in the literature? The hardest and most important part of using logic is determining which logic most accurately describes a system. This is a computationally complex problem because there are many logics, just as there are many mathematical structures that share at least one property with Abelian groups. This complexity leads professionals to rely on a combination of their `gut feeling', testing and checking, and troubleshooting to determine which logic best describes a system. You have chose an Aristotelian or classical Boolean logic to describe your argument, which does your argument a disservice by damping its ability to reconcile subtle distinctions without `going down a rabbit hole.' Life is not that simple.
Re: Calhais - "Multiple forms of logic..."
Quite frankly, I could give less than a skinny rat's behind how many forms of logic there may or may not be, or what each one might be called. Granted, I understand and appreciate these things do have their uses in specific fields. And while those types of things may be of a slight passing interest to me in a somewhat entertaining respect, they have absolutely ZERO to do with being an atheist.
I find it interesting sometimes that I read some of the theists' "arguments" on here, and I cannot help but think, "Has common sense been outlawed in some places and I just wasn't made aware of it?
Quite honestly, I find it fascinating that people with IQ's higher than mine know all of these complex logics and technical terms and such. What I find even more fascinating, however, is how these same people toss all that intellect out the window and totally smother all common sense thinking when it comes to religion. If I were an expert psychologist, I imagine I would find it to be a fascinating study.
That much, at least, presents itself often. Example: the OP. You don't suppose that's a good thing, though, do you? Often the call to atheism is ``reason!'' The way you put it all makes that call seem disingenuous.
@Calhais Re: "Often the call to atheism is ``reason!'' The way you put it all makes that call seem disingenuous."
Dang, dude. You're good. Not only did you totally miss the entire point of the OP, you equally missed the point of my response to your response of the OP. You are batting a thousand. Congrats!...*patting you on the back*...
From what I have noticed from your posts in various other threads, it is quite apparent to me you have a great deal of trouble seeing the forest because of all those damn trees that are in the way. In the interest of assisting you with your incredibly microscopic vision problem, allow me to express my last post in a more straightforward and less entertaining format....
1. Yes, I am aware there are many different forms of logic.
2. I..... Don't..... Care.
3. Regardless of how intelligent or logical they may be in other areas, most every theist/believer I have ever encountered totally abandons every single shred of logic and intelligence when it comes to "defending" their respective religion.
There. The forest in plain view.
Thanks TM.
You sure the straw man got the brains? And you actually got the heart and brain?
rmfr
It was considerate of you to repeat yourself, but not helpful; I can read. My point was that appealing to reason to support an atheist worldview won't get you anywhere if you don't know how to use reason. You ought to consider the degree to which point (2) contradicts the idea that atheism is reasonable. Presenting an argument, as in the OP, that disproves the existence of a single god with particular qualities is a trite way to go about defending atheism, firstly because it is so particular, secondly because it appeals primarily to the theist who has had words put in his mouth, thirdly because it lacks nuance, and finally because it is so elementary.
@Calhais Re: "My point was that appealing to reason to support an atheist worldview won't get you anywhere if you don't know how to use reason."
*rolling eyes*.... There's that "atheist worldview" term again. Ugh!...*hangs head while shaking it sadly*...And that coming from a guy who gets all super-anal and nit-picky about using specific words, reasoning, and the proper form of logic. Oh, the irony. A little FYI for you.... There is no atheist worldview. Now, one more shot at specific types of logic and reasoning.
I drive my truck pretty much every day. Have been operating vehicles of various sorts a majority of my life. Technically, I could actually be considered a professional driver, because I have extensive driver training and got paid to drive for many years. Put me in a vehicle and give me a few minutes, chances are I can learn to operate it. And, yes, while I may know a few general basics about engine function and mechanical operations, that does not make me a mechanic or an automative expert. However, even though I may not have any extensive auto mechanic knowledge or skills, that does not prevent me from operating the vehicle in a highly proficient manner. At the same time, there are some incredibly talented super-whiz mechanics who cannot drive worth a shit.
In other words, just because I may not know all the proper technical terms for various forms of logic and reason, it does not mean I am not profecient at using them. And in that same respect, just because a person DOES know all the technicalities and proper terms and such, it does not necessarily mean he/she has any clue how to properly use them. Most often it just boils down to a simple matter of common sense. It ain't always gotta be so dang complicated.
Forest and trees, my man. Forest and trees.....
That's right. So what? That isn't the same as asserting that you are proficient at reasoning.
No, there isn't an atheist worldview. Not in the sense in which you're using the phrase. However, a common-sense interpretation of my comment gives that I meant something specific by that phrase: when I wrote,
it was the specific application of a general rule to any proposition that could be said to belong to atheism. The general rule is obvious: appealing to reason to support any proposition won't get you anywhere if you don't know how to use reason. You don't need to know special vocabulary because the words used to describe logics are mostly arbitrary. Life is complicated, and ignoring that will not make your life much better.
It seems to me that if one system of logic can overthrow the conclusion of another system of logic then at least one of them has failed. Perhaps, these different systems of logic deal in apples, oranges, cherries, and grapes. One would then ask if the actual problem related more to apples, oranges, cherries, or grapes. Maybe the different systems of logic are on different wavelengths. But, they can't give different answers to a well defined problem without impugning themselves.
It is acceptable for a logic to fail. Mathematical models likewise fail, and, ultimately, logics are mathematical models. It is rather the degree to which a logic fails that should concern us.
I guess that one of the problems with this is that a god might be omnipotent but not be omnivolent; it might experience failures of volition, causing accidents. This suggests a contradiction to proposition (5). Obviously, the argument is formally valid under an Aristotelian propositional calculus. That said, the matter at hand is soundness, not validity. Any monkey who has learned or been taught how can compose arguments in modus tollens.
INTERESTING: There are two types of logical arguments - deductive and inductive. When you say many kinds of logic - to what are you referring? And if the logic you are using does not produce a valid, repeatable, empirical, explainable, and reproducible result, how is it you are being logical?
So what are you calling logic?
"The term "logic" refers to the science that studies the principles of correct reasoning. Logic requires the act of reasoning by humans in order to form thoughts and opinions, as well as classifications and judgments."
Those are two types of arguments, but they are not two types of logic. Moreover, the distinction between deductive and inductive arguments can become muddled, especially when working with modal logics and fuzzy logics, which are two `classes' of logic.
A logic is a mathematical operator over the set of natural language sentences, and it is exclusively to this operator that I refer when I write the word `logic' as a noun. Sometimes, even `nonsense' sentences are considered--such operators are still called logics.
Logics are designed to formalize patterns or analogies found to govern true statements, and unlike with scientific models, you get out of a logic exactly what you put in. Validity is only one property of a logic. Logics are also often judged by soundness, completeness, and consistency. Typically, and especially when working `within' a logic, it is said that validity is strictly a property of entire arguments, while soundness is strictly a property of lone propositions: these uses of the words `validity' and `soundness' are not the same as when speaking of logics. The validity of a logic is the degree to which the logic cannot produce false proofs, or proofs that disagree with empirical evidence, while the soundness of a logic is the degree to which it can produce true proofs. These degrees vary from logic to logic and context to context, which is why it is appropriate to apply certain logics (e.g., Boolean logic) in certain situations (e.g., when the propositions under consideration are strictly either completely true or completely false, regardless of most variations context). The word `logical' tends to be used as a description of character, temperament, or attitude rather than a description of an argument; or, it is used subjectively as a statement of agreement or judgment rather than a description of a formal quality of an argument. The degree to which an argument or proposition is `logical' is not formally defined and is not usually considered or defined until a particular logic has been selected for use, after which the word `logical' may refer to the degree to which an argument follows from the properties of the logic. Like the elementary algebra taught in high school, a logic is empirically helpful only when chosen carefully and applied with distinction and accuracy.
If I didn't answer your question, then let me know.
@ arakish: I think Epicurus said it better.
@ Cognostic
So do I. I was just including all the aspects those dumb ass Christians give to their imaginative Sky Faerie and Magic Zombie Virgin. Plus I read a blog somewhere and applied more to it. And I still think I overthought it. But...
In actuality, number 9 should have said:
Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.
Should go back and edit it.
rmfr
I think that the problem of evil is a great argument, but you need to understand that appealing to pure logic is not going to settle the matter. A clever theologian/philosopher can always shift the meaning of the terms a little or challenge the assumptions, or even introduce additional assumptions. That is, don't expect certainty in an argument about the real world of atoms and energy and anything that can affect the same. The gold standard there is to show that you have the only reasonable argument in sight and that nothing new appears likely. That immediately gets into complications such as how to measure the reasonableness of an argument. There are no simple answers, but the theme can be hammered mercilessly. There's plenty of room to make fun of religious idiocy, but if you want an absolutely decisive argument that even your idiot opponent will be forced to accept then you seek something that doesn't exist.
Philosophical arguments are no replacement for observation.