RE: Potential Christian-Platonist Contradiction?
December 20, 2013 at 2:10 am
(This post was last modified: December 20, 2013 at 2:20 am by MindForgedManacle.)
Figured I'd make a quick addendum here, and see if anyone else had some input they'd like to give.
Although I tend to see syllogisms as a bit pretensious (especially if you've already gone through your line of reasoning), I figured I give it a go with putting this into a valid and sound deductive argument. And whilst I do so, I'd like to say that I think that even if this particular syllogistic structure is in error, I think my reasoning enumerated earlier is still successful, and that it undoubtedly could be made into a valid argument with additional little effort. Anyway, on to it then:
The argument takes the form of a dilemma syllogism (Maybe I should call it the "Platonic-Theodicy Dilemma"?) and thus should be valid. Abstracted, it is something like:
1) A is X.
2) B is Y.
3) Either A or B.
4) If A, then C.
5) If B, then D.
C) Therefore, either C or D.
Although I tend to see syllogisms as a bit pretensious (especially if you've already gone through your line of reasoning), I figured I give it a go with putting this into a valid and sound deductive argument. And whilst I do so, I'd like to say that I think that even if this particular syllogistic structure is in error, I think my reasoning enumerated earlier is still successful, and that it undoubtedly could be made into a valid argument with additional little effort. Anyway, on to it then:
My Platonic Argument Against Theodicies Wrote:1) God is the omnipotent, omniscient paradigm of moral goodness itself. [From typical apologist response to the Euthyphro Dilemma]
2) The existence of moral evil in the world is the necessary result for God to actualize the best of all possible worlds: a world with creatures possessing free will in the libertarian sense and thus the only possible world with moral goodness. [From the Free Will Defense]
3) Either #1 is true or #2 is true.
4) If #1 is true, then the existence of moral evil in the world cannot be explained by an appeal to the intent to actualize the only possible world with moral good (#2), because the thing which can properly be called 'morally good' is God himself. [Necessary consequence of the Platonic answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma]
5) If #2 is true, then God cannot properly be called the paradigm of moral goodness because then true moral goodness is then possible by agents whom are not God.
C) Therefore, if God exists either #4 is true or #5 is true, but both cannot be.
The argument takes the form of a dilemma syllogism (Maybe I should call it the "Platonic-Theodicy Dilemma"?) and thus should be valid. Abstracted, it is something like:
1) A is X.
2) B is Y.
3) Either A or B.
4) If A, then C.
5) If B, then D.
C) Therefore, either C or D.
"The reason things will never get better is because people keep electing these rich cocksuckers who don't give a shit about you."
-George Carlin
-George Carlin
