Are Theists Illogical for Believing in God?

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

A universe consisting entirely of giant pink beachballs is logically possible. Its not nomologically possible, of course.

To be logically possible what we're talking about has to meet the requirements of sustaining life at least. Otherwise 'logical' doesn't meet it's requirements.

all possible universes must be logical. it's = it is... its***

[Violet]

all possible universes must be logical. it's = it is... its***

Why?

I see no reason it must be so...

[Purple Rabbit]

First of all, I haven't read Leibniz, so I'll have to defer to you on what he meant. It appears to be a circular argument (yet again):
a) God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent
b) Therefore, we must live in the best of all possible worlds
c) Therefore, the problem of evil is solved
d) Therefore, god is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent
Not very convincing, I'm afraid.

Leibniz, not really into the hardcore circular reasoning thing, did not use it to prove the god attributes or god's existence (so you can leave out d), but only to reason that with these god attributes the problem of evil is solved.

I'll try to re-phrase the argument:

1. We assume that we really do live in the best of all nomologically possible worlds.

2. However, it is very easy to imagine a better world ('heaven' might serve as some sort of model here).

3. Therefore, we do not live in the best of all logically possible worlds.

4. 'God' is only limited by what is logically possible (he is omnipotent).

5. Therefore, god could have instantiated a different world from the set of logically possible worlds. Some of the different worlds that he could've instantiated would be better than ours.

6. But he didn't. He instantiated our world, which is not the best logically possible world even if it is the best nomologically possible world.

7. Therefore, god is a cunt.

I agree with almost all of this one. The weak spot, I think, is premisse 2 since it cannot be shown that god at the initial conditions had any choice. However if you accept an additional premisse (i.e. god could have created every state of our universe as an initial state) it is easy to see that since humans have shown that it is possible to erase or diminish specific evil from the planet (cured diseases) a better world is possible. Which is rather evident when you think of it. If we can make a better world, why can't god?

Of course 7 is a non sequitur, but it does add to the joy of argument.

[Caecilian]

---

First of all, I haven't read Leibniz, so I'll have to defer to you on what he meant. It appears to be a circular argument (yet again):
a) God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent
b) Therefore, we must live in the best of all possible worlds
c) Therefore, the problem of evil is solved
d) Therefore, god is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent
Not very convincing, I'm afraid.

Leibniz, not really into the hardcore circular reasoning thing, did not use it to prove the god attributes or god's existence (so you can leave out d), but only to reason that with these god attributes the problem of evil is solved.

I'll try to re-phrase the argument:

1. We assume that we really do live in the best of all nomologically possible worlds.

2. However, it is very easy to imagine a better world ('heaven' might serve as some sort of model here).

3. Therefore, we do not live in the best of all logically possible worlds.

4. 'God' is only limited by what is logically possible (he is omnipotent).

5. Therefore, god could have instantiated a different world from the set of logically possible worlds. Some of the different worlds that he could've instantiated would be better than ours.

6. But he didn't. He instantiated our world, which is not the best logically possible world even if it is the best nomologically possible world.

7. Therefore, god is a cunt.

I agree with almost all of this one. The weak spot, I think, is premisse 2 since it cannot be shown that god at the initial conditions had any choice. However if you accept an additional premisse (i.e. god could have created every state of our universe as an initial state) it is easy to see that since humans have shown that it is possible to erase or diminish specific evil from the planet (cured diseases) a better world is possible. Which is rather evident when you think of it. If we can make a better world, why can't god?

Of course 7 is a non sequitur, but it does add to the joy of argument.

---

Yeah, statement 2 struck me as a possible weak point when I wrote the argument. But your additional premise seems to patch it up nicely.

Statement 7 is in there purely to be gratuitously offensive. Childish, I know, but religion really does genuinely piss me off sometimes.

Anyway, what we need now is for a philosophically literate theist to show up and try to to argue against it.

I'm not holding my breath.

[Violet]

But cunts are useful... are you suggesting that 'God' is useful?

Anyway... if you're looking for a philosophically literate theist... I recommend you go hook up with Arcanus

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

all possible universes must be logical. it's = it is... its***

Why?

I see no reason it must be so...

one 'laws of logic' is that x cannot be y at the same time. that has to be true for all universes. whatever object of whatever universe cannot be another object at the same time.

logical arguments such as

all x objects have property x
jordan is x object
jordan has x property

apply to any universe.

even the logical fallacies should apply to all universes.

[Violet]

one 'laws of logic' is that x cannot be y at the same time. that has to be true for all universes. whatever object of whatever universe cannot be another object at the same time.

logical arguments such as

all x objects have property x
jordan is x object
jordan has x property

apply to any universe.

even the logical fallacies should apply to all universes.

It seems more to me that you are inferring that all logical universes are logical... but I see no reason to make the assumption that all universes are logical. In some universe... perhaps a thing that is x is also a thing that is y, b, Q, e, and d... and I see not a reason why it would have to be true of all universes.

See... another universe would not necessarily be like this one. In fact... aside from the rules of logic (which we attribute to this universe, though perhaps not accurately), there is nothing to suggest that a thing can't be both A and B at once. I should say 'exclusively', but I should hope that it is inferred, lest someone say something ridiculous like: "I'm both a human and happy at once... logic is broken!".

Again, on what grounds do you make the assumption that all universes are necessarily logical?

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

one 'laws of logic' is that x cannot be y at the same time. that has to be true for all universes. whatever object of whatever universe cannot be another object at the same time.

logical arguments such as

all x objects have property x
jordan is x object
jordan has x property

apply to any universe.

even the logical fallacies should apply to all universes.

It seems more to me that you are inferring that all logical universes are logical... but I see no reason to make the assumption that all universes are logical. In some universe... perhaps a thing that is x is also a thing that is y, b, Q, e, and d... and I see not a reason why it would have to be true of all universes.

See... another universe would not necessarily be like this one. In fact... aside from the rules of logic (which we attribute to this universe, though perhaps not accurately), there is nothing to suggest that a thing can't be both A and B at once. I should say 'exclusively', but I should hope that it is inferred, lest someone say something ridiculous like: "I'm both a human and happy at once... logic is broken!".

Again, on what grounds do you make the assumption that all universes are necessarily logical?

well... i think you're wrong. i don't get your happy human example. in every universe 2 + 2 = 4. in every universe, you should be able to perform logical operations. even in heaven!

[Violet]

well... i think you're wrong. i don't get your happy human example. in every universe 2 + 2 = 4. in every universe, you should be able to perform logical operations. even in heaven!

The happy human is A: happy, and B: human... and therefore both a and b at once. Hence the necessary addition of 'exclusively'.

Why would not 2 + 2 be 22 in a universe? What about universes necessitates the answer to be 4? Further... why would one in every universe be able to perform 'logical operations'?

[Purple Rabbit]

one 'laws of logic' is that x cannot be y at the same time. that has to be true for all universes. whatever object of whatever universe cannot be another object at the same time.

logical arguments such as

all x objects have property x
jordan is x object
jordan has x property

apply to any universe.

even the logical fallacies should apply to all universes.

In fact we have no idea why logic should apply to our universe (there is no rule within logic that says that it should). So how can you assert that it applies to other universes?