Moral Realism and PoE

[Just_An_Atheist]

This is a thread on a subject in "Evasion is not an answer", and given that theophilus would have to answer all those long posts and the subject would get buried I thought I'd just start a new thread.

"As I understand it, there are only two possible approaches to the PoE:
1. Evil is an objective ontological entity that precludes the existence of an 'omni-benevolent" god.

2. Evil is not an objective ontological entity but, as a theological entity, is inconsistent with the Christian God, i.e., the God of scripture is self-defeating."

False, there is at least one more approach.

3. Grant the suppossition that God is the source of all morality for the sake of argument, and then argue what would be the most plausable theory of objective ethics. Since God does not contradict himself, and he obviously would probably follow this brand of ethics were he to exist. Then argue what predictions this particular brand of metaethics is inconsistent with an omnibenevolent God given the suppossed violations of this theory.

*deep breath*

okay.

To show you what I mean, here is a sample version:

1.The most plausable ontological theory of ethics is Rule Utilitarianism.

2.If God exists and is omnibenevolent, then it is probable that He must be consistent with this theory.

2.a If it is probable that an Omnibenevolent God must be consistent with Rule Utilitarianism, then it is probable that it must be consistent with Rule Utilitarianisms predictions.

3. One prediction of this theory is that there are no three-year-old girls who are raped.

4.But there are three-year-old girls that are raped.

5.Therefore, there is no omnibenevolent God.

This argument does not assume the existence of an actual objective metaethics, but just assumes that the ontological theory most coherent with the world we see is what would probably be correct if there was such a thing as an objective theory of metaethics.

[the_cave]

Originally posted by Just_An_Atheist
here is a sample version:

1.The most plausable ontological theory of ethics is Rule Utilitarianism.

2.If God exists and is omnibenevolent, then it is probable that He must be consistent with this theory.

2.a If it is probable that an Omnibenevolent God must be consistent with Rule Utilitarianism, then it is probable that it must be consistent with Rule Utilitarianisms predictions.

3. One prediction of this theory is that there are no three-year-old girls who are raped.

4.But there are three-year-old girls that are raped.

5.Therefore, there is no omnibenevolent God.



1. is quite an assertion.

And disregarding the theological aspect entirely, how could it be a plausible theory if its predictions are false?

[Just_An_Atheist]

"1. is quite an assertion."

True, but this is just a sample of how one could argue from the existence of evil to the nonexistence of God without presupposing moral realism.

"how could it be a plausible theory if its predictions are false?"

Probably worded incorrectly, but I meant the predictions of that theory coupled with the existence of God.

[Thomas Ash]

Yes, that's a perfectly good argument - though I'd say act utilitarianism is a better ethical theory and thus what we should judge God by. Obviously, he fails this moral test just as strongly (if not more so.)

But here's a question. If theists accept the premises:

1. God, an omnipotent, benevolent entity, exists.
2. Therefore God would make the world the most morally perfect place possible.
3. Therefore the world is perfectly reflective of the true morality.

If this is the case (and I see no way it could not be - does anyone else?) then what kind of morality to volcanoes (natural evil - clearly up to God) and rapes (moral evil - up to God if determinism is accepted) suggest? This isn't a question theists can really ignore.

[xorbie]

Originally posted by Thomas Ash
Yes, that's a perfectly good argument - though I'd say act utilitarianism is a better ethical theory and thus what we should judge God by. Obviously, he fails this moral test just as strongly (if not more so.)

But here's a question. If theists accept the premises:

1. God, an omnipotent, benevolent entity, exists.
2. Therefore God would make the world the most morally perfect place possible.
3. Therefore the world is perfectly reflective of the true morality.

If this is the case (and I see no way it could not be - does anyone else?) then what kind of morality to volcanoes (natural evil - clearly up to God) and rapes (moral evil - up to God if determinism is accepted) suggest? This isn't a question theists can really ignore.

See, I do see another way. The problem with this is that you are not arguing against God per se, but rather against Christianity, Judaism and Islam. A perfect being could conceivebly still exist. It could just be that God is pro-choice to the utmost. Deism is logically pretty sound. What you are attacking is not God, but a worldview that happens to include God. [/nitpick]