The existance of god
The existance of godP1) If God were to exist then that being would be all
powerful all knowing, and all good (all PKG)
P2) If an all PKG being existed then there would be no evil.
P3) There is evil
C) Hence there is no God.
P1) P --- q
P2) q --- r
P3) ~r
---------------------------------------------------------
derived Conclusion ~q
Conclusion ~p
qG??????p ?††????
For this paper I am going to discuss Sobers
schenatization of the argument from evil. The purpose of
this argument is to disprove the existence of an all knowing,
all powerful, and all good god. Throughout the course of
this paper I am going to prove that this argument is sound,
and that it does stand up to the soul building criticism.
Before I can prove that this argument is indeed a sound
one, I must first give a brief definition of the terms
validity, and soundness. An argument is valid if and only if
it is structured so that it is impossible for it to have true
premises and a false conclusion at the same time. An
argument is sound if it is valid and its premises are true.
it is important for an argument to be validly structured
because then a stable conclusion can be derived from its
premises. It is equally important for an argument to be
sound, because if an argument premises aren't true then it
can be easily criticized and it will not be very persuasive.
The argument from evil is a valid one. it is structured
in a modus Tollens form which is a valid deductive form in
propositional logic. it is characterized by the denying of
the consequent which in turn denies the antecedent. This can
be seen in premise three. The consequent of premise two has
been denied thereby denying the antecedent. However the
antecedent of premise two is the consequent of premise one.
Since it has been derived the antecedent of premise one must
also be derived. This argument consists of two modus tollens
argument put together and is indeed valid.
Now that I have proven this argument to be validly
structured I will show that its premises are true thus making
it a sound argument as well. The first premise is true
because it is a substantive definition. In other words this
means that premise one is stating a widely accepted view of
god as seen in some religions.
The type of god being discussed in this argument is an
all knowing all powerful, and all good being. All knowing
means that this being knows everything that has happened in
the past, is happening in the present, and will happen in the
future. All powerful means this being can interfere with or
change everything that has happened in the past, is happening
in the present, or will happen in the future. All good means
that this being wants the consequence of every action to be
Premise three states that evil in fact does exist. This
statement is obviously true because evil events take place
every day in this world. For example, babies die of cancer,
hundreds of people die in earthquakes, people are tortured
and raped by others, and hunger and poverty are rampant.
This pain and suffering that people endure on a daily basis
most definitely proves that evil does exist.
Premise two states that if an all (PKG) god does exist
then evil can not. This is true because if an all (PKG) god
did exist then since this being is all knowing it would
always have the ability to detect evil, since this being is
all powerful he would always be able to interfere with or
change the event that lead to this evil. Therefore evil
would not be able to exist because this god having the
ability to prevent it would indeed do so.
Now that I have proven this argument to be validly
structured and its premises to be true, I can conclude this
argument to be a sound one.
However even though this argument is a sound one that is
not to say that it goes without criticism. One of the
strongest criticisms against this argument attacks the
premise two, and basically says that an all (PKG) god would
let some evil exist, if this evil were soul building. Soul
building evil is evil that when people suffer through it or
witness it they are left with stronger characters. Evil
which causes people to learn from their mistakes would be
soul building. For instance say you walk around barefoot all
the time and one day you step on a piece of glass. This
painful experience would have taught you that you should not
walk around barefoot because you could get hurt.
It's plain to see that this is a strong criticism
against the argument from evil. However I believe there is a
couple of ways Sober can get around this criticism. First of
all if a (PKG) god did exist then their should be no need for
soul building evil. Since this being gis all powerful it
would have the ability to make us with the strong character
and knowledge that soul building evil gives us from the
beginning. Furthermore since this being is all good it would
be more then willing to make us this way, because it would
keep evil from existing.
Second of all even if an all (PKG) god did allow soul
building evil to exist, this evil still could not account for
the excessive pain and suffering that human beings have
endured throughout time. For instance, how did humans
benefit from the hundreds of thousands of deaths in Nazi
Concentration Camps during World War II? How did the vast
number of lives taken by the bubonic plague strengthen
peoples character? what have we learned from the brutal
sacrifices satanic cults perform on babies and other living
creatures? I think it is clear that the evil that took place
during these events were by far in excess of what was needed
to teach us whatever we learned from them. Evils like these
and many more humans endure every day ad I think it is
ridiculously obvious that soul building evil can not account
for all of it. Therefore I think the soul building
criticisms does not disprove Sober's argument in the least.