There is an argument against the Christian God (the all-knowing, all-good, almighty God), naming "problem of evil". Basically speaking, it is based on the observation (and a judgement) that there is evil in this world, to conclude that this Christian God doesn't exist. If the God is almighty, it should have the ability to prevent the evil. On the other hand, if the God is all-good, it should want to elminate all the evil in this world. Therefore, if such a Christian God exists, there should be no evil in the world. But the observation that this world has evil means that the God doesn't exist. (You could think of the argument is presented in the following way:
premise 1: Christian God exists
premise 2: the almighty God can elminate all evil
premise 3: the all-good God wants to elminate all evil
intermediate conclusion 4: there should be no evil in the world
premise 5: By observation, there is evil in the world
We get a contradiction in 4 and 5. Therefore, we conclude that premise 1 is false.
But more strictly speaking, there are (at least) 2 versions of the problem of evil: "an deductive version" and "an inductive version".
The deductive version of the problem of evil is that the existence of God and the existence of evil is logically inconsistent. By the observation of evil, this version would conclude that the God MUST NOT exist.
On the other hand, the inductive version of the problem of evil simply an inductive argument, but not a deductive argument. What it means is that the observation of evil IS NOT logical inconsistent with the existence of God, but only cases to support the view that God does not exist. The more "evils" we observe, the more likely that we can conclude God doesn't exist. It is somehow like inductive reasoning in science that as we observe more and more cases that confirms the prediction of a hypothesis, we would regard the hypothesis is more likely to be true.
To understand the difference between the 2 versions, it may be useful to take a grasp on what is "induction" and "deduction". An induction (or inductive argument) is an argument that use examples to support of a conclusion. For example, we may conclude "If people touch fire, they will get hurt" by many observations, like "A touches fire, and gets hurt.", "B touches fire, and gets hurt", etc.. To evaluate an inductive argument, we would measure the "inductive power" of the argument. Basically speaking, the more the case you used to support your conclusion, the "inductive power" of your argument would be increased. If we use 0% (lowest) to 100% (highest) as numerical measure to measure the inductive power, the more examples you use to support your conclusion, the number would be increased. It should be noted that since it is always possible to find a counter example for an inductive argument, the probability could never reach 100%. That means, there is no guarantee that the conclusion must be true, even if you give many examples to support your conclusion.
On the other hand, "deduction" (or deductive argument) is an argument that is not using bulk of examples to support for a certain proposition, but using deductive reasoning. A deductive argument is used to show that: given certain premises, it MUST BE THE CASE THAT the conclusion is true. For example, the following is a deductive argument:
premise 1: all human have legs
premise 2: Tom is a human
conclusion: Tom has legs
To check if a deductive argument is a good argument, we would check for the validity of the argument (if the conclusion really follows from the premises, that means, if it is the case that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE CONCLUSION TO BE FALSE WHILE ALL THE PREMISE(S) ARE TRUE), and the soundness of the argument (if the argument is valid and all the premises are true). There is no such thing as "inductive power" of a deductive argument, since deduction is about certainty. A deductive argument is to show that the conclusion is IMPOSSIBLE to be false by given premises. We may use 100% to describe the certainty of the conclusion (given the premises)
Therefore, logically speaking, the "deductive version" is a stronger version of the problem of evil, in the sense that it is more easily (or at least, have the same chance) to be refuted. (Compare the statements: "It must be the case that the God doesn't exist", and "It is likely to be the case that the God doesn't exist").
Hopefully, it may helps. And hope that my words are not too confusing.... |
2008/1/20 13:21
| 
2008/5/3 14:09
| 
2008/1/21 14:24
| 
