Re: Review of the 36 Arguments for the Existence of God #25. THE ARGUMENT FROM SUFFERING
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Pastor Jennifer v2
Feb 23, 2012, 8:57:15 PM2/23/12
to Evidence For God
25. THE ARGUMENT FROM SUFFERING
(by R Goldstein)
1. There is much suffering in this world.
2. Suffering must have some purpose, or existence would be
intolerable.
3. Some suffering (or at least its possibility) is demanded by human
moral agency: if people could not choose evil acts that cause
suffering, moral choice would not exist.
4. Whatever suffering cannot be explained as the result of human moral
agency must also have some purpose (from 2 and 3).
5. There are virtues—forbearance, courage, compassion, and so on— that
can only develop in the presence of suffering. We may call them “the
virtues of suffering.”
6. Some suffering has the purpose of inducing the virtues of
suffering (from 5)
7.. Even taking premises 3 and 6 into account, the amount of suffering
in the world is still enormous—far more than what is required for us
to benefit from suffering.
8. Moreover, some who suffer can never develop the virtues of suffering
—children, animals, those who perish in their agony.
9. There is more suffering than we can explain by reference to the
purposes that we can discern (from 7 and 8).
10. There are purposes for suffering that we cannot discern (from 2
and 9).
11. Only a being who has a sense of purpose beyond ours could provide
the purpose of all suffering (from 10).
12. Only God could have a sense of purpose beyond ours.
13. God exists.
FLAW:
This argument is a sorrowful one, since it highlights the most
intolerable feature of our world, the excess of suffering. The
suffering in this world is excessive in both its intensity and its
prevalence, often undergone by those who can never gain anything from
it. This is a powerful argument against the existence of a
compassionate and powerful deity. It is only the Fallacy of Wishful
Thinking, embodied in Premise 2, that could make us presume that what
is psychologically intolerable cannot be the case.
(by R Goldstein)
1. There is much suffering in this world.
2. Suffering must have some purpose, or existence would be
intolerable.
3. Some suffering (or at least its possibility) is demanded by human
moral agency: if people could not choose evil acts that cause
suffering, moral choice would not exist.
4. Whatever suffering cannot be explained as the result of human moral
agency must also have some purpose (from 2 and 3).
5. There are virtues—forbearance, courage, compassion, and so on— that
can only develop in the presence of suffering. We may call them “the
virtues of suffering.”
6. Some suffering has the purpose of inducing the virtues of
suffering (from 5)
7.. Even taking premises 3 and 6 into account, the amount of suffering
in the world is still enormous—far more than what is required for us
to benefit from suffering.
8. Moreover, some who suffer can never develop the virtues of suffering
—children, animals, those who perish in their agony.
9. There is more suffering than we can explain by reference to the
purposes that we can discern (from 7 and 8).
10. There are purposes for suffering that we cannot discern (from 2
and 9).
11. Only a being who has a sense of purpose beyond ours could provide
the purpose of all suffering (from 10).
12. Only God could have a sense of purpose beyond ours.
13. God exists.
FLAW:
This argument is a sorrowful one, since it highlights the most
intolerable feature of our world, the excess of suffering. The
suffering in this world is excessive in both its intensity and its
prevalence, often undergone by those who can never gain anything from
it. This is a powerful argument against the existence of a
compassionate and powerful deity. It is only the Fallacy of Wishful
Thinking, embodied in Premise 2, that could make us presume that what
is psychologically intolerable cannot be the case.
Brock
Feb 25, 2012, 11:10:02 AM2/25/12
to Evidence For God
On Feb 23, 8:57 pm, Pastor Jennifer v2
* there is no one "THE ARGUMENT ...", rather it refers to a general
category of arguments, thus to defeat one specific example is not
adequate to dismiss the category
* the argument, to the degree it is a paraphrase, doesn't adequately
represent (either intentionally or accidentally) the argument as put
forward by a proponent, and faces the danger of being simply a straw-
man
Regards,
Brock
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages