Show Less
Restricted access

Theodicy - From a Logical Point of View

Series:

Paul Weingartner

The aim of the book is to refute the claim that God’s omniscience, omnipotence and benevolence on the one hand and the existence of evil on the other are together inconsistent. This is shown first by unmasking many types of such claims as either logical fallacies or as presupposing false assumptions. Secondly the author formulates God’s attributes of omniscience, omnipotence and benevolence  and the existence of 10 types of evil in an axiomatic system. This contains the theorems about God’s knowledge, will, causation and benevolence without leading to any inconsistency. It proves the compatibility between God’s attributes of omniscience, omnipotence and benevolence with the fact of existence of evil. The author offers a consistency proof for the whole axiomatic system with the help of a model in which all axioms and theorems are satisfied.
Show Summary Details
Restricted access

3. False Assumptions

Extract

We shall discuss two examples of wrong definitions, one of First Cause the other of First Being. In the first example, First Cause is defined with the help of a two-place concept of cause: x causes y (xCy) and a one place concept: y is caused (Cdy). In the second example First Being uses the two-place concept of x is a sufficient reason for y (xSRy). Both definitions are connected with the problem of evil because it follows from them that God is the cause or the sufficient reason for all evil things.



In this definition the first part, i.e., that a first cause is uncaused is understandable. Otherwise, it could only be a relative first cause. However, the second part is problematic. It says that a first cause causes everything that is caused. Thus if God is defined (described) as a first cause then it is claimed that God is all-causing in the sense that God causes everything that is caused. Thus the following consequence 3C1 is derivable from definition 3D2:



It can easily be shown by counterexamples that this consequence 3C1 is untenable, and therefore the definition 3D2 must be false:

Counterexample 1: Assume y is a destructive weapon caused (constructed) by some humans, then it follows that God caused it.

Counterexample 2: Assume y is a morally bad acting monster caused (created) by genetic engineering of some humans, then it follows that God caused it...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.