Unknown Soldier
Well-known member
In case you're not familiar with the term theodicy, it is defined as the vindication of God's goodness and authority in the presence of evil. A common theodicy Christian apologists offer is that God must allow evil to allow good because good cannot exist without evil. I submit that this theodicy is logically flawed. To see what I mean, consider the following argument:
The second premise needs to be shown to be valid. So if we let G represent "good" and ¬G represent "not good" or "evil" and ⊢ be the symbol for "therefore," then the second premise can be formalized:
G ⊢ ¬G.
It's easy to prove that this form is not valid not only for G but for any proposition. Using a truth table, premise G can be true yet the conclusion ¬G can be false! Because an argument is only valid if its conclusion is always true when the premise(s) are true, this argument is not valid.
In other words, if good is the case, then evil need not follow.
We need good in the world.
We can't have good without evil.
Therefore, we must endure evil to experience good.
The second premise needs to be shown to be valid. So if we let G represent "good" and ¬G represent "not good" or "evil" and ⊢ be the symbol for "therefore," then the second premise can be formalized:
G ⊢ ¬G.
It's easy to prove that this form is not valid not only for G but for any proposition. Using a truth table, premise G can be true yet the conclusion ¬G can be false! Because an argument is only valid if its conclusion is always true when the premise(s) are true, this argument is not valid.
In other words, if good is the case, then evil need not follow.