God Probably Doesn't Exist.

Thanks Envisage. May this debate have peace and long life. Higher order problem of evil. The higher order problem of evil is the meta version of the POE that was first posited by Yujin Nagasawa [1]. The normal POE states that if God exists, he would wish to stop suffering. The HOPOE states if God exists, he would wish to give a clear irrefutable solution to the problem of evil. Interestingly enough, this actually allows for some solution to the POE to exist, attempting to solve the POE will do nothing to refute this argument. The regular POE can be said to be a first order problem of evil. A second order problem of evil would be formulated like this [2], “1:There is gratuitous puzzlement. 2: If God exists (and he is benevolent omniscient, and omnipotent) there is no gratuitous puzzlement. C: God does not exist. “ There clearly is gratuitous puzzlement. The problem of evil has been around for a very long time. It is perhaps the most well-known argument for God’s nonexistence. Many solutions have been posited, but those only create further puzzlement, as many have been disputed [3][4]. There simply is no clear answer. The problem of evil debate can cause cognitive dissonance, emotional stress or worse create poor reasoning habits in order to escape the POE. These affect other areas where reasoning comes into play. By God’s nature, it would be probable that he wouldn’t want this suffering. The conclusion follows. However, it doesn’t end there. Let’s assume there is a solution to the second order problem of evil. Then we get a third order problem of evil. Why doesn’t God answer the second order problem of evil? Even if there was a solution to the third order POE we would then have fourth, and so on and so on ad infinitum. This makes atheism more probable. The theist has to have an infinite amount of justifications for the HOPOE, which practically cannot happen. The Universe’s Existence This attempts to argue the universe exists in every possible world, or that God cannot be the reason for the universe's existence. It goes like this, X= The proposition that the universe exists as a necessity Y= The proposition that God isn’t the reason for the universe’s existence. 1: If X or Y is true, God doesn’t exist. 2: Either X or Y is true C: God doesn’t exist. Premise One This follows right from the definition of God “...the efficient cause of the contingent universe.” If the universe exists necessarily, then there is no contingent universe for God to cause. God being the efficient cause entails that God is the reason for the universe’s existence. If God didn’t exist, then the universe have been caused. He is clearly the reason for its existence. Premise Two There is one reason to believe the first horn (X) and a dilemma that can entail either horn. The first is from God’s own nature and the second is from the nature of modal logic. Since God is necessary, it follows that God created the universe in every possible world. If there exists a world where God exists, but the universe wasn’t created, this would be a different version of God. As God is defined as creating the universe. It would mean God was contingent, since there can be other possible worlds where things about God are true or false. If God currently exists, he exists in all possible worlds. Since God created the universe, then it follows he created the universe in every possible world. God is also necessarily omnibenevolent. If he existed, he would want to share his love with others. He would have to create the universe, since he loves us. God must create the universe by his own nature. This entails the universe exists in every possible world (since God is necessary). However, this also means the universe is necessarily [5]. Furthermore, the nature of modal logic entails either X or Y. Consider the statement “There is a cup on the table.” Assuming there really is a cup on that table, we must ask, what makes this statement true? The statement is made true, because there is a state of affairs where the cup is on the table. However, consider modal statements. What makes it possible that there could be a cup off the table? Or that the cup might never have come in contact with the table? Where is the state of affairs that makes this true? It doesn’t seem that this question has any favorable solution. One would be that there is no truthmaker and therefore, modal statements are false. This would entail the necessity of the universe and every action within it (X). On the other hand, we can state the truthmaker is a real cup that’s not on the table, just not in this immediate reality. This brings us to the second horn of the dilemma, as this entails modal realism. Although this wouldn’t mean the universe exists in every possible world, this necessitates this universe actually existing, because of its possibility. In other words, it would entail the universe exists because it’s possible it can exist (Y). It wouldn’t mean it exists because of God. He couldn’t have been the reason for the universe’s existence. Con must propose a truthmaker for modal statements that claims they are true to avoid X, but simultaneously doesn’t appeal to any state of affairs to avoid Y. These two defenses entail that at the very least this universe must have come into existence by the nature of possibility, and at most that the universe exists in every possible world. Since either X or Y is true, God does not exist. Thanks. Sources [1] http://prosblogion.ektopos.com... [2] http://crucialconsiderations.org... [3] http://wiki.ironchariots.org... [4] http://wiki.ironchariots.org... [5] http://www.iep.utm.edu...