virus: Incredulity

Wright, James 7929 (
Thu, 06 Mar 97 21:33:00 EST

David McFadzean[] wrote:
>What about the Incoherence Argument such as the proof
>of the non-existence of BOD:

>1. BOD is a benevolent omnipotent deity.
>2. Since It is benevolent, it wishes to end human suffering.
>3. Since It is omnipotent, it has the power to end human suffering.
>4. Human suffering exists.
>5. Therefore BOD does not exist.

>The conclusion follows because *we can't imagine* propositions
>1-4 being simultaneously true, so it is an argument from
>incredulity (like, I claim, all logical arguments).

Why should a benevolent deity wish to end human suffering? Suffering is
part of the path which can generate new understanding. Without an
occasional pain or torment, it is doubtful that humans would develop any
sharper or greater intellect than bovines.

Premise #3 begs itself: end by destroying humans and thereby human
suffering, or end by destroying suffering and stultify human development.

I have difficulty determining the intent of this message. I'm going to
analyze some Canadian Mist for a while instead.
James Wright