Category: Objections and Misconceptions
-
Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering 3
Argument from Horrific Suffering
Chris Responds to the Argument
In my last response I argued that Mitch did not provide support for (4):
(4) Necessarily, if God exists, there is horrific suffering only if its prevention would prevent there being finite persons who realize their deepest good.
Mitch suggests that he has offered the following as justification for accepting (4) as true:
…Looking at an analogous instance, it seems obvious that something has gone wrong when we are saying of the parent that
-
Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering 2
Mitch originally posted an argument in summary fashion from J.L. Schellenberg found here which I answered here and Mitch subsequently responded to my answer here. There is much to be said about his response, but I will limit this post to focusing upon premise (4) of the argument and where Mitch has made some mistakes.
(4) Necessarily, if God exists, there is horrific suffering only if its prevention would prevent there being finite persons who realize their deepest good.
Mitch believes that the “denial of (4) seems quite the denial indeed.” On the contrary, I find the affirmation of …
-
Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering
Mitch LeBlanc has summarized an argument from J.L. Schellenberg called the Argument from Horrors. The argument begins by defining “horrific suffering.”
Horrific Suffering (def.) = that most awe-full form of suffering that gives the victim and/or the perpetrator a prima facie reason to think that his or her life is not worth living.
Schellenberg’s argument is then stated formally.
…(1) Necessarily, if God exists, finite persons who ever more fully experience the reality of God realize their deepest good.
(2) Necessarily, if God exists, the prevention of horrific suffering does not prevent there being finite persons who ever more fully