Appeal to Emotion or Flat out Opinion?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Now I am not religious and have often been somewhat critical of religion. However, on this particular occasion I think it was the person against religion being fallacous in this arguement although not entirely sure:
Every year approximately nine million children under the age of five-years-old die.
That's about 1000 per hour and most of those children's parents will be praying right now for God to spare their lives.
Surely a God who can either do nothing to help these children or just doesn't care is either impotent or just plain, outright evil.
One part of me is saying this an "appeal to emotion" and the other is saying "Perhaps he is saying that if God did exist and was what people made out to be then he would have to be evil to let this happen" wich is more likely just an opinion.
What's your take?
Comments on Question
Answers
3Let's remove the potential for bias.
George is a very caring and loving person who loves Cindy.
George is a billionaire.
Cindy is sick and needs $1000 for a life-saving operation.
George knows this, but doesn't help Cindy.
Cindy dies.
Surely, George either did not care/love Cindy or he didn't have the $1000 to give to her.
This is not a fallacious appeal to emotion. The fact of Cindy dying just happens to be an emotional one. I would say that this does setup a false dilemma /dichotomy as it is stated. Perhaps someone told George that if he helped Cindy they would kill his family. Or perhaps George doesn't exist. We don't know. But it is not unreasonable to say something such as
Given that George was supposed to have loved Cindy and he supposedly did have $1000 to save her, it appears to me that he either really didn't love her or he really didn't have the $1000. If there is another reason why George didn't save Cindy, I would love to know. And please don't tell me that George works in mysterious ways.
Not only is this less confrontational, but the "appears to me that..." removes this from the ontological claim category to more of a personal observation or conclusion.
Your attempt to rewrite Epicurus' reasoning is impressive. But it's also begging the question....i.e. When was it proven that dying at any age is a "bad" thing that a "good" god should stop in order to demonstrate, thus proving, its "goodness"?....hint, it never has been
It seems that a false dichotomy has been introduced, both in Jack's original formulation and in Kaiden's re-formulation. One assumption is that God either can't intervene or doesn't care (or in Dr. Bo's parallel argument, that either George didn't care or didn't have the $$).
Is there a solid basis for assuming that God's options are limited to: (a) choosing to save a child's life or (b) being evil? Is it possible that God opted not to save the life because of (c) caring strongly for the quality of life the child would have had or (d) caring strongly for the parents' ability to care for the child and protect the rest of the family ... or about there being other (e), (f), and (g) options that could come to pass by an omnipotent being that actually isn't evil.
We seem to be missing a bunch of information, like other options (i.e., not a binary choice). At best the argument is weak because only part of the factors are considered.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
Hi, Jack! You are being philosophical and humble by evaluating and questioning the strength of your own argument. Here is my formulation of what you have posted.
1. Every year approximately nine million children under the age of five-years-old die.
2. If every year approximately nine million children under the age of five-years-old die, then either God cannot do anything to help these children or God doesn't care about the situation regarding these children.
3. Therefore, either God cannot do anything to help these children or God doesn't care about the situation regarding these children.
4. If God cannot do anything to help these children, then he is impotent.
5. If God doesn't care about the situation regarding these children, then he is outright evil.
6. Therefore, God is either impotent or outright evil.
Is this an accurate formulation?