128 ARGUMENTS: MONOTHEISTIC CONCEPTIONSThe consistency issue
Straightforward inconsistency
One might claim, as did my own Introduction to Philosophy teacher, that (E)
and (G) are obviously logically incompatible. This claim is false. The
Consistency Strategy tells us that if any three propositions A, B, and C are
logically compatible, then any pair from that trio is also logically consistent
provided none of A, B, or C is self-contradictory. Note that what a use of the
Consistency Strategy can show is simply the logical compatibility of two
propositions. A proper use of this strategy with regard to two propositions A
and B will prove Possibly, both A and B are true. It will not, and is not intended
to, prove that A is true or that B is true. With this limitation goes an
advantage; one using the strategy need not prove that any of A, B, or C is true.
Consider, then, these propositions:
A1 God exists.
B1 If God allows an evil, then God has a morally sufficient reason for
allowing it.
C1 There is evil.
None of A1, B1, or C1 appears to be self-contradictory. Nor does the trio A1,
B1, C1 appear to be an inconsistent set. But if none of A1, B1, and C1 is self-
contradictory, and if (A1, B1, C1) is a consistent trio, then no pair of
propositions from that trio is logically incompatible. One such pair is (A1, C1).
So A1 and C1 are not logically incompatible. But A1 is simply (G) God exists
and C1 is simply There is evil. So God exists and (E) There is evil are not
logically incompatible. Hence (a) is false. So if evil is evidence against God’s
existence, (b) must be true.
Another use of the Consistency Strategy goes like this. Consider these
propositions:
(G) God exists.
(EN) For any evil E that occurs to a person in lifetime N, E is the just
consequence of wrong actions by that person in lifetime N or in her
lifetimes prior to N.
(E) There are evils.
What was true regarding the A1, B1, C1 trio seems also true of the G, EN, E
trio, so it too seems to provide the basis for a successful use of the Consistency
Strategy.