(1) Flashcards
Premise (1)
It does presuppose that creatures like fawn can suffer even though we don’t experience their suffering, however there is lots of evidence for suffering that doesn’t involve necessarily feeling it.
Layout for (1)
1) Premise (1)
2a) Why we need BP
2b) BP
3) On the search for compensating goods
4) Inductive generalization needed to defend BP
5) Our sample is not representative
6) It wouldn’t be surprising…
Why we need BP
The theist wants to refute premise (4) by saying that compensating goods do actually exist, however, since the burden of proof for the argument is on the atheist, it is up to him to show that compensating goods do not exist. The atheist does this by creating a bridge premise.
BP
If there were such a compensating good for evils like n, then we would be aware of that compensating good and we would recognize it as a compensating good.
On the search for compensating goods
It is impossible for us to take a sample of every single state of affairs, so the best we can do is make an inductive generalization with a representative sample.
Inductive generalization needed to defend BP
The atheist now wants an inductive generalization with a representative sample. If the atheist were to acquire such a sample, they would support BP, and therefore support premise (4)
Our sample is not representative
Some state of affairs are too complex for us to think about, this would mean that any sample we took would not include these complex state of affairs. Since not all portions had an equal chance of being sampled, then it’s a reason to think the sample isn’t representative.
It wouldn’t be surprising…
It wouldn’t be surprising that if there were compensating goods, it would be amongst the complex states of affairs.
