tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post2381304528451187566..comments2023-11-24T03:48:54.813-05:00Comments on No More Hornets: What Problem of Evil?The Exterminatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14452054124550486048noreply@blogger.comBlogger97125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-15221860202099914662009-03-11T18:25:00.000-04:002009-03-11T18:25:00.000-04:00I feel much prejudice towards christians. Much mis...I feel much prejudice towards christians. Much misunderstanding of what the bible really means. It is to be interpreted for yourself, no one else. i have found alot of truth in it. Your views are not near my own on this "riddle" because you lack understanding of why we are here. I dont go to church but i believe in what jesus taught and what God must do. I have many athiest friends and they are all great people. I hope you will reconize your second chance on the day of judgement. You will be in my prayers...amen my brothersMcgregor187https://www.blogger.com/profile/08017355693676282810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-52332368635304151852008-10-01T11:31:00.000-04:002008-10-01T11:31:00.000-04:00Ex,I admire your commitment to the Problem of Evil...Ex,<BR/><BR/>I admire your commitment to the Problem of Evil. I would never have thought to transplant SI's thread to my own blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-37370649510029650702008-06-25T19:01:00.000-04:002008-06-25T19:01:00.000-04:00PhillyChief, you're quite right.Must've been a cas...PhillyChief, you're quite right.<BR/>Must've been a case of SIWOTI :)<BR/><BR/>Exterminator, it's hard for me to believe too.<BR/><BR/>PS To make it clear: I "followed him here" by clicking on the link R posted on <I>his</I> post about this thread. Nothing sinister.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I'm taking Exterminator's advice and will henceforth ignore the poor fellow.John Moraleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16354725997954085678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-73884299048176114952008-06-25T12:22:00.000-04:002008-06-25T12:22:00.000-04:00Ext,Did you ever consider answering my arguments, ...Ext,<BR/>Did you ever consider answering my arguments, or were you just going to mock today?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-17387766836073239352008-06-25T11:56:00.000-04:002008-06-25T11:56:00.000-04:00John M.:I haven't seen you here in a long time. Th...<B>John M.</B>:<BR/>I haven't seen you here in a long time. Thanks for the compliment.<BR/><BR/>As to Rhology: Since it's hard for me to imagine a sane adult actually believing the nonsense that he chants over and over and over, I've concluded that he's either (1) nuts, (2) a pre-teen, or (3) a trained parrot.<BR/><BR/>Since you're following him around, I've figured out that you're probably (1) his nurse, (2) his babysitter, or (3) his trainer. So, FYI: It doesn't bother me if you let him play in my yard -- although sometimes it does get tiresome when the rest of us are having a serious conversation and he starts jumping up and down yelling "Look at me! Look at me!"<BR/><BR/>Most of us have learned to just let him have fun and not pay any attention.The Exterminatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452054124550486048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-19714194152875679482008-06-25T09:28:00.000-04:002008-06-25T09:28:00.000-04:00Well Mr. Morales, I would suggest trying to find a...Well Mr. Morales, I would suggest trying to find a more rewarding and sane hobby than falling Rhology around and frequenting his blog, but that's me. Are you doing some study, or some kind of <A HREF="http://mediamatters.org/" REL="nofollow">Media Matters</A> service, watching him so others don't have to?<BR/><BR/><I>"[W]eak on logic but strong in rhetoric"</I>, huh? Gee, ya think? LOLPhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-52920068413734566992008-06-25T08:38:00.000-04:002008-06-25T08:38:00.000-04:00Hi all,John Morales has recently taken to followin...Hi all,<BR/><BR/>John Morales has recently taken to following me around. It's a bit frightening, actually.<BR/>Anyway, just one thing:<BR/><I>he explicitly excludes Roman Catholics and Protestants from being Christian!).</I><BR/><BR/>I've corrected John on this within the last two days and still he persists. <BR/>If he can't be trusted to take a correction on sthg so simple as this, I don't know why one would think he's very trustworthy on any other matter, especially one where his worldview actually has a stake in the proceedings.<BR/>Roman***ISM*** is not Christian, though I have explicitly told John that some Romanis*T*s could be Christians.<BR/>And some flavors of ProtestantISM are not Christian, some are. Some ProtestaNTS are Christian, some aren't.<BR/>Not that I expect the NMH team to care about this; I'm just trying to clear it up.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-22312499743285385982008-06-25T05:55:00.000-04:002008-06-25T05:55:00.000-04:00Hi guys, just popped over from Rhology's blog (it'...Hi guys, just popped over from Rhology's blog (it's the trackback link for <I>The same answer</I> below).<BR/><BR/>Who:<BR/>He's a pre-suppositionalist Reformed Baptist apologist, and in my opinion weak on logic but strong in rhetoric. Oh yeah, he's every bit as harsh on non-Christians as on atheists, because, apparently, only those sharing his beliefs are Christians (i.e. he explicitly excludes Roman Catholics and Protestants from being Christian!).<BR/><BR/>What:<BR/>It has been my experience that his modus operandi is to drag any discussion on any topic towards his presuppositions, whenupon any connection to whatever the original topic was disappears beyond some event horizon.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, and much more cheerily and on-topic: Good post, I agree wholeheartedly with your theme and sentiments (though I might quibble some minutiae), and, interestingly, the subject has been debated ad-nauseam in Rhology's own blog over the (nearly) a year since I've been visiting his site.<BR/><BR/>Great blog, BTW. Cheers.John Moraleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16354725997954085678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-84184532037647450822008-06-19T10:21:00.000-04:002008-06-19T10:21:00.000-04:00I've answered your questions and you've failed and...<I>I've answered your questions and you've failed and continue to fail to answer mine adequately</I><BR/><BR/>One wonders if you're not reading a different thread.<BR/>I'm more than happy to leave this where it is, but of course others are welcome to interact with what I've said.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-50039737992871144022008-06-19T10:17:00.000-04:002008-06-19T10:17:00.000-04:00I have no interest in playing games with you, Rhol...I have no interest in playing games with you, Rhology. I've answered your questions and you've failed and continue to fail to answer mine adequately which is not just my opinion if you read through the comments. Furthermore, why would anyone in their right mind continue on with someone when they're response to a question is:<BR/><I>"Whether that makes sense to you or seems acceptable, I couldn't care less."</I><BR/><BR/>Wonderful strategy, btw. <BR/>1. Challenge/question<BR/>2. Refuse to answer other's questions at all or answer unsatisfactorily<BR/>3. Declare resultant frustration from others as triumph of your position<BR/>4. Scurry back to your hole declaring victory<BR/><BR/>----------------------------<BR/><BR/>I would though like to address some of the things which are "telling" in Rhology's comments:<BR/><BR/>• He knows the mind of god because he knows the correct way to interpret the bible <BR/>• Feels the only way to defend his beliefs is to repetitively cite his beliefs then chastises others for not giving enough evidence for their own<BR/>• Fails to see anything wrong with needless suffering<BR/>• Fails to see empathy as a necessary basis for moralityPhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-18269193328450801352008-06-19T08:54:00.000-04:002008-06-19T08:54:00.000-04:00The Ext,I remind you that atheists are faith-free....The Ext,<BR/><BR/><I>I remind you that atheists are faith-free.</I><BR/><BR/>Sure you are.<BR/>PC above seems to have an awful lot of faith in his ability to make pronouncements from on high about what is moral and what isn't, for one thing.<BR/><BR/><I>Is Evil a thing in and of itself? </I><BR/><BR/>Sorry if I didn't get to your question directly. I'll try again.<BR/>No, I would not say it is. <BR/><BR/><I>Q Ex2</I><BR/><BR/>No, I call it evil b/c it goes against that which is good. So in a sense it "springs", not <B>from</B>, but in opposition to, that which is good. <BR/>So, actions and thoughts which go against that which God has commanded, that which is in accord with His nature and character, are evil. <BR/>Those who participate in such activities and thoughts are evil as well. Evil people, evil fallen angels, etc. <BR/>Finally, I myself and all Christians are evil. However, we have been forgiven of being evil by Jesus Christ, so now I am no longer evil b/c of His goodness that has been given to me.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Using the bible to prove itself is known as circular reasoning</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, I know. But where have I done so? You're asking me questions about my worldview. What do you want me to do? Use some Buddhist philosopher or statements from Dick Dawk to answer questions about what *I* believe?<BR/>I might as well insist you answer my questions in the words of Osama bin Laden only.<BR/><BR/><I>saying that a fact is because your god says it’s so and then basing that say-so on the bible is also circular reasoning. </I><BR/><BR/>Your epistemology is self-defeating, so we can't go there.<BR/>My investigations have satisfied me that all these other rival worldviews have bankrupt epistemologies...except for the biblical one. Pardon me for appealing to a worldview that has an epistemology that actually makes sense!<BR/><BR/><BR/>John Evo said:<BR/><I>Now we are at a complete impasse. I will never do so. You and I would like to coexist peacefully in this world. But we can only do so by dropping the "bow humbly before the God Who is the very definition of what good is and submit to it."</I><BR/><BR/>1) The problem of induction states that you can't say that. You have no idea whether you will ever do so or not. You know what your current spiritual state is, fine, but you can't know what it WILL be in a minute or a year. <BR/>Lots of fundy atheists like you have become believers in Jesus over the years, some more distinguished than you. <BR/>2) I do want to coexist peacefully in this world and have good reason to desire such. <BR/>I can't say the same for you. I know you want to NOW, but I can't know that you won't change your mind tomorrow. Worse, you won't have a compelling rational reason to think you OUGHT TO coexist peacefully, as we've seen. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-76369679739420366262008-06-19T08:53:00.000-04:002008-06-19T08:53:00.000-04:00Hey all, many thanks for your patience.PC2 - You c...Hey all, many thanks for your patience.<BR/><BR/><I>PC2 - You can't answer that he wouldn't command that of you tomorrow, unless you're claiming you know the mind of god. Do you know the mind of god, Rho? Do you know what he will do tomorrow?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, I know the mind of God to a sufficient degree to be able to say that with full confidence.<BR/>Why? B/c He has revealed His mind in great detail in the Bible. He is not like that. <BR/>In fact, this is one of the nice things about TGOTB - the problem of induction is solved thru Him. He controls the universe and works all things after the counsel of His will (Ephesians 1:10) and works all things together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28). The universe will persist more or less as it is until the end, and then God will remake it. <BR/>By contrast, you have no idea whether the laws of physics will reverse themselves 1 minute from now. You think they <B>probably</B> won't, but that's all you can know.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>PC3 Once again, the same inadequate answer<BR/>PC4, inadequate</I><BR/><BR/>W/o a substantive critique from you, it is impossible to provide any elucidation. Let the reader judge who is interacting substantively with the other.<BR/><BR/><I>PC7 Grossly ignoring the question to the point of not even exhibiting any comprehension of what the question entails.</I><BR/><BR/>How is denying the premise an example of that? What is your argument?<BR/>When you ask a bad question, I suppose you want a solid gold answer? Isn't that special pleading?<BR/><BR/><I>one would have to wonder why ANYONE would take the time to answer questions from someone who not only wouldn't return the favor</I><BR/><BR/>Given how much you've written in response to my answers so far (which ain't much), it's amazing you don't see your double standard.<BR/><BR/><I>Who wants to endure suffering? It's not very nice. I don't like it. Others don't like it</I><BR/><BR/>So what? Who said that doing what other people like and not doing what others don't like is THE basis for morality? <BR/>Not God, certainly. You? The Exterminator? Dick Dawk? Bertrand Russell? <BR/><BR/><I> The degree of evil I think is in the degree of needlessness.</I><BR/><I>Pain from falling into a ravine while hiking and slowly dying for four days is pretty needless suffering.</I><BR/><I>it's unquestionably evil for such a being could and should create a better way.</I><BR/><BR/>Naked assertions. Where's the argument?<BR/>Is this seriously the best you've got to offer here? A bunch of "I say so" statements? <BR/>It's becoming clearer - you don't like the idea of TGOTB at least partly b/c His vast claims to authority conflict with your desire for self-determination, your desire to proclaim "Thus saith PhillyChief - thus and such is moral, thus and such is not-moral." <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>I would try to help (Tkalim) realize the rights of the girls</I><BR/><BR/>1) But his worldview does not grant them any rights. So where's the "convincing him with his own words" here? <BR/>2) How does an atheistic worldview like yours grant inalienable universal rights to anyone? They don't come from God; whence could they come? Society? Tkalim's society grants them none. The individual? Is not Tkalim himself an individual? Some universal principle or law? Whence comes said law, and what is your evidence for that (since you're so fond of demanding evidence for everythg)? <BR/><BR/><I>try to instill an empathetic view of the situation for causing harm on another is wrong</I><BR/><BR/>How do you know that empathy is a basis for morality? What is your evidence?<BR/><BR/><I>I know it's harm because women say it is</I><BR/><BR/>How do you know that empathy for what women think is a basis for morality? What is your evidence?<BR/><BR/><I>there's plenty of evidence to show what both the physical and psychological harm is and it's severity</I><BR/><BR/>How do you know that avoiding harm is a basis for morality? What is your evidence?<BR/><BR/><I>RH2 - And why should it shape anyone else's?<BR/>Because empathy and mutual respect are keys for humans coexisting together</I><BR/><BR/>What is your argument that anyone <B>should</B> want to coexist together with other humans? <BR/><BR/><I>RH4 - Is it wrong for everyone, everywhere, at all times, under any circumstance, for any reason, to rape a child?<BR/>Yes - Harmful - against will and child incapable of granting consent. Physical and psychological trauma attest to harm. Victim, due to trauma, more inclined to inflicting similar harm on others in future. Condoning of behavior fosters behavior. </I><BR/><BR/>You've successfully begged almost all of the questions here. <BR/>You may have misunderstood the purpose of a discussion like this. Nobody wants to see two regular guys like us just throw "I say so" statements back and forth. I would imagine they're interested in ARGUMENTS. So far, you're acting like you've been coronated some kind of Grand Poobah of Morality, with the authority to impose your ideas on everyone else. We're asking for your ID. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Rhology said: Could you identify the commands that I pick and choose to ignore and tell me how I ignore them?<BR/>PC "answered": As I said, I don't care what your rationales are and believe me they are rationales. </I><BR/><BR/>In other words, you just made the naked assertion, perhaps hoping no one would notice, and can't back it up. Duly noted.<BR/><BR/><I>what about allegedly Jesus' instructions to sell your belongings and give them to the poor and have no concern for tomorrow? </I><BR/><BR/>What is your argument? Please present an exegesis of that passage that is consistent with the context and we'll talk.<BR/><BR/><I>No, no, that's ok, you don't have to answer.</I><BR/><BR/>You seem to be talking to yourself - you haven't offered much of anythg in terms of "answers" yet.<BR/><BR/>Best of luck in actually answering some questions rather than begging them in your next comment, PC. <BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-76042020788173120352008-06-17T22:07:00.000-04:002008-06-17T22:07:00.000-04:00"Sentient beings experiencing evil either contradi...<I>"Sentient beings experiencing evil either contradicts omnibenevolence or not, right? <BR/><BR/>Or, are you saying sentient beings experiencing evil contradicts omnibenevolence only if omniscience and omnipotence are also assumed?"</I><BR/><BR/>Latter.PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-1212291220810182942008-06-17T21:47:00.000-04:002008-06-17T21:47:00.000-04:00Philly,I see what you're arguing - you're saying t...Philly,<BR/><BR/>I see what you're arguing - you're saying that no matter how you rearrange the shells, you always come up one short. <BR/><BR/>Can you not see the inconsistency, though? You allow for contradictory Boolean instances to exist. Sentient beings experiencing evil either contradicts omnibenevolence or not, right? <BR/><BR/>Or, are you saying sentient beings experiencing evil contradicts omnibenevolence only if omniscience and omnipotence are also assumed?<BR/><BR/>Really, we're just going around in circles. Mine was a "yes or no" question. Does the fact of sentient beings experiencing evil in any degree or any duration contradict omnibenevolence? Yes or no?<BR/><BR/>If you feel the question is unfairly framed as Boolean, why?<BR/><BR/>We have to find a point we agree on and build from that, or else we'll never understand our differences.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-91135069784302686662008-06-14T11:06:00.000-04:002008-06-14T11:06:00.000-04:00Apologies for the deletion. Bad cut-and-paste expe...Apologies for the deletion. Bad cut-and-paste experience. Here is the comment.<BR/><BR/>I feel like I'm interrupting a conversation, but "asked, so answered".<BR/><BR/>Argumentum ad mollitae et occisum:<BR/><BR/>Argument to sensibilities and torment (persecution).<BR/><BR/>Taking offense is often a ploy to put one's adversary at a disadvantage. I'm a little touchy when it comes to things that can be interpreted as an attempt to dominate.<BR/><BR/>I enjoyed reading the discussion of the "mamma bear protecting her cub" scenario. I think this is a visceral reaction, and is more or less hard-wired on a primitive level. If so, it illustrates on what basic a level that act of molestation is recognized as a threat worthy of a violent reaction that disregards personal risk.<BR/><BR/>I don't think that negates the argument of morality. If God does not exist, the building blocks of morality are to be found within human nature. God is then just a kluge answer like, "because I said so."<BR/><BR/>Even if this is not a moral judgment, my subsequent argument was to label the act immoral for triggering such behavior in the mother when such a consequence is predictable.<BR/><BR/>The act of inciting violence through eating the last Malomar or teaching evolution theory has seldom if ever resulted in murder. At least, it doesn't when interacting with a person who could not be said to be otherwise insane.<BR/><BR/>Moral relativism <I>is</I> a slippery slope. One can conjure up a hypothetical society in which ritual buggery of youngsters is morally accepted as a statement of the Divine Right of the King to bugger. Ritual blood sacrifice, and throwing virgins into volcanoes have been socially accepted. This does not make it any more right in that kingdom than in my town. It is notable that such behavior is usually predicated on superstitious belief. That statement can, and has been extended to include such things as the Jingoism and racism of such cults of power as Nazi Germany. All you really need to do is lump pseudo-science right in with superstition.<BR/><BR/>The only real problems I have with the rule book are the assertion that a higher power said it, and not mankind, and all of the "escape clauses" that quibble over the rules when it becomes convenient to raise an army or some such. You may argue that it became necessary to act in an immoral fashion, but don't try to tell me that a miracle happened, and suddenly the rules don't apply, and the act was therefore moral.<BR/><BR/>The PoE is not a problem until you try to perfect the godhead in the ways discussed at length by phillycheif. Satan is the personification of evil, and not to qualify this alleged immortal and super-powered mythical being a god in this mythological dichotomy is also a quibble.<BR/><BR/>BTW, in this discussion of the alleged 3-omni or 4-omni god, don't you want to include "Omnivorous"? If he is all-powerful, he can eat <I>anything</I>!breakerslionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14327290369084118043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-12757747154895187552008-06-14T03:07:00.000-04:002008-06-14T03:07:00.000-04:00Here, I'll use your exact wording:•sentient beings...Here, I'll use your exact wording:<BR/>•sentient beings experiencing evil in any degree or duration does not contradict an omnibenevolent God, but might contradict omniscience or omnipotence<BR/>•sentient beings experiencing evil in any degree or duration does not contradict an omniscient God, but might contradict omnibenevolence or omnipotence<BR/>•sentient beings experiencing evil in any degree or duration does not contradict an omnipotence God, but might contradict omniscience or omnibenevolence<BR/><BR/>See? You can have 3 of the 4. Each of those have 3 of the 4. Now go on, tell me again you're confused or I'm not answering your question. Go on.PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-33149251804027318032008-06-14T01:40:00.000-04:002008-06-14T01:40:00.000-04:00@ Philly,Apparently you prefer eschewing me over g...@ Philly,<BR/><BR/><BR/>Apparently you prefer eschewing me over giving a real explanation. Let me know if you want to answer the questions. I'm not trolling or jiving you, maybe you do need a long weekend, but take a closer look and try to answer:<BR/><BR/>Have you conceded that sentient beings experiencing evil in any degree or duration does not contradict an omnibenevolent God, but might contradict omniscience or omnipotence? Yes or no?<BR/><BR/>Please give a response that addresses the question, or just tell me to piss off if you're over it, but don't display the poor scholarship typically ascribed to our adversaries.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-59413394841935161422008-06-14T00:27:00.000-04:002008-06-14T00:27:00.000-04:00I don't see how much plainer I can make it. You ha...I don't see how much plainer I can make it. You have 4 things:<BR/>1. God is omnibenevolent <BR/>2. God is omniscient<BR/>3. God is omnipotent<BR/>4. Evil<BR/><BR/>3 things could logically coexist, but not all 4. Pick your 3, any 3.PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-11166276181655227832008-06-13T19:23:00.000-04:002008-06-13T19:23:00.000-04:00@ Philly,I'm almost certain you'll think I'm jivin...@ Philly,<BR/><BR/>I'm almost certain you'll think I'm jiving you, but IMO you didn't answer the question and I need clarity. And let's not digress to Plantinga or free will arguments, but stay in context.<BR/><BR/>You began your reply with a rather cryptic, "It could still be omnibenevolent.." So, have you conceded that sentient beings experiencing evil in any degree or duration does not contradict an omnibenevolent God, but might contradict omniscience or omnipotence? Yes or no?<BR/><BR/>I'm confused because the following sentence reads, "Likewise, it could have the power and the know how but be a bit of a dick and allow it to exist." Then we're back to a breach of omnibenevolence again, but you seemingly just conceded that sentient beings experiencing evil in any degree or duration does not contradict an omnibenevolent God.<BR/><BR/>So which is it??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-9921046617077648592008-06-13T19:00:00.000-04:002008-06-13T19:00:00.000-04:00@ John Evo,Fair enough. I've left a few comments o...@ John Evo,<BR/><BR/><BR/>Fair enough. I've left a few comments on some other blogs where the thread might know a little more about exegesis than around here, but really, I don't think anyone is justified in saying "Christians believe evil is an entity." Which Christians? Because I've heard many argue that evil is not an entity. <BR/><BR/>So to anyone, is there a biblical basis for the claim that evil is an entity?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-70431961070637192862008-06-13T18:52:00.000-04:002008-06-13T18:52:00.000-04:00I think it's me who needs the long weekend.I think...I think it's me who needs the long weekend.<BR/><BR/>I think there needs to be a clarification made. There's the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil" REL="nofollow">"Problem of Evil"</A> (hereafter known as PoE because it's easier to type) and a problem of evil. A problem of evil could be something you and I could have:<BR/>Our new boss is evil<BR/>- Oh, that's a problem<BR/><BR/>PoE refers to a logical problem that has been stumping people who want to assert there's a 3-omni god for a looooong time. <BR/><BR/><I>"Are you arguing that sentient beings experiencing evil in any degree or duration contradicts an omnibenevolent God?"</I><BR/><BR/>It contradicts a 3-omni god. It could still be omnibenevolent but perhaps lack the power to eliminate evil or can't figure out how to eliminate evil. Likewise, it could have the power and the know how but be a bit of a dick and allow it to exist.<BR/><BR/>The freewill argument is a common stab at solving PoE, but woefully insufficient. It's another way of redefining evil, which is the basis of many attempts to solve the problem. Essentially, it tries to argue things like it's the price we pay for having free will, or that free will is how we learn, by suffering mistakes, and so forth. <BR/><BR/>The more honest attempts have been ones where concessions are made to the 3-omni model. Plantinga for instance argues for a less than ominpotent god. There's nothing wrong with being a really REALLY strong god, I guess. Perfection is such a hard thing you know. I mean look at my earlier slip ups today. ;)PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-67165131037394722672008-06-13T18:09:00.000-04:002008-06-13T18:09:00.000-04:00CL - Christers do believe evil is an entity. I do...CL - Christers do believe evil is an entity. I don't read Ex saying "all".John Evohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10868904051881865159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-87460015218211569542008-06-13T18:01:00.000-04:002008-06-13T18:01:00.000-04:00Ex, Earlier in the thread you made the following b...Ex, <BR/><BR/><BR/>Earlier in the thread you made the following blanket statement: <I>"However, for Christians, Evil is an indivisible something, a thing-in-itself."</I><BR/><BR/>Now, how does an admitted atheist gain the privilege to speak for all Christians? I don't have a Bible in front of me, but can you give any scriptural basis for your claim or possibly shed light on where you found it? For example, is your assertion true for all Christians? Or only Protestants? What about Catholics or Mormons?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-76359979918125150822008-06-13T17:47:00.000-04:002008-06-13T17:47:00.000-04:00@ Philly,No worries. I appreciate your answer but ...@ Philly,<BR/><BR/><BR/>No worries. I appreciate your answer but stand frustrated by its lack of logical explanation.<BR/><BR/>How does allowing other sentient beings to make choices regarding the problem of evil violate omnibenevolence?<BR/><BR/>Are you arguing that sentient beings experiencing evil in any degree or duration contradicts an omnibenevolent God? <BR/><BR/>If so, why? <BR/><BR/>If not, under what conditions would sentient beings experiencing evil contradict omnibenevolence?<BR/><BR/>Let's resolve this first then proceed to omniscience, if you don't mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36453833.post-43533001130669932632008-06-13T16:11:00.000-04:002008-06-13T16:11:00.000-04:00I misread your comment, CL. Yes, death trumps harm...I misread your comment, CL. Yes, death trumps harm, imo, but still it might not for someone else. What I was thinking of but didn't flesh out was a scenario where it would be harm vs harm. Sorry, my head's not fully in it today.<BR/><BR/><I>Which quality of the omni-4 God in question is violated by allowing other sentient beings to make choices regarding the problem of evil? Why? </I><BR/><BR/>Omnibenevolence mostly. Then there's omniscience for not knowing a better way. It gets worse if you equate suffering as evil.PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.com