Thomas Metcalf

Not even close. There is a difference between irrationality and craziness. So please stop lying about his claims.

And yes, a great many people are irrational. If you're a theist, you are, too. For you do not have good reasons to believe in any god. If you believe in the omnicompetent god of traditional monotheism, there is good reason to believe that god does not exist.

Theli

I don't think he was calling them "crazy", just wrong.
Most people probably hasn't thought very much about this question. Some assumes that all evil is the devils work, and some go with the free will = possible evil approach.
The number of people who believes in something is irrelavent. A thumb rule is that people in large masses are usually stupid. Even if those people would hold a true/correct belief, they would not have any wellthoughtout reason to believe it. Just following the herd.


And another thing, the earth population doesn't consist of 80-90% christians.

[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

DMB

But you can turn this argument on its head. If this life is really so insignificant in comparison with the next, why would humans be condemned to eternal torment in retribution for things done in this insignificant life? At the very least, it suggests an extremely malevolent god.

Philip Osborne

"If this is always a maximally good world, then every action we take either increases goodness or has no effect. Therefore, we have no reason to perform good acts, because if we successfully don't, that just increases the goodness in the world. So evil is kind of defined out of existence."

I've mentioned a possible theodicy in another thread which is based on the idea that there is no "best of all possible worlds." The goods that make a possible world "better" do not allow for instrinsic maximums. For instance, if a world w has a perfection A to degree u, there will always be another possible world w1 which has A to degree u+1, ad infinitum. Yet it would seem absurd that God would be flustered into a total inability to create because of this phenomenon. Hence, God cannot create the best possible world (contradicting your assertion that this is a "maximally good world"), and cannot be blamed for creating a less than perfect one. If this is so, then it is simply not the case that we have no reason to perform good acts, because the idea that this world can be better than it is is not inconsistent with its creation by an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God.

Sincerely,

Philip

[ August 08, 2002: Message edited by: Philip Osborne ]</p>

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

...and visa versa.

...including athiests.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Thomas,
Ok. Alvin Platinga is a professional apologist that sees no real problem with evil. This is not to say that evil is not an issue, but that evil is not a problem that is inconsistent with an all-loving God. In fact, the main reason Platinga writes about 'the problem of evil' is only because of the tired atheist claim that it is inconsistent with an all-loving God.

Oh wonderful.

I hope you realize that this 'argument' assumes what it is trying to conclude. This is mere assertion.


Let's start out a bit slower...
Are you claiming that God and Evil are implicitly contradictory? Or explicitly contradictory?

Satan Oscillate My Metallica Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Thomas,
Ahh. I see.

So you are claiming those that do not see things the way you do are *irrational*.

This IS irrational.


On the contrary I have MANY good reasons to believe in God.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Theli,

Hmm...athiests represent a large mass of people.


Things that make you go 'hmm'.

Satan Oscillates My Metallic Sonatas

randomsyllable

Well, these I can't wait to hear.

Forgive me if I misunderstand, but what you are arguing here is that by "choosing to believe" in (your choice of) God, you lose the ability to perceive evil and question its existence?

Alright, so if I understand you, by belonging to the minority and therefore finding an inconsistency present in the existence of evil with the definition (at least the abrahamic one) of God, I am irrational?

Now last time I checked, saying that an argument is irrational because the majority believe the opposite is not a true counter-argument. Someone brought up the "flat-earth" thing.

Well, I guess the vindication of Gallileo falls into the same category then? Or could it be that our progressive knowledge means your argument comes down to us ignoring that which bothers us a la the stereotypical image of the ostrich?

(long week - I doubt that I'm coherent, but oh well)

-random

HRG

I assume you argue by transfinite induction - i.e. u can be any transfinite ordinal, not just a finite number.

I'm definitely with you so far. In fact, your argument with a twist can be applied to show that evil is not just the absence of good.
However it does not seem absurd to conclude from this and other set-theoretic arguments that the concept of omnipotence itself is absurd.

regards,
HRG.