rainbow walking

Thomas: Suppose there's an elderly couple next door, and no matter how much I turn down my music, they'll think it's too loud.

Rw: (chuckle) That’s the kicker Thomas, no matter how much God could turn down the suffering people will always think any suffering is too much, because no one likes or wants to see suffering. Until they begin to reap the consequences in human stagnation of spirit, science, politics and progression. Then an entirely different form of suffering sets in, the kind of suffering analogous to 300 decibels. An OMNISCIENT God would know this and leave things as they are.

Thomas: Does it follow that I can play my music at 140 decibels and it's okay? No. No one will think that. Even if we don't know the right amount of suffering, we can still decide when there's too much of it. Can't we?

Rw: Yabut, you’ve just ascribed a “decibel level” (140), to what you hold to be too much. As yet, you’ve ascribed no such concrete designation to suffering. You’re no closer with this example than if you’d said nothing at all. It isn’t analogous. Your CP is an “evidential” argument. But your “evidence” (suffering) is meaningless and useless as evidence until you can establish a baseline for us to judge both sufficiency and necessity. Until you do I’m not obligated to take your word for it. You say the “current”, (another subjective application without any factual basis in reality), level of pain involved in childbirth is too much. I say bullshit. Now how do you plan to resolve this test of your evidence? The burden is on YOU. I’ve already argued quite effectively showing how it balances out.



Thomas: I have told you this over and over again: That the laws of physics are sufficient for humanity's greater good (in your language, that the purpose "entails the acquisition of man's [sic] greater good") does not entail that they are necessary for it.

Rw: And both sufficiency and necessity are your straw men that you have yet to support or establish. The only way you can render physics “unnecessary” is to invoke omnipotence. Which is your approach to this argument and has been from the outset.

So, since we seem to be talking at cross-purposes here relative to God’s attributes, let me approach this from another direction. I’ve been basing my arguments on the assumption that there is no logical contradiction within God’s attributes. That they all operate in consonance with one another to achieve his purpose. In fact, this would have to be the case for the CP to argue its position also. Now the question has arisen:

“Does God’s omnipotence have the capacity to rebel against his omniscience and force an act upon him that he would not otherwise allow his omnipotence to perform?”

If God’s ability to do anything/omnipotence, also includes the ability to perform an act that his mind/omniscience and heart/omni-benevolence has determined he should not do, then we have either a contradiction inherent in his attributes or a logical limitation on his omnipotence.

Since you have been arguing primarily on the basis of omnipotence, then your argument entails a contradiction within the attributes you need to build your argument. If you persist in this tactic CP fails because of the contradiction you’ve incorporated. If you concede, as you appear to have done here:

Thomas: I agree with that proposition, that he will not allow himself to do something of which he knows the detrimental probable outcome.

then we have a basis to continue this discussion. But, as it now stands you appear content to argue from a contradictory position, for instance:

Observe:

Thomas: And it's a big non sequitur to say God's probably not powerful enough to reduce the pain of childbirth without precluding some greater good. Of course he is. He's God. I've outlined a few possible scenarios. All I have to do is identify possible scenarios, because God is omnipotent.


Rw: Thank you Thomas for that most excellent confirmation. But it is, how do you say, “non sequitur” to my deconstruction of your CP. My deconstruction is based on God not allowing himself to do these things. My deconstruction invokes omniscience/his mind over his omnipotence to rule out all these fancy parlor tricks you’re playing for the audience. Now one of us is wrong. Your parlor tricks incur a contradiction in his attributes. Mine are consistent with the way we understand sentience to work. Your parlor tricks say that brute force dictates to the mind, as if the body tells the mind how, what and when to act. But then let’s consider the remainder of your concession above:

Thomas: I agree with that proposition, that he will not allow himself to do something of which he knows the detrimental probable outcome. My claim is that God can avoid the detrimental probable outcome of reducing the pain of childbirth and increasing other things to compensate.

Rw: Now I must insist you explain on what basis God can avoid something he has already decided will not serve the best interests of man? On the basis of omnipotence? But omnipotence requires direction. The ability to do anything/omnipotence can do nothing without knowing/omniscience what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. It also can, nor likely will, do anything without knowing why,(omni-benevolence), it is doing it. Omnipotence, standing alone, is powerless to act. So, to posit that God could avoid something that, in his omniscient mind he’s already decided he cannot avoid, is another contradiction Thomas. Can you explain these contradictions please? Remember, omniscience is not the ability to do anything but only to know everything. You can’t use omniscience for magic tricks the way you’ve been using omnipotence. It is too wise and knowing to let you dupe it into performing for you.

Just_An_Atheist

Does this mean that you think that God would be justified in allowing the nazis to do what they did, presuming that He exists?

Dr. Retard

RW:

I believe that Thomas is not saying that omnipotence 'has a mind of its own', overriding the wise guidance of omniscience. He is saying that omniscience, omnipotence, and moral goodness would work together, in harmony, to make the world less terrible (or to have actualized a different world in the first place). Thomas is not committed to any inconsistent divine attributes. Rather, he disagrees with your belief that a morally perfect God (thanks to omniscience) would choose this world. Thomas thinks this world is too terrible to have been chosen by God.

Suppose that the pain of childbirth is not necessary for any greater good. Then God has no reason to make childbirth painful. On the contrary, God has very good reason to make childbirth painless. Since God's omniscient, he would know this. So, putting together his omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection, he would make childbirth painless.

So your job is to deny the supposition. You have to say, "Au contraire, Thomas, the pain of childbirth is necessary for the greater good! Here's how..." Since you usually identify the greater good with moral progress, I assume you believe that the pain of childbirth somehow contributes to moral progress, so much as to trump the disvalue of all that pain. But I don't see how.

Dr. Retard

This is exactly what's at issue. We do not accept that a reduction of the suffering in the world would have these consequences. We think it wouldn't have these consequences. We think it would make things better. So if you want to persuade us that this suffering is morally justifiable, you need to show us why it would have these consequences.

rainbow walking

Hi Doc,

doc: This is exactly what's at issue. We do not accept that a reduction of the suffering in the world would have these consequences. We think it wouldn't have these consequences. We think it would make things better


rw: It would definitely make things better for people in the first person doing the suffering…this much is true. Take the suffering incurred by disease, for instance. History is littered with the carnage and human tragedy inflicted by disease and the suffering this incurred, and still incurs. Hospitals are kept busy tending the sick and dying. Scientists and medical researches are, even as we speak, frantically searching for the cause and cure of SARS before it reaches epidemic proportions.

On the other side of the coin, however, for the people actively involved and, dare I say, gainfully employed in the business of alleviating the various causes of such suffering, twould be another story. Were such a reduction to take place today it could have a devastating effect on the world’s economies from the un-employment incurred. The sheer reduction in demand for things like pharmaceuticals, medical personnel, hospital maintenance, manufacturers of all the goods associated with the alleviation of various causes of suffering like food and medical tools, transportation of supplies, storage facilities, construction trades, governmental authorities assigned to over-sight of public funds allocated, research technicians and scientific endeavors along with the associated grants and facilities designed for such research. Then there’s the stress related prospect of world war resulting from the economic impact to consider as the pressure of unemployment has its predictable political effect.

Or how about the suffering incurred by malnutrition? Certainly were this reduced the people suffering would be greatly affected in a positive way. But then there’s all that trade in wheat, grain and other food supplies purchased wholesale to address some of the problem, bolstering many of the worlds economies that would also be affected. Farmers, business men, banks, transportation, manufacturers of farming equipment, building trades, storage and shipping facilities. Again we see a definite connection here. More economic pressure leading to social unrest to political tension and possibly to world conflict.

So I don’t think an intervention by God at this point in man’s history would work to man’s greater good. As cruel as that sounds it is only my observation.


On the other hand, were suffering to have been reduced somewhat at the outset, while man was still struggling to reach the top of the food chain, then there’s other considerations that come into play. Things like self-preservation come to mind immediately. A species struggling to survive would need an impetus to struggle. Were pain and the resultant psychological effects reduced would man have made it out of the caves?

My argument hinges on ‘progressive man and his greater good”. Thusfar most of the criticisms of it have focused on man’s greater good being accomplished with less suffering, such as this one launched by doc. Yet these criticisms all but ignore man’s progressive trek from the cave to the 21st century. Some criticisms have even speculated that man’s lot has not improved during the course of that journey.

But is this a reasonable claim?

On the one hand you’ve got proto-humanity, (thanks Koy for that term) as depicted by a group of men joining forces to bring down a wild beast for their next meal. On the other hand you’ve got a 21st century family joining up at McDonald’s for a comfortable stress free meal. Proto-man paints pictures on the walls of his cave for leisure. 21st century man attends movies. Proto-humans walked cautiously everywhere they went. 21st century man rides in cars and airplanes. Proto-man gaped at the moon in wonder. 21st century man walked their in victory.

How anyone can deny that some progress is evident in these comparisons staggers my imagination. Would these critics be willing to return to proto-humanity? Then the question to be resolved is would man have made the journey from the caves to Times Square had suffering been reduced?

Such criticisms focus on a reduction of suffering as a moral obligation for a God. But, as I’ve pointed out ad naseum, these critics fail to establish a baseline from which we can determine if their claims are true. As I’ve pointed out the inter-connectivity between suffering and 21st century man’s active participation in addressing such suffering as it occurs, it should be obvious why this question of “how much reduction” are they advocating is i=an important issue.

doc: So if you want to persuade us that this suffering is morally justifiable, you need to show us why it would have these consequences.[/quote]

rw: I don't accept the implied burden of "why it would". I need only show "how it could".

The proponents of CP hasten to assure me they’re not advocating a complete elimination, just a reduction. They fail to elucidate if this aught to be done on a case by case basis or for all men across the board. They often fail to specify if this God is morally obligated to do so now or have done so at the outset of mankind. But what they fail to do, more than anything else, is establish “how much is enough to satisfy the moral indictment?”

Clearly man already has many methods of reducing pain and thus, by association, suffering. Medical means as well as others, such as sending food and supplies to blighted areas of the world. And I have shown how this has grown into an integral aspect of 21st century man’s way of life. So it is important to establish this value in relation to their criticism. Reduce pain below its current manageable levels and you begin to affect other areas of man’s existence. Don’t reduce it enough to make any noticeable difference to what man can and has done to reduce it, and the question becomes, what’s the point?

These impassioned pleas for a God to do something, anything, are understandable…but they fail to achieve a conviction against such a being for the reasons I’ve already articulated a number of times. The proponents of CP are using suffering as evidence to build their case. But the evidence is intricately tied to man in this world in ways that make it difficult to isolate from the rest of man’s existence without adverse effects to those other areas. Since they fail to establish such a baseline, it reduces my obligation to show how a reduction “would” adversely affect man’s greater good, to an obligation only to show how it “could”.

I consider this response a fulfillment of that obligation and my argument stands.

When they get around to tweaking their criticisms and establishing some definitive factors to this obscure “reduction of suffering” so that we can compare said degree, or however they measure it, to the actual effects in relation to what man has and can do himself and how his existence has become so inter-twined with what he already has and continues to do…then my obligation will increase and I’ll do my best to fulfill it or concede the argument.

Dr. Retard

RW:

So let's look at your theodicy -- your "observation". You point out that, if it weren't for diseases, malnutrition, and other tragic problems, there would be no market for solutions -- for cures, medical and agricultural research, and all the industries dependent thereon. If the problems were eliminated, then the market for solutions would be eliminated. The result would be a spike in unemployment, as these industries shed the newly-excess labor they had previously employed.

You also claim (I guess) that the market for solutions is really good -- so good, in fact, that it makes up for all the bad. The value is enough to trump the disvalue of diseases, malnutrition, and the like. And, since this super-valuable market for solutions essentially depends on these problems, it would be wrong for God to intervene and eliminate or ameliorate the problems.

I doubt this moral claim. Note that it works for any intervention: if it's wrong for God to intervene, it's wrong for humans to intervene. So if you yourself were to come across a cure for AIDS, this moral claim says that you should immediately destroy it. After all, if you were to share it with the world, then the industries dependent on the AIDS problem would vanish, and unemployment would result. But this moral claim is wrong. You should not destroy a cure for AIDS; you should share it with the world, and unemployment be damned.

Also, the economics is dodgy. While it's true that short-term unemployment would result from such a severe dislocation, a great deal of human capital would be freed up, thanks to the cures for diseases and malnutrition. That is, with adequate availability of health resources, many more people are available for all sorts of productive activity. Google tells me that 29 million in Africa alone people have AIDS. Think of the economic productivity that could be unleashed if these people were able to live a healthy life, learning, working, and thinking of new ideas. This is an invaluable resource that would be made available by The Big Cure.

To be sure, the tempo of such a change can be so fast as to devastate certain industries, and cause short-term economic hardship. But it needn't be this way. The horse-buggy industry collapsed just fine. Same with the market for polio research.

Now, it is difficult to sketch a completely alternate-universe way for proto-humans to develop today's culture. We barely understand how the process worked in the actual natural history of humanity. But, when you ask, "would man have made the journey from the caves to Times Square had suffering been reduced?" the answer seems to me quite plain. Yes, we would have. If I hadn't had a headache last night, suffering would have been reduced; and yet human progress wouldn't have been impeded in the slightest. Had the Holocaust not happened, this would not erase history so as to imperil the progress of proto-humans. Same goes for the Ukraine famine, or the Cultural Revolution, or name your favorite atrocity. Same goes for AIDS, tuberculosis, and cancer. This is not to say that I know exactly what would have happened in the alternate universes lacking these problems. But I can safely say it would not have in any way jeopardized human progress. All the more so with my headache last night.

Unfortunately, this...

...I do not understand at all.

And this...

...I disagree with. You do not need to fix some perfect amount ('enough') in order to see that there is too much. Take the trade-off between security and liberty. I do not know the one, true, perfect balance between these two values when it comes to political policy. But I know damned well that Ashcroft is too far on the security side. How do I know? Because I know more-or-less what it would be like if security were reduced, and I know it would be better than what we have now. If Ashcroft or his supporters want to convince me that I'm wrong, they have to show me some surprising and substantial negative consequences that would result from a security reduction. Until then, my judgment call is justified. All the more so, when it comes to the citizens of a true totalitarian state. This, despite the fact that neither Americans nor citizens of a totalitarian state know the perfect amount of security.

If your criticisms of AE folks are on target, then citizens can never be confident that there should be less security and more liberty in their state, not until the citizens work up a theory of political perfection. But this is absurd, and so I think your criticisms are off target.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by rainbow walking :

But it doesn't follow that no reduction in suffering is good.

God can give us spirit, science, politics, and progression. I don't know why you're not doing me the courtesy of trying to think of these possible scenarios before you make these claims. I've asked you nicely several times. Isn't it obvious that there are other ways for God to secure his goals?

I say the amount that exists now is too much. I can imagine a possible world in which there was less of it, and there would be no obvious corresponding reduction in the total goodness. And I take that as evidence that there's too much suffering.

Just like if you think there are too many people in the elevator for it to work -- suppose an elevator seems to be straining to lift itself out the basement, and you can imagine a couple of people getting off the elevator without that somehow making the elevator less able to lift itself. Can't you conclude that there are probably too many people on the elevator?

Yes. God is omnipotent. So physics is "unnecessary", as it were.

Who thinks God's omniscience would tell him not to reduce the current level of suffering? If you do, you've got some explaining to do.

That's exactly what's at issue! No one has been able to show that God has decided reducing suffering would not serve the best interests of humanity.

When has anyone shown that God would try to avoid something he's decided he cannot avoid? Can you provide some values for the variable "something"?

rainbow walking

doc: So let's look at your theodicy -- your "observation". You point out that, if it weren't for diseases, malnutrition, and other tragic problems, there would be no market for solutions -- for cures, medical and agricultural research, and all the industries dependent thereon. If the problems were eliminated, then the market for solutions would be eliminated. The result would be a spike in unemployment, as these industries shed the newly-excess labor they had previously employed.

You also claim (I guess) that the market for solutions is really good -- so good, in fact, that it makes up for all the bad. The value is enough to trump the disvalue of diseases, malnutrition, and the like. And, since this super-valuable market for solutions essentially depends on these problems, it would be wrong for God to intervene and eliminate or ameliorate the problems.

I doubt this moral claim. Note that it works for any intervention: if it's wrong for God to intervene, it's wrong for humans to intervene. So if you yourself were to come across a cure for AIDS, this moral claim says that you should immediately destroy it. After all, if you were to share it with the world, then the industries dependent on the AIDS problem would vanish, and unemployment would result. But this moral claim is wrong. You should not destroy a cure for AIDS; you should share it with the world, and unemployment be damned.

rw: That’s a good point doc but I have a better solution that resolves the whole question. If a cure for AIDs is good but might cause some discomfort in unemployment and disruption in the economic sector, then it would have been better to nip this disease in the bud before it even reaches humans. Just prevent it from making the evolutionary jump from animal to man. If no such disease ever existed as a threat to humans then no economic opportunity is available. Then the folks who never died from it would probably still be alive. Then the world population would be much larger in those blighted areas that can’t support the number of people living there now. This would alleviate the suffering caused by AIDS for sure and provide us many more unemployed to keep alive so they can start bloody new civil wars and hack each other to bits.

doc: Also, the economics is dodgy. While it's true that short-term unemployment would result from such a severe dislocation, a great deal of human capital would be freed up, thanks to the cures for diseases and malnutrition. That is, with adequate availability of health resources, many more people are available for all sorts of productive activity. Google tells me that 29 million in Africa alone people have AIDS. Think of the economic productivity that could be unleashed if these people were able to live a healthy life, learning, working, and thinking of new ideas. This is an invaluable resource that would be made available by The Big Cure.

rw: Hey! What a wonderful idea. Cure all disease and malnutrition. Just imagine how many people that would free up as a work resource. Now, who’s going to cure the already bloated unemployment lines created by these miraculously cured diseases? I mean, it’s going to be hard enough placing all those ex-health related workers somewhere else so they don’t lose their homes and other personal property, but if we have to place 29 million suddenly healthy Africans and god knows how many untold millions of others to work also…well, that could be a problem. But there’s always the hack each other to bits solution when all else fails. And it usually does.


doc: To be sure, the tempo of such a change can be so fast as to devastate certain industries, and cause short-term economic hardship. But it needn't be this way. The horse-buggy industry collapsed just fine. Same with the market for polio research.

rw: Another thing we can be sure of is the sudden increase in population with the subsequent increase of unemployment and civil unrest that would likely devastate several continents.

doc: Now, it is difficult to sketch a completely alternate-universe way for proto-humans to develop today's culture. We barely understand how the process worked in the actual natural history of humanity. But, when you ask, "would man have made the journey from the caves to Times Square had suffering been reduced?" the answer seems to me quite plain. Yes, we would have.

rw: Well, I’m not convinced that I should take your word for it. Seems to me a great many historical tragedies and atrocities went into the shaping of modern man. The rise and fall of every great civilization began and ended with bloodshed and suffering.

doc: If I hadn't had a headache last night, suffering would have been reduced; and yet human progress wouldn't have been impeded in the slightest.

rw: My wife uses that excuse with me all the time. Naturally we’re talking human progress on the historical level involving man in the aggregate so your headache is non sequitur. Incidentally, I use that same line on my wife when she pulls out the old “headache” excuse on me.

doc: Had the Holocaust not happened, this would not erase history so as to imperil the progress of proto-humans. Same goes for the Ukraine famine, or the Cultural Revolution, or name your favorite atrocity. Same goes for AIDS, tuberculosis, and cancer.

rw: Well, by the time we get to these eras proto-man has long since become history. But, since you’ve mentioned these events I should point out that the holocaust led to the nation of Israel; the prosecution of a number of Natzi war criminals; and to the collective world conscious that Fascism is not a preferable method of governance (something that seems to have been lost on Ashcroft); both the Ukraine famine in the early Soviet Union era and the Cultural Revolution in Communist China serve as reminders to anyone who cares that Marxism is equally as bankrupt a philosophy from which to build a nation. Both were man-made events.

doc: This is not to say that I know exactly what would have happened in the alternate universes lacking these problems. But I can safely say it would not have in any way jeopardized human progress. All the more so with my headache last night.

rw: Anyone can say these things from your position. Had the aforementioned atrocities not occurred would humanity resist Communism and Fascism with the same conviction?





doc: ...I do not understand at all.

rw: Yes, you and others here have been resisting that understanding since I brought it up. How much suffering is adequate? Can you tell me that?




doc: ...I disagree with. You do not need to fix some perfect amount ('enough') in order to see that there is too much.


rw: How much is enough and how much is too much?

doc: Take the trade-off between security and liberty. I do not know the one, true, perfect balance between these two values when it comes to political policy. But I know damned well that Ashcroft is too far on the security side. How do I know? Because I know more-or-less what it would be like if security were reduced, and I know it would be better than what we have now. If Ashcroft or his supporters want to convince me that I'm wrong, they have to show me some surprising and substantial negative consequences that would result from a security reduction. Until then, my judgment call is justified. All the more so, when it comes to the citizens of a true totalitarian state. This, despite the fact that neither Americans nor citizens of a totalitarian state know the perfect amount of security.

rw: And all this does is demonstrate that “too much” is a subjective opinion. There are likely millions of lemmings in America who will disagree with you…right now, until they wake up to the reality of Ashcroft’s world. But that’s another subject…

doc: If your criticisms of AE folks are on target, then citizens can never be confident that there should be less security and more liberty in their state, not until the citizens work up a theory of political perfection. But this is absurd, and so I think your criticisms are off target.

rw: My criticisms aren’t based on establishing perfection…just a baseline. How much suffering is adequate?

rainbow walking

Thomas: But it doesn't follow that no reduction in suffering is good.

Rw: It doesn’t follow that no reduction in suffering is bad either.



Thomas: God can give us spirit, science, politics, and progression.

Rw: He has and will...in his own way.

Thomas: I don't know why you're not doing me the courtesy of trying to think of these possible scenarios before you make these claims. I've asked you nicely several times. Isn't it obvious that there are other ways for God to secure his goals?

Rw: It isn’t that I’m not being courteous Thomas, but I do have an argument to deconstruct here. It is obvious that you think so, but your examples always lead us to anything but his goals, provided his goals are consistent to those I’ve elucidated here and elsewhere. It’s possible that he has no such goals. I’ve postulated goals, for man, that I think would necessitate God remain uncommitted to interference. You assume that omni-benevolence automatically establishes his goals as reducing man’s suffering. I’m not arguing the point that God couldn’t do any single thing you’ve suggested he do. I don’t think you understand that yet. I’m arguing a whole ‘nuther line of reasoning based on his goals being consistent to those I’ve articulated previously and that this prohibits him from allowing himself to intervene. So it’s not a matter of what he CAN do but of what he will allow himself to do. There’s a distinct difference between our respective reasoning here.



Thomas: I say the amount that exists now is too much. I can imagine a possible world in which there was less of it, and there would be no obvious corresponding reduction in the total goodness. And I take that as evidence that there's too much suffering.

Rw: There’s an immediate problem with that approach Thomas. If we’re appealing to imagination here then all I have to say is I can imagine a possible world in which God has taken many measures to reduce man’s pain and suffering in secret such that man will never know how much pain and suffering he could have been facing had God not done so. And I take that as evidence that the current levels are both sufficient in some cases, necessary in others, and both sufficient and necessary in others.

Thomas: Just like if you think there are too many people in the elevator for it to work -- suppose an elevator seems to be straining to lift itself out the basement, and you can imagine a couple of people getting off the elevator without that somehow making the elevator less able to lift itself. Can't you conclude that there are probably too many people on the elevator?

Rw: Showering me with all these examples of “too much” is not necessary Thomas, I understand the concept. But an elevator is a finite area that’s easy to determine human capacity. A world history full of literally billions of people who have suffered in various ways at least some portion of their lives in no way allows me to establish a “too much” in the same way I could on an elevator. Nor does it you. Your “too much” is an arbitrary assignment based on personal subjective opinion. When I look at this from my own personal subjective opinion I agree with you…it does seem to be a bit much. But when I step back and look at historical man and how far we can establish he’s traveled just to get here, I grow less sure. I begin to see interconnectives to his sufferings and the progress made. And then, when I begin to look forward to how far we still have to go, my certainty all but fades into obscurity. You are arguing your position from your immediate assessment of “too much” based on your moral sensibilities. You are not considering the big picture here, and when you do, you invoke magic and imagination to change things that you might wish later you hadn’t.



Thomas: Yes. God is omnipotent. So physics is "unnecessary", as it were.

Rw: Unnecessary to God maybe, but not to man. And omnipotence is not the only attribute to consider here. If his mind says no his power don’t go.



Thomas: Who thinks God's omniscience would tell him not to reduce the current level of suffering? If you do, you've got some explaining to do.

Rw: I’ve been splaining it all along. You just ain’t listening. Check out the thread “My final reflections on PoE”



Thomas: That's exactly what's at issue! No one has been able to show that God has decided reducing suffering would not serve the best interests of humanity.

Rw: I have set forth an argument for just that purpose Thomas.
Here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=54275



Thomas: When has anyone shown that God would try to avoid something he's decided he cannot avoid? Can you provide some values for the variable "something"?

Rw: When you continue to posit all these parlor tricks God could do simply because he’s omnipotent, while ignoring my claims that he’s also omniscient. And I’ll be glad to establish some values for “something” as soon as you define it.

Why don't you join me on the other thread where my position is set out more thoroughly Thomas.

Thomas Metcalf

rainbow walking :

I'll see you in the other thread then.