Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rainbow walking · 02-17-2003, 10:50 AM

Hi Vorkosigan,
I've never read Platinga and am unfamiliar with his arguments. I understand you've expressed a desire to challenge him with a website and I applaud your efforts. I thought maybe if you would like to sharpen your skills you might consider stopping by here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=45676

And applying some of your razor sharp style to this FWD...just for practice. It would be much appreciated.

Also, srb, if you could, I'd like to know if this revised argument is valid. Does the conclusion follow from the postulates and all that. Think you could stop by and have a look see and give me the benefit of your scholarly opinion?

luvluv · 02-21-2003, 05:50 PM

Vorkosigian:

Quote:

Plantinga could be right even if there is freedom and yet no suffering in Heaven.

Details, please.

I tried to address that here:

Quote:

Basically, the point was that heaven is not another possible world, anymore than Cleveland is another possible world. Heaven is a part of this world (if by world you mean total, all-encompasing reality). Thus it is not clear that Heaven is another possible world which could exist with free will and without suffering. There was free will in heaven, and it did cause suffering (the fall of Lucifer and the rebellion of the angels) but the reason there is no suffering in heaven is because the suffering was REMOVED FROM HEAVEN, and displaced to another location. God could (and perhaps will) create a realm in which there is free will and no suffering on earth by eventually removing all those people who will ultimately refuse to use their will for good. But even in that case it will not be true that God made a "possible world" in which there was free will and no suffering. He will have shuffled the suffering to another location (hell, purgatory, whatever).

Was it not very clear or not very smart?

The basic idea is that Heaven is not another "world" it is part of this world, containing our realms, Heaven, and Hell. Thus Heaven is not a "possible world" in which there is no suffering. It is part of a possible world in which there is suffering. God could physically relocate all life from Cleveland to other places, and fully populate it with angels. Cleveland, then, would not represent another possible world. The story of the fall of Satan is a story of the relocation of those who would abuse their free will to another physical spatio-temporal location.

I don't think it is possible for God to create a world in which there is free will and yet no suffering without the cooperation of the free agents. Such a world is not possible unless the free agents choose to use their freedom properly. Heaven could simply be the location (in a manner of speaking) of the agents who have made that choice and have become (perhaps over a significant amount of time) capable of being free and yet not causing suffering.

Does that make any sense?

Bob Stewart · 02-22-2003, 03:27 AM

All,

In this thread and is some others that I hvae been looking at since I got here
people have talked about the logical problem of evil and the evidence problem of evil. Can someone explain the difference or tell me where I can find out about the difference or both.

Thanks,

Bob Stewart

SRB · 02-22-2003, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bob Stewart
All,

In this thread and is some others that I hvae been looking at since I got here
people have talked about the logical problem of evil and the evidence problem of evil. Can someone explain the difference or tell me where I can find out about the difference or both.

Thanks,

Bob Stewart

You could start here.

SRB

Clutch · 02-22-2003, 06:34 AM

Quote:

I am one who has learned one of the lessons that Wittgenstein's work teaches-- the step(s) that makes one an 'ist', a subscriber to some philosophy 'ism', is(are) invariably mistaken.

And I am one who has learned the much more important lesson -- that those who cite Wittgenstein's name as if it were a magical incantation, are invariably mistaken.

On this thread, as on the evolution thread you mentioned, you have slighted the philosophical sophistication and the intelligence of your interlocutors. (Such behaviour, at least, is plausibly a genuine legacy of Wittgenstein.) But it means you oughtn't expect much sympathy for your whinging about the responses you get. You've embarrassed yourself by lecturing scientists about what scientists say, and philosophers about what philosophers say, and by being wrong on both counts. You should cite Led Zeppelin rather than Wittgenstein: "Nobody's fault but mine..."

Clutch · 02-22-2003, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
[B]
LOL. I am surprised you even raised that paper, considering how bad it was, and how completely unable to defend it you were.

Here is one Plantinga thread on that ridiculous man-tiger-kitten analogy, which showed that Plantinga has no idea about evolution or cognitive science.

Here's another thread on Plantinga's hopeless understanding of Beliefs and evolution

Then there was your thread in E/C that posited on space aliens inserting fossils into the geological record in order to clarify your position on evolution.
Vorkosigan

Vork, not to take this any further O/T, but reviewing those links really drove home how criticism of evolutionary theory tends to degenerate into garden-variety scepticism.

Evolutionary theory is underdetermined by the evidence!

... like every empirical theory...

If evolutionary theory is correct, then our beliefs might be almost totally mistaken!

... same as if there were an evil demon...

I guess it's all of a piece with the lame old "just a theory" rubbish. <*Yawn*>

02-22-2003, 03:27 AM	#73
Bob Stewart Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Southeast Posts: 219	different problems of evil All, In this thread and is some others that I hvae been looking at since I got here people have talked about the logical problem of evil and the evidence problem of evil. Can someone explain the difference or tell me where I can find out about the difference or both. Thanks, Bob Stewart

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-17-2003, 10:50 AM	#71
rainbow walking Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Erewhon Posts: 2,608	Hi Vorkosigan, I've never read Platinga and am unfamiliar with his arguments. I understand you've expressed a desire to challenge him with a website and I applaud your efforts. I thought maybe if you would like to sharpen your skills you might consider stopping by here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=45676 And applying some of your razor sharp style to this FWD...just for practice. It would be much appreciated. Also, srb, if you could, I'd like to know if this revised argument is valid. Does the conclusion follow from the postulates and all that. Think you could stop by and have a look see and give me the benefit of your scholarly opinion?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.