[Vision2020] Is John Calvin an Intolerista?

[Donovan Arnold]

"If there is a god, then this god may be indifferent
to humankind, totally or partially amoral, have a
totally different conception of good/evil, or be
partially or totally evil in the terms of humankind."
Wayne Fox

I do think that God can be evil if the definition of
evil in the believer of God is anything which is the
anti-thesis of God. In other words, God cannot do that
which is against Himself- Anything he does is good,
and not evil, because His actions and deeds are what
define those terms as good and evil. If God kills bad
people, God killing bad people is good. If God makes
the corn grow then God's growing of corn is good. If
God makes the corn die, then God making the corn die
is good. No matter what He does, it is good, and
anything of the opposite of God is evil.  
  
"The question of the existence
> or nonexistence of an object with certain qualities
> whether it be a black hole, a unicorn, or some
> alleged god is a matter of reasoning and verifiable
> evidence, not just fanciful and/or linguistically
> nonsensical speculation."--Wayne Fox

I do not think people can define anything
scientifically in positive terms. You can only define
things as what they are not or in relation to others
things already defined in our minds. Science cannot
tell us if there is a God or not because something can
exist without us being able to measure it. However,
God can tell us individually that he exists. We can
though, measure some of the effects of those that
believe in God and prayer. 

-DJA

  



--- Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:

> Michael, et al,
>   
> The existence of evil is not an argument for the
> existence or nonexistence of some god.  If there is
> a god, then this god may be indifferent to
> humankind, totally or partially amoral, have a
> totally different conception of good/evil, or be
> partially or totally evil in the terms of humankind.
>  If some people are seriously arguing that evil
> exists means there is no god of some kind, they need
> to retake Logic 101.  The question of the existence
> or nonexistence of an object with certain qualities
> whether it be a black hole, a unicorn, or some
> alleged god is a matter of reasoning and verifiable
> evidence, not just fanciful and/or linguistically
> nonsensical speculation.
>   
>   
> However, all of what you argue below is irrelevant
> to the central point of my post, which is:
>   
> If god did not know, then it/she/him is not
> omniscient.
>   
> If god did know, then it/she/him is not
> omnibenevolent.
>   
>    
> Further, there is a great hypocrisy and fallacy in
> rejecting the deductive approach:  In order to
> reject it, you must use it.  Further, in rejecting
> the deductive approach [specifically reductio ad
> absurdum and modus tollens], you are rejecting tools
> upon whose application in great part all
> mathematics, science, and everyday practical
> knowledge is discovered and used.  If logic is not
> applicable to statements about some alleged god,
> then knowledge thereof, in the ordinary meaning of
> "knowledge", is not possible.
>    
>   
> Anticipating other comments:
>   
> If some alleged god is knowable, then so far
> humankind hasn't an inkling based upon the millions
> of different contradictory religious claims of
> its/her/his properties.
>   
> If some alleged god is unknowable, then there is no
> way by definition to test or even to validly claim
> the truth of any statement about it/her/him.
>   
>   
> Statements about god are either [1] true, [2] false,
> or [3] nonsensical.
>   
> [2]    If they are contradictory, they are false.
>   
> [3]    If they are nonsensical, they are not
> verifiable and perhaps not even comprehensible
> except in a syntactical context.
>   
> [1]    So far, there is no agreement about the truth
> of statements of the existence or the properties of
> many alleged gods.  Worst yet, unlike statements
> about gravity, herpes, and/or continental drift
> there is no agreed upon valid , fruitful method to
> test the truth of such statements about the
> existence or the properties of these alleged gods
> except possibly by the vote of authoritarian or
> popular sentiment, a hardly reliable method.
>   
> Continuing:
>     
> Your last paragraph below (and the attempts by many
> philosophers and theologians) is a classical example
> of equivocation -- using "good" in one way when
> referring to humankind and another way when
> referring to some alleged god.  
>   
> [Equivocation: 
> http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/equiv.htm]
>   
> If you think that a person creating a baby in order
> to torture it is not evil, then you are using the
> word quite differently than what is generally meant
> by "evil" when humankind use the word.  The
> equivocation is in saying creating a baby in order
> to torture it is evil for humans, but not evil for
> some alleged god who allegedly created us and who
> also allegedly tortures us (Example: when a baby
> dies in screaming agony of leukemia or when this
> alleged god allegedly sends the majority of his
> human creations to suffer the extreme misery of
> eternal combustion).  As in the examples given in
> the link above, you are using "good" and "evil" in
> two different ways in your argument.
>   
>   
>   
> As a note, the problem of predestination and god's
> foreknowledge is related to the problem of evil, but
> is not isomorphic to it.
>   
> Here is a classic statement of the problem of evil:
>   
> [A]    If God is omnibenevolent and had the power to
> do so, it would prevent evil from existing.
>    
> [B]    If God is omnipotent, it has the power to do
> anything, including the power to prevent evil from
> existing.
>   
> [C]    God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent.
>   
> Therefore,
>   
> [D]    God would prevent evil from existing.
>   
> Therefore,
>   
> [1]    Evil does not exist.
>   
>    
> On the other hand:
>   
> [E]    Babies dying of leukemia screaming in agony
> is an evil.
> [F]    Old folks unable to control their bowels is
> an evil.
> [G]    The extermination by Hitler of about
> 6,000,000 Jews is an evil.
> [H]    Repeatedly raping then murdering a young
> child is an evil.
>   
> Therefore,
>   
> [2]    Evil exists.
>   
>   
> Note that [1] and [2] are contradictory, hence one
> or the other is false.
>   
> In my opinion, given the ordinary usage of the word
> "evil", only someone quite delusional would deny [E]
> - [H], their basis in fact, and therefore [2].
>   
> Hence, [1] [Evil does not exist] is false.
>   
> Therefore, since [A] and [B] are merely and clearly
> definitions, then [C] God is omnibenevolent and
> omnipotent is also false.
>   
>   
> Notice again please, this is not an argument for the
> nonexistence of all alleged gods.  It is only a
> demonstration that a alleged omnibenevolent,
> omnipotent god cannot exist (just as a person with
> exactly 1 arm and exactly five arms cannot exist). 
> For example, the god of the Zoroastrians is not
> claimed to be omnipotent.  Unlike the definition of
> most Christian sects' god,the problem of evil does
> not disprove (nor give any probability for) the
> Zoroastrian's god's existence.
>   
>   
> Also please note that if it is alleged that some god
> is omnipotent, then that god has the power to
> deceive or to prevent any knowledge of itself.  That
> means, that those who allege an omnipotent (or even
> a vastly powerful god) are prevented from certain or
> even probable knowledge thereof, since there is no
> way of knowing whether they are being deceived or
> are in error.  [Although ignorance, hubris, 
> egomania, and/or megalomania do not prevent some
> from asserting their superiority to their alleged
> omnipotent god by claiming certain or probable
> knowledge of it/her/him.]
>   
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> deco at moscow.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Michael 
>   To: vision2020 at moscow.com 
>   Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 4:30 PM
>   Subject: [Vision2020] Is John Calvin an
> Intolerista?
> 
> 
>   Wayne,
> 
>    
> 
>   That was a good summary of the argument from the
> problem of evil.  However, over the last decade or
> so most philosophers (as I hear) have been uneasy
> with such a deductive approach.  The reason is that,
> well, 
=== message truncated ===>
_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step
> Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
>  
>                http://www.fsr.net                   
>    
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com