[Vision2020] Response to Joe, Donovan [More]

[Ted Moffett]

Very interesting exchange in this thread.

Some of the questions and problems discussed are addressed (I think)
in the series "Closer to Truth: Cosmos Consciousness God" and
specifically in this episode, that apparently is viewable online, with
John Leslie (bio:
http://www.closertotruth.com/participant/John-Leslie/56 ), that asks
"Is God All Knowing?"
http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/Is-God-All-Knowing-John-Leslie-/357

KSPS PBS from Eastern Washington U. that is available locally (three
digital KSPS channels can be received "off the air" with rabbit ears
if you're in a favorable location in the Moscow area... I've done it)
is running "Closer to Truth" as the following schedule shows:
http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tvlistings/ZCSGrid.do?fromTimeInMillis=1301372596620&stnNum=47256&channel=7.2&sgt=grid
------------------------
http://www.closertotruth.com/about-ctt

I guess this list of episodes are viewable on the Internet:

http://www.closertotruth.com/webisode-list
------------------------
Apparently this scholar is behind the series:

Robert Lawrence Kuhn

For Robert Lawrence Kuhn, Closer To Truth is a lifelong passion. With
a doctorate in brain science and the author or editor of more than 30
books, Dr. Kuhn is a public intellectual who speaks and writes
frequently. His article "Science as Democratizer," featured in
American Scientist magazine, argues how the scientific way of thinking
can influence global society; and "Why This Universe: A Taxonomy of
Possible Explanations," featured in Skeptic Magazine, presents a
universally exhaustive set of "ultimate reality generators."
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 5/18/11, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:

> A few points.
>
> First, determinism does not entail predictability. Chaotic systems, for
> instance, may be determined yet not predictable. Nor does predictability
> ensure determinism. I make predictions all the time about a variety of human
> behavior and so do you. That in and of itself does not mean that human
> behavior is determined. So you can't use "determinism" and "predictability"
> as if they mean the same thing. They don't. One is a metaphysical thesis
> about the structure of the universe; the other is an epistemological thesis.
> See this article for support of these claims:
>
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/
>
> Second, you can't just assume that free will is incompatible with
> determinism. Some people (Descartes, Leibniz, Hume, Kant, G.E. Moore,
> myself) believe that determinism is compatible with free will, that the very
> same event may be determined from the beginning of time and still (if it is
> an act) be free. You yourself pointed out the pitfall of thinking of free
> will as indeterminism, for undetermined events are random and randomness is
> not the same as freedom. Well if randomness can't get you free will, it is
> hard to see how the opposite -- determinism -- can take free will away.
>
> My own view is that the thesis of determinism as absolutely nothing to do
> with free will. If we think the two are linked it is pretty easy to show
> that no one has free will. Too easy. This was the point of my thought
> experiment. We need a better conception of "free will" than the one we get
> by contrasting it with determinism. That in a nutshell is what most of my
> own philosophical research is concerned with doing: providing us with a
> better understanding of what it means for a human act -- or any act -- to be
> free.
>
> Putting these two points together, I think that there are more options
> available than the two that you sketch out below. Here are some of the other
> options:
>
> C) God created the world fully determined and humans have free will. Further
> the world is chaotic and God is unable to predict the outcome of the world
> in complete detail even though it is fully determined. You are likely
> correct that on this model you'd have to reject God's omniscience but there
> would be an explanation of his "ignorance," e.g. the chaotic nature of the
> universe.
>
> D) God created an undetermined world and humans have free will. Since the
> world is undetermined he is unable to predict the outcome of the world in
> complete detail. In this option God is still omniscient since the future is
> unsettled; God still knows all that is true it is just that propositions
> about the future are neither true nor false, so he doesn't know those.
>
> Of course, this is not really a response to your argument. At most, there
> will just be a few more options to consider -- maybe just one more, in fact
> -- and likely you'll find that model unsatisfactory in light of the evil in
> the world and God's supposed attributes. I don't suppose to have a solution
> to the problem of evil! I just think that fully stating the argument is
> difficult and that it isn't obvious that God's existence is inconsistent
> with the existence of evil.
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>>  Joe,
>>
>> I just can't follow your argument, nor your thought experiment.  I suspect
>> that we are using different definitions of "free will" and "determinism."
>>
>> Let's start with the word "determinism" in an effort to clarify.  [Note:
>> "God" in the following means "alleged God."]
>>
>> Suppose you had a perfect die throwing machine, a machine that tossed a
>> die in a completely controlled micro-environment.  This machine was set to
>> hold and to toss the die in the exact same way each time.  Barring some
>> anomaly in what in what are called for the sake of expediency the "laws of
>> nature" -- in this case physics -- the result will always be the same.
>> The
>> outcome is "determined."  Given the constancy of the "laws of physics", no
>> other outcome is possible.  Betting on the outcome would be a sure bet; a
>> bet that is never lost.  The outcome is complete predictable without a
>> chance of error.
>>
>> If, however, the "laws of physics" were not constant, but were subject to
>> an occasional anomaly, then there would be some randomness, and there
>> would
>> not be any sure bet.  There would be errors in predictions.
>>
>> In short, I am using the word "determined" to mean always completely
>> predicable without error or chance of error.
>>
>>
>> Given the above, the issue of determinism and freewill in the context of
>> the Problem of Evil can then be characterized thusly:
>>
>> A.    Did God when creating the universe, plan it down to the very last
>> detail and then executed that plan exactly?  Did God impose upon all
>> things
>> a "law of all things" from the beginning such that everything in the
>> universe always acts like the die in the perfect die throwing machine --
>> all
>> outcomes, events, etc were/are completely predictable (known) to God.  If
>> so, that is what I mean by "determinism" in the context of the Problem of
>> Evil.  There is no outcome that God, being omniscient, did not know
>> (predict) would happen.  There is no randomness in the system.
>>
>> Or
>>
>> B.    Did God when creating the universe leave an element of randomness
>> in its plan of the universe, and did not attend to every last detail,
>> randomness say in the form of human "freewill," so that not all outcomes
>> were completely predictable (known) by God.
>>
>> If the later, then there are random events of which God would not have
>> been
>> cognizant of at the moment of creation or before they occurred, and
>> therefore God would not be omniscient at the moment of creation or at
>> anytime before any of these random events occur.
>>
>> Simpler:
>>
>> A.    Did God plan everything, and being omnipotent, everything happens
>> that way, and being omniscient, God knows exactly what will happen, and
>> hence everything is determined (predictable by God), despite appearances?
>>
>> or
>>
>> B.    Did God plan almost everything, but left an element of
>> chance/randomness in its plan in the form of the freewill of humankind,
>> and
>> thus God could not predict everything from the moment of creation, and
>> hence God not omniscient?
>>
>>
>> Simpler yet (like the old Clairol ads):
>>
>> A.    Does He know
>>
>> or
>>
>> B.    doesn't He know?
>>
>> If A, then all is determined, regardless of the conscious feeling of
>> choice
>> experienced by humankind.
>>
>> If B, then freewill exists, but God is not omniscient having chosen to
>> give
>> up complete predictability.
>>
>>
>> What is very important in discussing this issue is to distinguish between
>> there being actual freewill and there being the appearance of free will.
>> There is little doubt that many people believe they are exercising free
>> will.  That belief may or may not be true.  The more we learn about human
>> behavior, the more determined (and predictable) it becomes.
>>
>> God, being omnipotent, could certainly create a universe where people
>> believe they were exercising free choice, but in fact, their actions were
>> completely determined (predictable)  by God at the point of creation.
>>
>> w.
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>> *To:* Art Deco <deco at moscow.com>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 17, 2011 2:26 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Response to Joe, Donovan [More]
>>
>> I can agree with much of this argument, Wayne, but not the claims about
>> free will.
>>
>>
>>
>> For instance, you write: “If A, then all actions of humankind were part of
>> God's creation plan, and thus *all* human actions were
>> predetermined/preprogrammed including acts of disobedience from the
>> beginning according to God's plan, and hence, freewill cannot and does not
>> exist, and thus evil is totally and completely the creation and the fault
>> of
>> God, and therefore God is not omnibenevolent.”
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe the best way to make my point is that I deny the slide from
>> “determinism” to “predetermined” to “preprogrammed.” Or if I accept the
>> slide, I deny that being preprogrammed is incompatible with being free and
>> morally responsible for one's actions. In other words, I don't find
>> determinism to be particularly problematic for free will -- at least not
>> any
>> more problematic than indeterminism.
>>
>>
>> Here is a thought experiment. Suppose you get to "rollback" time and
>> relive
>> a choice 100 times over. You choose the black iPod over the white iPod and
>> you get to make this same choice 99 times over again. But each time the
>> situation is exactly the same. Each time you have the same reasons, the
>> same
>> information, etc. What would you choose?
>>
>>
>>
>> If you choose the black iPod 100 times out of 100 choices, it seems like
>> no
>> choice at all. What you did was determined and not up to you. That is the
>> problem of free will and determinism.
>>
>>
>>
>> Suppose instead you choose the black iPod 50 times and the white iPod the
>> other 50 times. Then your choice was random and, for that reason, no
>> choice
>> at all. This is the problem of luck, the problem of free will and
>> indeterminism.
>>
>>
>>
>> And what set of probabilities would satisfy you? 90-10? 75-25? 51-49? This
>> is the problem of free will. Free will is an enigma whether determinism is
>> true or false.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
>>
>>>    Thank you, Joe for pointing my out unintended use of "omnificent" and
>>> "omnificence" instead of "omniscient" and "omniscience."  This mistake
>>> originally started with a lapse of not carefully looking at spell check
>>> alternatives.  I have replaced correct versions of the initial post and
>>> the response to Donovan's initial reply below.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I hope the following will address your questions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The discussion of the Problem of Evil that has occurred was not intended
>>> to show that some superior being, a possible creator of the universe, or
>>> at
>>> least some God does not exists.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The scope of the discussion was much more limited.  The intention was,
>>> and I hope, did show that the following assertion leads to a
>>> contradiction:
>>> "The universe was created by an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent
>>> God."  And therefore such an assertion is false.  As you know, the belief
>>> in such a God with these traits is dogmatically asserted by many
>>> religious
>>> sects including the Catholic Church and our own local cult.  In shorter
>>> terms the demonstration was that "The existence of an omnipotent,
>>> omniscient, omnibenevolent God who created the universe is a logical
>>> impossibility."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is possible, though at this point in time, clearly undemonstrated,
>>> that
>>> the universe was created by some being, call it God, who was*
>>> not*omnipotent, omniscient, and, omnibenevolent.
>>> For example, one possibility is that of a God as described by Alfred
>>> North
>>> Whitehead.  That particular God was not quite up to the entire task,
>>> though it tried its best, and therefore humankind needs to help it
>>> achieve a
>>> moral earth.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Each argument purporting to show the existence of some God(s) or other
>>> must be examined on its own merits including looking at the evidence for
>>> included or assumed knowledge claims, looking for logical consistency,
>>> looking for consistency with known probabilities, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But on the issue of whether freewill and combined omnipotent/omniscient
>>> God are possible in the universe as we now know it, I can only repeat and
>>> augment a little the simply stated argument I made in response to
>>> Donovan.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Assuming an omnipotent God had a plan and from that plan created the
>>> universe exactly according to that plan, then:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Simply put, at the point of creation, either:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A.     God knew that humankind would disobey it, and knew all other
>>> actions of humankind that would occur.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Or
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> B.     God did not know that humankind would disobey it, and did not know
>>> some of the actions of humankind that would occur.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If A, then all actions of humankind were part of God's creation plan, and
>>> thus *all* human actions were predetermined/preprogrammed including acts
>>> of disobedience from the beginning according to God's plan, and hence,
>>> freewill cannot and does not exist, and thus evil is totally and
>>> completely
>>> the creation and the fault of God, and therefore God is not
>>> omnibenevolent.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If B, God lacked specific knowledge of the outcomes of his creation plan
>>> at the point of creation, and therefore God is not omniscient – there is
>>> something that God did not know.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Freewill (vs. determinism) is possibly compatible with the assertion that
>>> God is *not* omnipotent and/or omniscient.  But whether freewill exists
>>> in reality would be difficult to prove or disprove -- no one has yet to
>>> do
>>> so.  Certainly there is there appearance of freewill, but as you know
>>> with the advancement of the psychological sciences, particularly the work
>>> of
>>> B. F. Skinner and followers, and the advancement of the biological
>>> sciences,
>>> particularly the work of geneticists, the amount of freedom of choice
>>> available to humankind when carefully examined, appears to have shrunk
>>> and
>>> continues to shrink.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You posit:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "God could create a world where determinism is false (to say otherwise
>>> means he's not omnipotent)," or rephrased:  "Could God create a world
>>> where determinism is false (to say otherwise means he's not omnipotent)?"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is asking whether an omnipotent, omniscient God could create a world
>>> where that God itself was not omniscient, or asking if God could negate
>>> his
>>> own omniscience.  This argument analogous to the argument in the form of
>>> a question:  "Could God create a stone so heavy that it could not lift
>>> it?"  When a question contains a contradiction, then there is no possible
>>> comprehensible answer except that the question calls for the existence of
>>> an
>>> impossible state of reality.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Although omniscience is used as a separate property in the discussion of
>>> the Problem of Evil, in really omniscience is a sub-property of
>>> omnipotence
>>> -- the power of knowing everything.  So then the question becomes:
>>> "Could
>>> an omnipotent being destroy its own omnipotence?"  This is another
>>> example of a question containing or leading to a contradiction, and thus
>>> without a possible comprehensible answer except that the question calls
>>> for
>>> the existence of an impossible state of reality.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The question of whether causation is transitive or not, or stated as "Is
>>> the universe a system of inexorably related (call the relation cause)
>>> between everything in it or not?" is not relevant to the issue.  Either
>>> an omnipotent God knew exactly what it was doing when it created the
>>> universe or not.  If so, then everything resulting from his plan of
>>> creation is determined, and if not, then God lacks omniscience.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am at a loss to understand your fourth point.  In the context of those
>>> who believe in an omniscient God, the word "omniscient" means:  "At all
>>> times past, present and future God knows everything, past, present, and
>>> future.  There is nothing (no bit of knowledge, fact, fancy, or feeling)
>>> that God does not know or did not know."  In my discussion that is the
>>> meaning I have taken.  How can there be a lesser kind of omniscience than
>>> full and complete knowledge?  "God is omniscient and knows everything
>>> except what will happen next Tuesday" would be a contradiction.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are very interesting questions arising from the assertion that an
>>> omniscient being exists or could even exist.  How could such a being be
>>> sure of its knowledge?  Where and how is this knowledge stored?  What
>>> does it mean to say that some being knows everything?  Etc.  I have not
>>> addressed these issues.  I have only addressed the problems that arise
>>> when it is asserted along with other statements that "At all times past,
>>> present and future God knows everything, past, present, and future.
>>> There
>>> is nothing (no bit of knowledge, fact, fancy, or feeling) that God does
>>> not
>>> know or did not know."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Further, I make no claim that the traditional usage of the words
>>> "omnipotent," "omniscient," and "omnibenevolent" make sense or describe
>>> possible states of reality.  I am merely taking the words as they are
>>> used by certain believers and apologists then showing that such
>>> linguistic
>>> usage leads to a contradiction.  I suspect that asserting "God is
>>> omnipotent" makes about the same amount of sense that asserting that "The
>>> square root of jelly vulcanizes justice" does.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>>> *To:* Art Deco <deco at moscow.com>
>>> *Cc:* Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, May 16, 2011 10:36 AM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Response to Joe, Donovan
>>>
>>> My own view is that the problem of evil is unsolvable, an enigma. Thus, I
>>> don't think you can that God does not exist, given the existence of evil,
>>> either.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Wayne! A few quick questions and points.
>>>
>>> 1/ Why think that you can settle one of the perennial philosophical
>>> debates (whether or not God exists) by assuming the answer to another
>>> perennial philosophical debate (whether free will is compatible with
>>> determinism)?
>>>
>>> 2/ Neither omniscience nor predetermination wrecks free will. It is
>>> predetermined that you will leave some of your clothes on while
>>> purchasing
>>> your next set of groceries. I am certain that you will. Is it unfree? No,
>>> I
>>> think you freely do so.
>>>
>>> 3/ Why must an omnipotent, omniscient (omnificent = unlimited in creative
>>> power), and fully benevolent being be the CAUSE of everything? (Note, I'm
>>> not denying that God is the cause of everything. I take it that that is
>>> the
>>> issue in (2). Here I'm questioning this view.) First, God could create a
>>> world where determinism is false (to say otherwise means he's not
>>> omnipotent). Second, causation is not transitive. It might be true that
>>> something I wrote caused you to write one of the sentences below but it
>>> doesn't follow that I wrote the sentence below.
>>>
>>> 4/ You write: If there is something that is not predetermined (unknown to
>>> or unpredicted by God), but somehow left to chance at the moment of
>>> creation, then God is not omnificent [or omniscient].
>>>
>>> Suppose "omniscience" means "someone knows everything that is true," that
>>> states of affairs make things true, and that the future is open:
>>> undetermined and unrealized. God might know everything there is to know
>>> --
>>> he might not miss any of the facts -- yet still not know everything (all
>>> that was, is, or will be true).
>>>
>>> More later!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Donovan writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "I just think you have too many false assumptions and false definitions
>>> of
>>> words in your arguments."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> However, no specific examples of false assumptions or false definitions
>>> (which is taken to mean words used in other than their ordinary
>>> established
>>> manner) are cited even though the arguments have been presented in a
>>> numbered sequence making them easy to cite and to discuss.  Therefore,
>>> Donovan's above assertion has not been shown to have any merit, but has
>>> the
>>> appearance of a rhetorical trick used when one side of a debate does not
>>> have a plausible answer to the arguments presented by the other.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Next, Donovan cites one of Zeno's paradoxes to show that anything can be
>>> proven by false assumptions and definitions.  However, there is no
>>> explanation or illustration of how the arguments presented in the
>>> discussion
>>> of the Problem of Evil are structured in a similar manner to Zeno's
>>> argument
>>> that was given.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Since no evidence of false assumptions and definitions has been
>>> presented,
>>> and no demonstrations of specific invalid or fallacious arguments have
>>> been
>>> made, these two claims are without even attempted demonstrated merit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Moving on, Donovan then writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Evil, is to disobey God's command. It is not a specific act in and of
>>> itself. God created people with the ability to decide if they wish to
>>> obey
>>> or not obey. He can do that because He is all powerful. Humans create
>>> evil
>>> by doing what God has given them the ability to do, disobey God. God gave
>>> humans this ability because He wants people to freely choose to be with
>>> Him,
>>> not be forced to. Just like me and you don't want to be around just
>>> people
>>> that are forced to be.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> God always does the most benevolent thing He can without eliminating our
>>> ability to disobey Him. If God prevented people from killing or hurting
>>> each
>>> other He would be doing something far less benevolent then anything else
>>> by
>>> eliminating our ability to obey and be with Him after we die."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Consider:  "Evil, is to disobey God's command. It is not a specific act
>>> in and of itself."  This is an example of the fallacy [
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition] of offering a
>>> persuasive definition:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "A persuasive definition is a form of definition which purports to
>>> describe the 'true' or 'commonly accepted' meaning of a term, while in
>>> reality stipulating an uncommon or altered use, usually to support an
>>> argument for some view, or to create or alter rights, duties or crimes. …
>>> Persuasive definitions commonly appear in controversial topics such as
>>> politics, sex, and religion, as participants in emotionally-charged
>>> exchanges will sometimes become more concerned about swaying people to
>>> one
>>> side or another than expressing the unbiased facts."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Clearly, a persuasive definition is given for "evil" in above argument
>>> offered by Donovan.  For most people, the real evil of the rape and
>>> murder of young children is found in the harm, pain, degradation, and
>>> other
>>> life long consequences suffered by the victims, their families, and
>>> associates, not that some alleged God was disobeyed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are many other problems with the above argument, including that it
>>> is full of knowledge claims about the traits of some alleged God which
>>> appear impossible to verify or even to give any cogent evidence for.
>>> Once
>>> it asserted that God is omnipotent, then it follows that God can do
>>> anything, which includes deceiving humankind without any fear of
>>> detection,
>>> therefore all knowledge claims about any other traits of God cannot be
>>> given
>>> any convincing or reliable evidence.  Only those claims which contain
>>> contradictions can be conclusively refuted.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Problem of Evil shows that asserting the existence of an omnipotent,
>>> omniscient, omnibenevolent God leads to a contradiction, and thus one or
>>> more of the premises of the argument (omnipotence, omniscience,
>>> omnibenevolence) must be false.  Elementary logic.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The above argument given by Donovan asserts:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "God created people with the ability to decide if they wish to obey or
>>> not
>>> obey. He can do that because He is all powerful. Humans create evil by
>>> doing
>>> what God has given them the ability to do, disobey God. God gave humans
>>> this
>>> ability because He wants people to freely choose to be with Him, not be
>>> forced to…"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This claim does not refute the conclusions drawn from the Problem of
>>> Evil,
>>> but, in fact, supports them.  This is the claim of the existence of
>>> 'freewill' or 'freedom to choose' to explain the existence of evil.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To see the fallaciousness of this claim of freewill in Donovan's
>>> assertions masquerading as an argument, consider *the fundamental
>>> question* engendered by the assumption that some alleged omnipotent,
>>> omniscient, omnibenevolent God created the universe:  "*Did God know
>>> exactly what it was doing at the moment of creation* *of the universe*?"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If God knew *exactly what all the consequences/outcomes of his act of
>>> creation were at the moment of creation*,* *including whether humankind
>>> would "choose" to disobey him or not, then these so-called "free choices"
>>> by
>>> humankind were totally and completely predetermined by God's creation
>>> plan
>>> and execution thereof, and therefore, the freedom to choose to do
>>> anything
>>> not originally planned by God does not exist, freewill/freedom to disobey
>>> God is an illusion/delusion, and thus any argument using freewill or
>>> freedom
>>> of choice to justify the existence of evil is erroneous without any hope
>>> of
>>> redemption.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On the other hand, if God did not know whether humankind would choose to
>>> disobey him or not, then God had gaps in his knowledge at the moment of
>>> creation, and thus is not omniscient.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hence, the conclusions drawn from the Problem of Evil withstand Donovan's
>>> perhaps quite emotionally satisfying for some, but transparently
>>> fallacious
>>> attempt to explain evil, among other things, away.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Simply put, at the point of creation, either:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A.     God knew that humankind would disobey it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Or
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> B.     God did not know that humankind would disobey it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If A, then all actions of humankind were part of God's creation plan, and
>>> thus all human actions were predetermined/preprogrammed including acts of
>>> disobedience from the beginning, and hence, freewill cannot and does not
>>> exist, and thus evil is totally and completely the creation and the fault
>>> of
>>> God, and therefore God is not omnibenevolent.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If B, God lacked specific knowledge of the outcomes of his creation plan
>>> at the point of creation, and therefore God is not omniscient.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Points of Interest and Corollaries*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ironically and similarly, the Bible, allegedly the Word of this
>>> omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God, offers many illustrations
>>> that
>>> God, in fact, is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, but
>>> prone
>>> to error, intemperate, childish, irritable, petulant, and vengeful.
>>> These
>>> illustrations include the terminal incident in the Garden of Eden and the
>>> advent of Jesus.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Did God know at the moment of creation that those ingrates, Adam and the
>>> particularly fickle Eve, would choose to disobey God's big command?  If
>>> God knew, then Adam and Eve's actions were predetermined – they had no
>>> real
>>> choice in deciding to chomp the apple, but were acting in a preprogrammed
>>> manner.  If God didn't know what these naked, thankless rotters would do,
>>> then Got is not omniscient.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Garden of Eden incident also raises extremely serious, if not fatal,
>>> objections to the assertion that God is omnibenevolent.  God punishes all
>>> succeeding generations of humankind with innumerable instances of pain
>>> and
>>> suffering because two people disobeyed him by performing the heinous act
>>> of
>>> eating an apple or the symbolic act of attempting to acquire knowledge.
>>> Punishing
>>> billions of people for one misdeed of someone else, a deed over which the
>>> billions punished had no control or choice, is good?  Sorry Charley, but
>>> this is next to impossible to accept as a sane assertion, let alone a
>>> plausible one.  Most of us find it abhorrent when only one person is
>>> punished for some evil they did not commit, let alone billions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why was it necessary for Christ to appear to save humankind from their
>>> folly?  Did God know at the moment of creation that people were going to
>>> turn out to be such rascally miscreants?  If not, God is not omniscient.
>>> If God is, in fact, omniscient and knew exactly and completely all the
>>> outcomes of his creation plan, then all the sins and debaucheries of
>>> humankind were predetermined at the point of creation, and regardless of
>>> any
>>> claim of freewill, such evils were inexorably part of God's creation
>>> plan,
>>> pure and simple.  And yet most of humankind is to suffer eternal
>>> punishment for their actions which were completely determined by God's
>>> creation plan.  And this is omnibenevolence?  Wonderful.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Both the alleged incident in Garden of Eden and the advent of the alleged
>>> Savior Jesus also raise serious, if not fatal objections to the claim of
>>> God's omnipotence.  If God had to intervene at least at these two points
>>> of its creation, thus have to try to alter its original plan due to
>>> unanticipated events, errors, and bumblings, how can God be omnipotent?
>>> Omnipotent
>>> beings, by definition, cannot make mistakes.  And if God screwed up in
>>> the creation of parts of the universe (humankind), what else has it
>>> screwed
>>> up?  Can it deliver without error on any of the many fantasies of some
>>> alleged heaven?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Donovan's argument further asserts:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "God always does the most benevolent thing He can without eliminating our
>>> ability to disobey Him."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So killing millions of people, sometimes in very torturous, grim, and
>>> disgusting ways via natural disasters is "the most benevolent thing He
>>> can without eliminating our ability to disobey Him," and is good, not
>>> evil?  God is doing us wondrous, great, colossal favors by causing
>>> natural disasters and murdering millions?  Get real.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If God cannot prevent natural disasters, events like earthquakes,
>>> volcanoes, and tidal waves, over which humankind has no control or
>>> choice,
>>> events that have killed millions in horrible ways and deprived the living
>>> of
>>> their presence, God is not omnipotent.  If God can prevent these natural
>>> disasters, God is not omnibenevolent, unless God considers these
>>> gruesome,
>>> painful deaths to be good, not evil, something that most of us do not.
>>> If
>>> God considers these events to be good and not evil, what kinds of
>>> surprises
>>> await humankind in some alleged heaven, a place of allegedly infinite
>>> good?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Consider also the following assertion:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "God gave humans this ability [freewill] because He wants people to
>>> freely choose to be with Him, not be forced to."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Poor God.  God is lonely and insecure, and thus needs our praise,
>>> reassurance, and company.  If so, then God is incomplete, has vulnerable
>>> human traits, and thus cannot be said to be omnipotent, but dependent on
>>> some lowly beings to satisfy its cravings for attention, love, and
>>> approbation.  Further, as illustrated by characterizations in the Bible,
>>> God is tetchy, petulant, spiteful, and vengeful to the point of
>>> inflicting
>>> immense and widespread pain, suffering, and sorrow on those that
>>> displease
>>> it.  These cannot be the traits of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, or even
>>> greatly forgiving being, but are the traits generally found in
>>> maladjusted,
>>> egotistical, power hungry humans who cannot brook, and are not open and
>>> mentally healthy enough to brook dissent.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Does it make sense that some alleged being, a being with the alleged
>>> ability to create the universe with all of its complexities and to keep
>>> it
>>> operating, is so vulnerable and incomplete that it craves humankind's
>>> praise
>>> and approval, and then tests the strength of that approval by making
>>> damningly evil many things it knowingly and intentionally programmed as
>>> natural parts of humankind's biological, psychological, and social
>>> makeup?
>>> Such a view is really a damning insult to this alleged God intelligence,
>>> powers, and goodness by its believers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So failing to show any false assumptions and definitions, failing to show
>>> that any fallacious arguments have been offered, and offering as an
>>> alternative an argument which also proves that God cannot be omnipotent,
>>> omniscient, and omnibenevolent, we await the next transparent attempt to
>>> deny reality.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [Footnote:  In addition to authoring the present sacrilegious discussion
>>> of the Problem of Evil, I have been reprimanded for calling God, the
>>> alleged
>>> creator of the universe, "it" instead of "He."  I am unaware of any
>>> credible argument demonstrating that the alleged creator of the universe
>>> has
>>> male genitals.]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  _______________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   *The Problem of Evil:  One Formulation*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Did some allegedly all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient),
>>> perfectly good (omnibenevolent) God Create the Universe?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's assume so for the sake of argument.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If this omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God created the universe,
>>> then God is the cause/determiner of everything which
>>> happened/happens/will
>>> happen or exists in the universe because if this God is omniscient, it
>>> had
>>> exact foreknowledge of everything that would happen as a result of this
>>> omnipotent creation from the moment of creation.  To say otherwise would
>>> be to contradict God's omniscience and omnipotence.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hence, *everything* that happens in the universe was predetermined by God
>>> at the moment of creation.  This includes *all acts of humankind*, and
>>> excludes completely the possibility of actual freewill/freedom to choose
>>> between performing good and/or evil acts, but not does not exclude the
>>> possibility of the fallacious appearance to humankind that freewill
>>> exists.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Simply stated:  If there is something that is not predetermined (unknown
>>> to or unpredicted by God), but somehow left to chance at the moment of
>>> creation, then God is not omniscient.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If all is predetermined, the appearance that freewill exists is like a
>>> Hollywood set – possibly convincing to look at, but with naught behind
>>> it.
>>> To say there is a meaningful, left-to-chance choice is to say that God
>>> did
>>> not either cause/determine and/or know what the result of that choice
>>> would
>>> be – a denial of God's omnipotence and/or omniscience.  If there is real
>>> choice (something God left to chance), then there is not
>>> predetermination,
>>> and thus a gap in God's knowledge, and therefore God would not be
>>> omnipotent
>>> and/or omniscient.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If God is omnibenevolent (perfectly good), then *everything within God's
>>> control that happens, including all human acts is good, not evil*:  God
>>> would not knowingly and intentionally perform any evil act, any act that
>>> would result in evil, or even allow anything evil in itself to exist.
>>> Nothing
>>> evil (the opposite of good) can exist if God is omnibenevolent and in
>>> total,
>>> complete control and the determiner of all that happens in the universe.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For example, the acts of Jeffrey Dahmer where he tortured and murdered at
>>> least seventeen persons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer)
>>> were good, not evil acts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nor were the acts of Joseph Duncan evil acts, who among other crimes
>>> murdered three adults who were in the company of eight-year old Shasta
>>> Groene, abducted her and her nine year old brother Dylan, then raped,
>>> sexually tortured, and murdered Dylan in view of Shasta (
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III).  But such acts,
>>> having been initially knowingly and intentionally determined by an
>>> omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God, were good, not evil acts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Therefore, the belief by humankind that evil exists is in grievous error,
>>> if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Problem of Evil occurs because many persons believe that evil acts
>>> actually exist – the acts of Dahmer and Duncan would be called evil by
>>> many.
>>> Asserting that these acts were evil (not good) and were knowingly
>>> predetermined/caused by an omnibenevolent God, who could have done
>>> otherwise, creates an obvious contradiction between God's alleged
>>> omnipotence and omniscience on one hand, and God's alleged
>>> omnibenevolence
>>> on the other.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If evil acts exist, then:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A.     God, if omnibenevolent, could not have foreseen nor prevented such
>>> acts or God would have prevented them, hence God is not omnipotent and/or
>>> omniscient.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> B.     God could not be omnibenevolent in that God knowingly and
>>> intentionally caused/determined evil acts to occur despite that if God
>>> were
>>> omnipotent and omniscient, and thus the determiner of everything, could
>>> have
>>> prevented such acts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> C.     Therefore, *God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and
>>> omnibenevolent*.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Once the premises are accepted that this alleged God is omnipotent,
>>> omniscient, and thus this God created and determined the universe as it
>>> now
>>> exists and everything it contains and all occurrences within it, then it
>>> follows that God, given all the infinite choices open to it:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A.     Knowingly and willfully chose to create/determine the universe in
>>> the way it now exactly exists, and
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> B.     This God knew exactly everything (perfectly, to the last
>>> watermelon seed) what would occur as a result of its creation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> C.     Therefore, *Evil is a knowing and intentional creation of God*.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no wiggle room here, despite centuries of theological attempts
>>> to
>>> solve this disturbing-to-the-faithful dilemma by various transparent
>>> ruses.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then it knowingly and intentionally
>>> caused/determined all things that happened in the universe from the point
>>> of
>>> creation onward including the acts of Dahmer and Duncan.  To attempt to
>>> say otherwise is to deny either the omnipotence, omniscience, or both of
>>> God.  This would be in effect saying:  "Poor God.  God didn't quite know
>>> or quite care enough about what it was doing and/or the consequences of
>>> its
>>> act of creation, and consequently bumbled a bit.  Nice try."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To further assert that evil does not exist is to deny the basic reality
>>> of
>>> humankind's experience and pervert the established use of language beyond
>>> credibility, and thereby call certain acts not evil, thus good, that most
>>> of
>>> us find extremely and horridly evil.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are many interesting corollaries to the consequences of the Problem
>>> of Evil – that God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> One is that the Bible (allegedly the Word of an alleged God), for
>>> example,
>>> acknowledges/asserts that evil acts do occur, and, in fact, asserts that
>>> God
>>> punishes and will eternally punish some people for their evil acts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> {According to the Bible didn't Jesus show up because something went
>>> radically wrong with God's creation – the super-prevalence of evil?
>>> (Isn't
>>> this assertion about Jesus an admittance by the Christian followers of
>>> God
>>> that God admits that it screwed up and needed to find a way to unscrew
>>> things [which doesn't appear to have worked either, in fact seems to have
>>> been counterproductive] another contradiction to the assertion of God's
>>> alleged omnipotence?)}
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If this God is the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe and
>>> determiner of everything in it, then God is the determiner of all the
>>> evil
>>> acts and occurrences within it.  Punishing someone for acts not even
>>> remotely within their control hardly constitutes omnibenevolence.  Citing
>>> that punishing seven subsequent generations of progeny for the acts of
>>> one
>>> individual as an example of omnibenevolence indicates that such
>>> citers/believers are in greatly need of the services of competent mental
>>> health professionals and/or that their understanding of very elementary
>>> logic is egregiously defective, perhaps beyond repair.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Another problem that arises is the promise of and the nature of an
>>> afterlife.  If evil does not exist, especially in the eyes of an alleged
>>> omnibenevolent God, then the good (not evil) acts of Duncan and Dahmer
>>> would
>>> not be barred from heaven, but would be allowed.  The horrors experienced
>>> by Shasta Groene could be re-experienced by her and others for an
>>> eternity
>>> to provide a paradise for the Dahmers and Duncans.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If evil exists, then God cannot be omnipotent and/or omniscient.  Hence,
>>> how can this God or any of its followers be confident that God can
>>> deliver
>>> on its promises of heaven and what will occur there, or even the
>>> correctness
>>> of its choices about whom will be housed there?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Another problem with the assertion of omnipotence and omniscience of some
>>> alleged God is that it makes both entreating and laudatory prayer
>>> meaningless except as phatic communication.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why would an omnipotent, omniscient God ever change its intentions about
>>> the operation of its creation, the universe, when entreated by a
>>> much-less-wiser-than-God member of humankind?  To do so would be a clear
>>> indication that God had made a misjudgment/error during the act of
>>> creation,
>>> and thus a contradiction of God's omnipotence and omniscience.  Such an
>>> entreating prayer would be a gross insult to God, insinuating that God is
>>> not running things as it should and should heed the exhortations or
>>> requests
>>> of a much less knowledgeable human.  Such entreating prayers are
>>> indirectly, but clearly telling God that he lacks omnipotence,
>>> omniscience,
>>> and omnibenevolence and that God better pay attention so that it gets
>>> things
>>> right.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To say that God needs or wants praise or approval for his act of creation
>>> and its consequences is attributing to God a fundamental weakness of
>>> humankind.  If God is omnipotent, and thus completely and totally
>>> confident and completely assured about all its acts, why would it crave,
>>> need, or relish the approval and reassurance of one small, clearly not
>>> omnipotent or omniscient being of its creation?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A fourth problem that arises is the problem of faith in God's alleged
>>> trait of benevolence [or any other alleged trait].  If God is omnipotent
>>> (or even greatly wiser than humankind) then God could easily deceive
>>> humankind about its (God's) alleged goodness.  To say that God could not
>>> deceive humankind would be to assert that humankind, or at least the
>>> believers among them, think that they are smarter than God and have him
>>> correctly pegged, clearly a contradiction to God's omnipotence.  It also
>>> should be clear that asserting the omnipotence of some alleged God makes
>>> any
>>> other knowledge claims about any other of this God's alleged traits or
>>> intentions unverifiable in any way since this God could be The Great
>>> Omnipotent Deceiver, and therefore humankind would not be in a position
>>> to
>>> verify any other claims about God, or to refute them except by finding
>>> contradictions in such.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So that responses to the above, if desired, can be discussed without
>>> irrelevant side trips and emotional pleas and confessions of faith, below
>>> is
>>> the main gist of the above formulation broken down by premises,
>>> inferences,
>>> and conclusions.  Those disagreeing can then state by number which they
>>> disagree with and why.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In what follows, if not explicitly stated, "God" should be read "alleged
>>> God."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Main Initial Premises.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1.     There is a God.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2.     God is omnipotent (all powerful, can do anything it chooses, etc).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 3.     God is omniscient (knows *all/everything* there is to know, past,
>>> present, and future including the consequences/determinants of all its
>>> acts
>>> and all the conscious and unconscious thoughts and feelings of every
>>> human).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 4.     God is omnibenevolent (*perfectly* good, abhors and would not
>>> permit anything evil (clearly not good) ever to exist or to occur, if it
>>> could prevent it.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 5.     God knowingly and intentionally created the universe as we know it
>>> and exactly as it is.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Beginning of Inferences*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 6.     If this God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, and
>>> created the universe, then God is the cause/determiner of everything that
>>> happens as a result of its all-knowing and intentional act of creation
>>> from
>>> the moment of that creation.  God was/is/will be in complete control and
>>> the determiner of everything at all times.  To assert there is something
>>> that God is not in complete control of (something somehow left to chance)
>>> is
>>> to deny either God's omnipotence and/or omniscience.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 7.     Since God is omniscient, God had exact foreknowledge of everything
>>> that would occur/be determined as a result of its omnipotent act of
>>> creation.  To say God didn't know exactly to a tee what would occur or be
>>> determined as a result of his creation would be to contradict God's
>>> omniscience.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 8.     Since God is omnipotent and omniscient, *everything* that happens
>>> in the universe was knowingly and intentionally predetermined from the
>>> moment of creation.  Therefore, all future acts of humankind were
>>> predetermined at moment of creation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 9.     If all acts of humankind are predetermined, then there can be no
>>> freedom of choice or so-called free will.  If there are acts of which God
>>> did not have foreknowledge of, then God is not omniscient.  If there are
>>> acts of which God is not in control of or the determiner of but are
>>> somehow
>>> left to chance, then God is not omnipotent.  Therefore, the appearance of
>>> freewill is an illusion/delusion if God is omnipotent and omniscient.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 10.    Any act that occurs in the universe was either predetermined at
>>> the moment of creation or not.  If God is omnipotent and omniscient then
>>> God intentionally and knowingly created/determined the universe to be the
>>> way it now exists.  If there is something, like a human act which is not
>>> predetermined, but has been somehow left to chance (an unknown outcome),
>>> then God is not omniscient.  If there is real choice, and thus an
>>> indeterminate gap in God's knowledge, there is not predetermination, and
>>> thus God is not omniscient. If there was no gap in God's
>>> knowledge/foreknowledge at the moment of creation, then all acts are
>>> therefore knowingly and intentionally predetermined by God.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 11.    Therefore all acts of humankind are predetermined and occur
>>> regardless of the appearance of choice/freewill, if God is omnipotent and
>>> omniscient.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 12.    If God is omnibenevolent (*perfectly* good), then every act that
>>> God has control over or determines would be good and not evil.  God would
>>> not knowingly and/or intentionally perform or allow the performance of
>>> any
>>> act that was not good, that is, evil.  If God is omnibenevolent (*
>>> perfectly* good), and thus totally and completely abhorrent to and
>>> completely opposed to evil, and this omnipotent, omniscient God was in
>>> complete control and the determiner of everything that happens in the
>>> universe from the moment of creation, then nothing evil would or could
>>> ever
>>> exist in the universe.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 13.    Since God is omnipotent, omniscient, and thus is in a position to
>>> unequivocally impose its omnibenevolence, then *evil does not and cannot
>>> not exist*.  Hence, no acts by humankind are evil, but *all such acts are
>>> good*.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 14.    Since evil cannot exist if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and
>>> omnibenevolent, the belief of humankind holding that evil exists is in
>>> grievous error.  Evil cannot exist if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and
>>> omnibenevolent.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 15.    Therefore, the acts of child torturers, rapists, and murderers are
>>> not evil, but good acts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 16.    Further, since evil cannot exist, the acts called evil in the
>>> Bible, the alleged word of God, are not evil, but good.  Therefore the
>>> Bible is in error, and could not have been authored, even by proxy, by an
>>> omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God.  Therefore, the Bible is
>>> not the Word of this God, but a grand, but not evil deception of God
>>> since
>>> there is no evil – everything is good.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 17.    The Problem of Evil occurs because many persons believe that evil
>>> exists, for example, the acts of child molesters.  Since these acts of
>>> child molestation would not have occurred unless they were knowingly and
>>> intentionally predetermined by an omnipotent, omniscient God, then God
>>> cannot be omnibenevolent if *child molestation*, for example, *is evil*.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 18.    If evil acts exist, then:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A.     God, if omnibenevolent (*perfectly* good), could not have foreseen
>>> nor prevented such acts or God would have, hence God is not omnipotent
>>> and/or omniscient.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> B.     God is not omnibenevolent in that God knowingly and intentionally
>>> caused/causes evil acts to occur since God, if omnipotent and omniscient,
>>> could have prevented such acts of which he was the determiner.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> C.     Therefore, *God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and
>>> omnibenevolent*.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 19.    Once the premises are accepted asserting that this alleged God is
>>> omnipotent, omniscient, that evil exists, and this God knowingly and
>>> intentionally created the universe and everything in it, then it follows
>>> that God, given all the infinite choices open to it:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A.     Knowingly and willfully chose to create the universe in the way it
>>> now exactly exists, and
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> B.     Hence, this God knew exactly everything (perfectly, to the last
>>> watermelon seed) what would occur as a result of its creation at the
>>> moment
>>> of creation, and *evil*, as we now know it *is God's creation*, and thus
>>> clearly demonstrates that God is not omnibenevolent.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 20.    We are left with the unavoidable, but unpalatable-to-some
>>> conclusion that God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
>>> We are then left with a host of problems created by that this clearly
>>> demonstrated insufficiency of God, if God as presently conceived by
>>> humankind, exists at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>>  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
>> =======================================================
>>
>