<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2769" name=GENERATOR><o:SmartTagType
downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/" name="place"
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"></o:SmartTagType><o:SmartTagType
downloadurl="http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"></o:SmartTagType><!--[if !mso]>
<STYLE>st1\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#ieooui)
}
</STYLE>
<![endif]-->
<STYLE>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</STYLE>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1027" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US vLink=purple link=blue bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Michael, et al,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>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 <STRONG><FONT size=6>and</FONT></STRONG> verifiable evidence, not just
fanciful and/or linguistically nonsensical speculation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>However, all of what you argue below is irrelevant to the
central point of my post, which is:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>If god did not know, then it/she/him is not
omniscient.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>If god did know, then it/she/him is not
omnibenevolent.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Anticipating other comments:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Statements about god are either [1] true, [2] false, or [3]
nonsensical.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[2] If they are contradictory, they are
false.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[3] If they are nonsensical, they are not
verifiable and perhaps not even comprehensible except in a syntactical
context.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Continuing:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[Equivocation: <A
href="http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/equiv.htm">http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/equiv.htm</A>]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>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.
</FONT><FONT size=4>The equivocation is in saying creating a baby in order to
torture it is <FONT color=#ff0000><STRONG>evil</STRONG></FONT> for humans, but
<FONT color=#ff0000><STRONG>not evil </STRONG></FONT>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>As a note, the problem of predestination and god's
foreknowledge is related to the problem of evil, but is not isomorphic to
it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Here is a classic statement of the problem of
evil:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>
<DIV><FONT color=#ff0000 size=4>[A] If God is omnibenevolent
and had the power to do so, it would prevent evil from
existing.</FONT></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#ff0000 size=4> <FONT color=#000000>
</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#ff0000 size=4>[B] If God is omnipotent, it
has the power to do anything, including the power to prevent evil from
existing.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#ff0000 size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#ff0000 size=4>[C] God is omnibenevolent and
omnipotent.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#ff0000 size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#ff0000 size=4>Therefore,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#ff0000 size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#ff0000 size=4>[D] God would prevent evil
from existing.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#ff0000 size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#ff0000 size=4>Therefore,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#ff0000 size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#ff0000 size=5><STRONG>[1] Evil does not
exist.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>On the other hand:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=4>[E] Babies dying of leukemia
screaming in agony is an evil.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=4>[F] Old folks unable to
control their bowels is an evil.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=4>[G] The extermination by
Hitler of about 6,000,000 Jews is an evil.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=4>[H] Repeatedly raping then
murdering a young child is an evil.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=4>Therefore,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=5><STRONG>[2] Evil
exists.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Note that <FONT color=#ff0000>[1]</FONT> and <FONT
color=#0000ff>[2]</FONT> are contradictory, hence one or the other is
false.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>In my opinion, given the ordinary usage of the word "evil",
only someone quite delusional would deny <FONT color=#0000ff>[E] - [H]<FONT
color=#000000>, their basis in fact, and therefore</FONT>
[2]</FONT>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Hence, <FONT color=#ff0000>[1]</FONT> <FONT
color=#ff0000>[Evil does not exist]</FONT> is false.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Therefore, since <FONT color=#ff0000>[A]</FONT> and <FONT
color=#ff0000>[B]</FONT> are merely and clearly definitions, then <FONT
color=#ff0000>[C]</FONT> <FONT color=#ff0000>God is omnibenevolent and
omnipotent</FONT> is also false.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Notice again please, this is not an argument for the
nonexistence of all alleged gods. <STRONG><FONT color=#800080>It is
only a demonstration that a alleged omnibenevolent, omnipotent god cannot
exist</FONT></STRONG> (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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>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.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> <BR>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<BR><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=metzler@moscow.com href="mailto:metzler@moscow.com">Michael</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, November 01, 2005 4:30
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Vision2020] Is John Calvin an
Intolerista?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=Section1>
<P class=MsoNormal><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"><FONT face=Arial
size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Wayne</SPAN></FONT></st1:place></st1:City><FONT
face=Arial size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">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, it doesn’t really work as well as
one might have originally expected. Now, the project is primarily
inductive. The nature and extent of evil in the world provides
‘evidence’ for the fact that God does not exist; but of course, as is always
the case with constructing an evidential argument, it is not difficult for one
additional piece of evidence to come in and change the direction of what they
call the inductive ‘strength.’ If I sit around all day long and look at
pictures of children mutilated by murderous parents, the evidence for the fact
that a good and all knowing God does not exist would probably begin seeming a
bit strong. So strong in fact, I might be inclined to think that ‘I
know’ that God does not exist. After all, when considered in a more
abstract and timeless fashion, the argument from the problem of evil does
begin to make a lot of sense. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">However, I also might be inclined
to put the pictures down, take a deep breath, and remind myself of the grand
Christian Drama; I might begin retelling to myself the history of the cosmos
from a Christian point of view. What I will find there, very likely, is
a God who permits, yet also passionately eradicates, evil: A God who
hates murderers and will punish them; a God who will raise these broken
children up from the grave; a God who suffered the same treatment that these
little children did when he came to the world. This sort of evidence can
begin seeming even stronger if combined by a traditional experience of
repentance. In other words, one might come to believe that the evil is
not just ‘out there’ to be compared to God, but in one’s self. If there
is a problem with evil in me, then a proposal for a solution to this problem
might very well seem a bit more reasonable. This is particularly the
case if I begin feeling ‘guilty’ for evil in me. But ‘guilty’ before
whom? Or perhaps I begin feeling ‘thankful’ for all the good and
beautiful things in the world. But ‘thankful’ to whom? All these sorts
of factors can come in and start making the existence of God not only
possible, but even likely for me—for some, almost necessary.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">However, one thing that struck me
reading through your deductive way of setting up the argument was the
reference to the kind of God Christian’s believe. God is ‘all
good,’ but I’ve noticed a wild variance between what biblical Christianity and
secular observers mean by ‘all good’ to begin with. I think there might
be a bit of begging the question in your argument, for example, if you assume
at the beginning that a God is all good only if he would not permit
evil. But it seems strange to me to assume the nature of true eternal
‘goodness’ going into the question of whether or not God exists. This
reminds me of a discussion I had with Nick Gier many years
ago….<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Yours,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Michael
Metzler</SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_____________________________________________________<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>