<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2769" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT><FONT size=4>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">This note will not display
correctly in plain text.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>HTML should be used.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">Donovan,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">You write:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">"</SPAN><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>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."</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">Defining an object in a certain
way does not miraculously bring that object into existence.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Just because one defines a unicorn as a
horse with one spiral conic horn protruding from its forehead, does not mean a
unicorn exists nor does it bring a unicorn into existence.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">Likewise, defining an alleged god
as the opposite of evil or defining an alleged god as omnipotent and
omnibenevolent does not mean such an object exists nor does defining such an
object bring it into existence.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">Your argument is reminiscent of
the Ontological argument for the Existence of God:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Albertus Medium'">[</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman">1]<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>God is a perfect
being.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman">[2]<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>A perfect being has all
qualities.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman">[3]<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>Existence is a
quality.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman">Therefore, God
exists.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">There are several problems with
this argument.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>However, Kant
basically refuted this argument long ago.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>He pointed out that <SPAN
style="COLOR: red">existence is <B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">not</B>
a quality</SPAN>.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>We use the words
"X exists" only when X has qualities.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>To say that something exists but without any qualities what-so-ever
appears to be the height of linguistic nonsense.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">If X has no qualities (but is pure
existence), hence is unobservable in any way what-so-ever, how could one
determine if statements about X are true or false?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">For a much clearer, more detailed
explanation of this problem see the discussion of the Ontological Argument in
the Kant chapters in <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">History of Western
Philosophy</I> by W. T. Jones.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">Further, you have ignored the
problem discussed by Plato and recently discussed on this
forum:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman">Is X good merely because
god says so or does god say so because X is (intrinsically)
good?<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">W. T. Jones also discusses this
problem in his chapters on Plato.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">You further
write:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>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. </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">I do not pretend to understand
this first part of your paragraph, hence I cannot rationally comment upon
it.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It seems to be a prime
candidate to be regarded in the same class as:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman">"Corrugated square roots
transcend justice."<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">As to this
statement:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>"However, God can tell us individually that he
exists."</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">Rather than state the snidely
obvious, I urge you to read <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Under the
Banner of Heaven</I> by Jon Krakauer.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>You will be quickly disabused from claiming that hearing an alleged god
talk to you (or giving you "signs") is a rational method for affirming its
existence.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This book is available
at Book People or it can be ordered there. Whatever your religious
beliefs, it is a consuming read.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">Finally,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>We can though, measure some of the effects of
those that believe in God and prayer.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">There exists a substantial body of
evidence to show that some people can benefit in certain areas of their lives by
praying to some god or another. There are some fascinating studies of the
benefits of chanting by certain kinds of Buddhists, some of whom are atheists in
the eyes of many Christians since they believe in an undifferentiated force
rather than an anthropomorphic god.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">Such evidence is not a proof of
any alleged god's existence, however.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">Such phenomena are part of a
larger body of evidence on the benefits of positive attitudes, the
belief/confidence in your own abilities, in certain routines and therapies, etc,
etc beliefs not requiring the invocation of a deity or deities in any
way.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Extensive early work in this
area was done in the early part of the 20th century By Thomas.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The original research area was termed
self fulfilling prophecies.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
Psychologist/Philosopher </SPAN>William James described it as "Faith in a fact
can sometimes help create that fact."<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">There is little doubt that certain
affirming beliefs, whether religious or secular in nature can be helpful to
certain people in certain situations.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>However, there are some large caveats to this approach.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Not all problems are amendable to help
from this approach.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If a grizzly
bear has chewed your leg off, it is quite improbable that prayer or any other
kind of affirming, positive belief will help a new leg grow.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> Using these methods may sometimes prevent
finding and using other approaches/therapies that would be far more
effective. </SPAN>Further, like all medicines and therapies, the effects
on different people of this approach will vary quite widely and there can be
some negative side effects with some people.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">But, the main point again is that
beneficial results from prayer, chanting, transcendental meditation, or
from any secular positive affirming belief strategy is not evidence of any
alleged god but is evidence of an ordinary human phenomena that can be studied
empirically and the results applied.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p></o:p></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p><FONT size=4><BR>Art Deco
(Wayne A. Fox)<BR><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A><BR></FONT> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT
size=4></FONT></o:p></SPAN></P></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=4>From: "Donovan Arnold" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com"><FONT
size=4>donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</FONT></A><FONT size=4>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>To: "Art Deco" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"><FONT size=4>deco@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT
size=4>>; "Vision 2020" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT
size=4>vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT size=4>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 12:56 AM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Is John Calvin an
Intolerista?</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT size=4>> "If there is a god, then
this god may be indifferent<BR>> to humankind, totally or partially amoral,
have a<BR>> totally different conception of good/evil, or be<BR>>
partially or totally evil in the terms of humankind."<BR>> Wayne Fox<BR>>
<BR>> I do think that God can be evil if the definition of<BR>> evil in
the believer of God is anything which is the<BR>> anti-thesis of God. In
other words, God cannot do that<BR>> which is against Himself- Anything he
does is good,<BR>> and not evil, because His actions and deeds are
what<BR>> define those terms as good and evil. If God kills bad<BR>>
people, God killing bad people is good. If God makes<BR>> the corn grow then
God's growing of corn is good. If<BR>> God makes the corn die, then God
making the corn die<BR>> is good. No matter what He does, it is good,
and<BR>> anything of the opposite of God is evil. <BR>>
<BR>> "The question of the existence<BR>>> or nonexistence of an object
with certain qualities<BR>>> whether it be a black hole, a unicorn, or
some<BR>>> alleged god is a matter of reasoning and verifiable<BR>>>
evidence, not just fanciful and/or linguistically<BR>>> nonsensical
speculation."--Wayne Fox<BR>> <BR>> I do not think people can define
anything<BR>> scientifically in positive terms. You can only define<BR>>
things as what they are not or in relation to others<BR>> things already
defined in our minds. Science cannot<BR>> tell us if there is a God or not
because something can<BR>> exist without us being able to measure it.
However,<BR>> God can tell us individually that he exists. We can<BR>>
though, measure some of the effects of those that<BR>> believe in God and
prayer. <BR>> <BR>> -DJA<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> --- Art Deco <</FONT><A href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"><FONT
size=4>deco@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT size=4>> wrote:<BR>> <BR>>>
Michael, et al,<BR>>> <BR>>> The existence of evil is
not an argument for the<BR>>> existence or nonexistence of some god.
If there is<BR>>> a god, then this god may be indifferent to<BR>>>
humankind, totally or partially amoral, have a<BR>>> totally different
conception of good/evil, or be<BR>>> partially or totally evil in the
terms of humankind.<BR>>> If some people are seriously arguing that
evil<BR>>> exists means there is no god of some kind, they
need<BR>>> to retake Logic 101. The question of the
existence<BR>>> or nonexistence of an object with certain
qualities<BR>>> whether it be a black hole, a unicorn, or some<BR>>>
alleged god is a matter of reasoning and verifiable<BR>>> evidence, not
just fanciful and/or linguistically<BR>>> nonsensical
speculation.<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>>
However, all of what you argue below is irrelevant<BR>>> to the central
point of my post, which is:<BR>>> <BR>>> If god did not
know, then it/she/him is not<BR>>> omniscient.<BR>>>
<BR>>> If god did know, then it/she/him is not<BR>>>
omnibenevolent.<BR>>> <BR>>>
<BR>>> Further, there is a great hypocrisy and fallacy in<BR>>>
rejecting the deductive approach: In order to<BR>>> reject it, you
must use it. Further, in rejecting<BR>>> the deductive approach
[specifically reductio ad<BR>>> absurdum and modus tollens], you are
rejecting tools<BR>>> upon whose application in great part all<BR>>>
mathematics, science, and everyday practical<BR>>> knowledge is discovered
and used. If logic is not<BR>>> applicable to statements about some
alleged god,<BR>>> then knowledge thereof, in the ordinary meaning
of<BR>>> "knowledge", is not possible.<BR>>>
<BR>>> <BR>>> Anticipating other
comments:<BR>>> <BR>>> If some alleged god is knowable,
then so far<BR>>> humankind hasn't an inkling based upon the
millions<BR>>> of different contradictory religious claims of<BR>>>
its/her/his properties.<BR>>> <BR>>> If some alleged god
is unknowable, then there is no<BR>>> way by definition to test or even to
validly claim<BR>>> the truth of any statement about
it/her/him.<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>>
Statements about god are either [1] true, [2] false,<BR>>> or [3]
nonsensical.<BR>>> <BR>>> [2] If they
are contradictory, they are false.<BR>>> <BR>>>
[3] If they are nonsensical, they are not<BR>>>
verifiable and perhaps not even comprehensible<BR>>> except in a
syntactical context.<BR>>> <BR>>> [1]
So far, there is no agreement about the truth<BR>>> of statements of the
existence or the properties of<BR>>> many alleged gods. Worst yet,
unlike statements<BR>>> about gravity, herpes, and/or continental
drift<BR>>> there is no agreed upon valid , fruitful method to<BR>>>
test the truth of such statements about the<BR>>> existence or the
properties of these alleged gods<BR>>> except possibly by the vote of
authoritarian or<BR>>> popular sentiment, a hardly reliable
method.<BR>>> <BR>>>
Continuing:<BR>>> <BR>>> Your last paragraph
below (and the attempts by many<BR>>> philosophers and theologians) is a
classical example<BR>>> of equivocation -- using "good" in one way
when<BR>>> referring to humankind and another way when<BR>>>
referring to some alleged god. <BR>>> <BR>>>
[Equivocation: <BR>>> </FONT><A
href="http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/equiv.htm"><FONT
size=4>http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/equiv.htm</FONT></A><FONT
size=4>]<BR>>> <BR>>> If you think that a person
creating a baby in order<BR>>> to torture it is not evil, then you are
using the<BR>>> word quite differently than what is generally
meant<BR>>> by "evil" when humankind use the word. The<BR>>>
equivocation is in saying creating a baby in order<BR>>> to torture it is
evil for humans, but not evil for<BR>>> some alleged god who allegedly
created us and who<BR>>> also allegedly tortures us (Example: when a
baby<BR>>> dies in screaming agony of leukemia or when this<BR>>>
alleged god allegedly sends the majority of his<BR>>> human creations to
suffer the extreme misery of<BR>>> eternal combustion). As in the
examples given in<BR>>> the link above, you are using "good" and "evil"
in<BR>>> two different ways in your argument.<BR>>>
<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> As a note, the
problem of predestination and god's<BR>>> foreknowledge is related to the
problem of evil, but<BR>>> is not isomorphic to
it.<BR>>> <BR>>> Here is a classic statement of the
problem of evil:<BR>>> <BR>>> [A] If
God is omnibenevolent and had the power to<BR>>> do so, it would prevent
evil from existing.<BR>>> <BR>>>
[B] If God is omnipotent, it has the power to do<BR>>>
anything, including the power to prevent evil from<BR>>>
existing.<BR>>> <BR>>> [C] God is
omnibenevolent and omnipotent.<BR>>> <BR>>>
Therefore,<BR>>> <BR>>> [D] God would
prevent evil from existing.<BR>>> <BR>>>
Therefore,<BR>>> <BR>>> [1] Evil does
not exist.<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>>
On the other hand:<BR>>> <BR>>> [E]
Babies dying of leukemia screaming in agony<BR>>> is an evil.<BR>>>
[F] Old folks unable to control their bowels is<BR>>> an
evil.<BR>>> [G] The extermination by Hitler of
about<BR>>> 6,000,000 Jews is an evil.<BR>>> [H]
Repeatedly raping then murdering a young<BR>>> child is an
evil.<BR>>> <BR>>> Therefore,<BR>>>
<BR>>> [2] Evil exists.<BR>>>
<BR>>> <BR>>> Note that [1] and [2] are contradictory,
hence one<BR>>> or the other is false.<BR>>>
<BR>>> In my opinion, given the ordinary usage of the word<BR>>>
"evil", only someone quite delusional would deny [E]<BR>>> - [H], their
basis in fact, and therefore [2].<BR>>> <BR>>> Hence,
[1] [Evil does not exist] is false.<BR>>> <BR>>>
Therefore, since [A] and [B] are merely and clearly<BR>>> definitions,
then [C] God is omnibenevolent and<BR>>> omnipotent is also
false.<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> Notice
again please, this is not an argument for the<BR>>> nonexistence of all
alleged gods. It is only a<BR>>> demonstration that a alleged
omnibenevolent,<BR>>> omnipotent god cannot exist (just as a person
with<BR>>> exactly 1 arm and exactly five arms cannot exist). <BR>>>
For example, the god of the Zoroastrians is not<BR>>> claimed to be
omnipotent. Unlike the definition of<BR>>> most Christian sects'
god,the problem of evil does<BR>>> not disprove (nor give any probability
for) the<BR>>> Zoroastrian's god's existence.<BR>>>
<BR>>> <BR>>> Also please note that if it is alleged
that some god<BR>>> is omnipotent, then that god has the power
to<BR>>> deceive or to prevent any knowledge of itself.
That<BR>>> means, that those who allege an omnipotent (or even<BR>>>
a vastly powerful god) are prevented from certain or<BR>>> even probable
knowledge thereof, since there is no<BR>>> way of knowing whether they are
being deceived or<BR>>> are in error. [Although ignorance, hubris,
<BR>>> egomania, and/or megalomania do not prevent some<BR>>> from
asserting their superiority to their alleged<BR>>> omnipotent god by
claiming certain or probable<BR>>> knowledge of
it/her/him.]<BR>>> <BR>>> Art Deco (Wayne A.
Fox)<BR>>> </FONT><A href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"><FONT
size=4>deco@moscow.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=4>>> <BR>>>
<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> ----- Original Message -----
<BR>>> From: Michael <BR>>> To: </FONT><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT
size=4>vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT size=4> <BR>>>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 4:30 PM<BR>>> Subject:
[Vision2020] Is John Calvin an<BR>>> Intolerista?<BR>>> <BR>>>
<BR>>> Wayne,<BR>>> <BR>>>
<BR>>> <BR>>> That was a good summary of the argument
from the<BR>>> problem of evil. However, over the last decade
or<BR>>> so most philosophers (as I hear) have been uneasy<BR>>>
with such a deductive approach. The reason is that,<BR>>> well,
<BR>> === message truncated ===><BR>>
_____________________________________________________<BR>>> List
services made available by First Step<BR>>> Internet, <BR>>>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>>>
<BR>>>
</FONT><A href="http://www.fsr.net"><FONT
size=4>http://www.fsr.net</FONT></A><FONT
size=4>
<BR>>>
<BR>>>
</FONT><A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT
size=4>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=4>>><BR>>
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ<BR>>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> __________________________________ <BR>> Yahoo!
FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.<BR>> </FONT><A
href="http://farechase.yahoo.com"><FONT
size=4>http://farechase.yahoo.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=4>>
<BR>></FONT></BODY></HTML>