<!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:x =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" 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>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">Note to the one or two people who
might actually read this or part of this post:<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It will not display correctly in plain
text mode, but hopefully will using HTML.<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">Michael,<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 you are to argue with what I
write, at least do not attribute arguments to me that I haven't
made.<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">Example:<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>You say:<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>I’m not sure if all
philosophers with PhD’s who have given their lives to this subject matter need
to 'retake Logic 101…'"<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">I made no such claim about all
philosophers.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>What I argued (and
you agreed with) is saying that evil exists does not preclude (nor prove) the
existence of some kind 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"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">The arguments I discussed
were:<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; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">[1]<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>The problem that asserting
that an alleged god has foreknowledge and the assertion it created
freewill engenders for the concept of a god also alleged to be
omnipotent (including omniscience) and omnibenevolent (perfectly
good).<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">[2]<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>The problem of evil which shows the
problem (a contradiction) of asserting the existence an omnipotent,
omnibenevolent god on one hand and the reality of evil on the
other.<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">Historically and logically [1] and
[2] have been related in this way:<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>The alleged granting of freewill to humankind by an alleged omnipotent,
omnibenevolent god is often an attempt to "explain away" the problem of evil –
it is not god who creates evil but evil results from humankind's misuse of
freewill.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If you followed the
classical argument about predestination I paraphrased at the start of this
discussion, you will see that such an attempt is not successful. More on
this point just below.<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">To respond generally to your
points:<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; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">[1]<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>Suppose Giovanni was walking down
the street and saw a normal five year old child who had splashed gasoline all
around and on itself and was preparing to strike a match.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Would it be good for Giovanni to stop
the child before it engulfed itself in flames?<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Would it not be evil for Giovanni not to
intervene but to merely observe what would happened without an attempted
intervention?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">Worst yet, suppose
Giovanni saw a curious child playing in a dry grassy field.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Suppose then Giovanni gave that child a
can of gasoline and some matches.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>Suppose Giovanni knew the curious nature of the child would most likely
result in actions of the child which would set itself and the field afire.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Would not the word "evil" apply to
Giovanni?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: blue; 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 you answered "No" to the above
question, then we live in different worlds and further dialogue between us would
not be fruitful.<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">How is the above example related
to the problems of freewill/predestination and the problem of evil?<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Read on.<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; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: red; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">[2]<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>Suppose some alleged omnipotent god
created the universe and humankind.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>Further, suppose:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: red; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: red; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">That this god gave
humankind freewill, which this god, being omnipotent, knew humankind would
misuse.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>God, being omniscient, knew
that this misuse would result in colossal suffering, misery, injustice, and many
other things which in ordinary language are called "evil".<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Was this not an "evil"
action?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: red; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: red; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">[3]<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>Suppose some alleged omnipotent god
created the universe and humankind.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>Further, suppose:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: red; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: red; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">That this god did not
give humankind freewill, which god, being omniscient, knew what the results
would be.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This god, being
omniscient, knew his predestination of everything would result in colossal
suffering, misery, injustice, and other things which in ordinary language are
called "evil".<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Was this not an
"evil" action?<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">In a nutshell, whether you
answered the above questions in <SPAN style="COLOR: red">[2]</SPAN> and <SPAN
style="COLOR: red">[3]</SPAN> above <SPAN style="COLOR: purple">"Yes"</SPAN> or
answered them <SPAN style="COLOR: purple">"No"</SPAN>, the result is the
same:<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 you answered <SPAN
style="COLOR: #993366">"No"</SPAN>, you are asserting that the actions of this
alleged god in <SPAN style="COLOR: red">[2]</SPAN> and <SPAN
style="COLOR: red">[3]</SPAN> above are not evil.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Thus, there is a clear equivocation
between the use of the word "evil" in <SPAN style="COLOR: blue">[1]</SPAN> above
and <SPAN style="COLOR: red">[2]</SPAN> and <SPAN style="COLOR: red">[3]</SPAN>
above.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If the word "evil" is used
to apply to Giovanni's knowingly and intentionally placing a child in harms way,
then there is a change of usage of "evil", therefore the meaning of "evil", to
not apply "evil" to some alleged god's knowingly and intentionally placing
humankind in harms way.<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 you answered <SPAN
style="COLOR: #993366">"Yes"</SPAN> to the questions in <SPAN
style="COLOR: red">[2]</SPAN> and <SPAN style="COLOR: red">[3]</SPAN> above,
then you cannot assert that this alleged god is perfectly good
(omnibenevolent).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>His knowingly and
intentionally acting in a way that created evil is a fly in the ointment of his
alleged perfect goodness – something is not perfect by definition if it has even
a single flaw in it.<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">To finish the argument:<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If you try to assert that this alleged
god did not knowingly and intentionally cause evil because it/she/him did not
know what the results it its/hers/his creation would be, then you have lost
omniscience and thus omnipotence.<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">Either a <SPAN
style="COLOR: #993366">"Yes" </SPAN>or<SPAN style="COLOR: #993366"> "No"</SPAN>
answer to the above questions results in demonstrating that an omnipotent,
omnibenevolent god is not a logical possibility – it exposes a fatal
contradiction in such a hypothesis.<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">To state the obvious:<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The above analysis is to demonstrate
that in the ordinary use of the word "evil" (of which I gave an ostensive
definition by using a concrete example), some being who is benevolent and could
prevent an evil, would prevent an evil.<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"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">You make the claim
that:<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">"This deductive form of the
argument has apparently been abandoned for about 20 years among philosophers
because of the issue of ‘free-will.’"<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">I doubt that this statement is
true.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Perhaps you can produce a
survey of philosophical and theological literature for the last 20 years to
demonstrate it.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I know from casual
reading that not all philosophers, theologians, etc have abandoned the deductive
approach in matters of the existence and nature of various alleged gods.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Certainly there have been recent
so-called inductive attempts at demonstrating the existence of god and/or its
properties.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Such attempts are not
limited to the last 20 years or even the last 2,000 years.<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">The deductive approach has been
abandoned by some Christian and Islamic apologists mainly because there are no
satisfactory answers to the problem of evil, the problem
predestination/freewill, and/or similar problems which do not entail sacrificing
either omnipotence or omnibenevolence.<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">The major problem with your claim
cited above is that induction also requires the use of deduction.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Inductive processes rely heavily and are
dependent upon deductive processes.<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">Induction, in a nutshell, works
thusly:<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">Observations are made, data is
collected, etc.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>A <B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="COLOR: blue">theory/model</SPAN></B> is developed during this process
(such development also continually uses deductive processes, but for brevity, I
leave it to you to discover this).<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">The <B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN style="COLOR: red">first
test</SPAN></B> for a<B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="COLOR: blue"> theory/model </SPAN></B>is for internal logical consistency
(freedom from contradictions) – discovering contradictions is a </SPAN><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 18pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">deductive</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"> process.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>An inductive <B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN style="COLOR: blue">theory/model
</SPAN></B>is not a plausible inductive model if it is internally
contradictory.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>[That is why any
inductive theory/model asserting an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god cannot even
get to the next step.]<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">The purpose of the <B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="COLOR: blue">theory/model</SPAN></B> is [1] to explain the
data/observations (although there is some disagreement what this means or
whether this is an essential function of a <B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="COLOR: blue">theory/model)</SPAN></B> and [2] to predict <SPAN
style="COLOR: blue">further expected observations</SPAN>, whether to
confirm/disconfirm the theory and/or to apply it in some desired
manner.<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">The<SPAN style="COLOR: blue"> <B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">second – n tests</B> of an inductive <B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">theory/model</B> </SPAN>are<SPAN
style="COLOR: blue"> </SPAN></SPAN><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 18pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">deducing</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"> expected
observations</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"> from it
and then seeing if those observations occur.<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 some of the further expected
observations are made, then the theory/model is said to have received some
degree of confirmation.<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">However, if the further expected
observations do not occur, but different contradictory observations are made,
then the theory/model is disconfirmed.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>It then must either be modified to accommodate the unexpected
observations or abandoned.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This is
a clear application of the </SPAN><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 18pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">deductive
process</SPAN></B><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"> known as
<I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Modus Tollens</I>.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>[If A implies B, and not B is true, then
not A is true.]<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">A <B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="COLOR: blue">theory/model</SPAN></B> is not inductive model unless future
observations are deducible from it, observations which can, in principle, occur
or not occur.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If there are no
future observations predicted that could, in principle, possibly be false, the
theory/model is not an inductive one since there is no practical or logical way
to disconfirm the theory.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>[If you
like, I could repost the Theory of the Odg as an example of a pseudo-inductive
theory.]<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">Declarative statements, theories,
models are </SPAN><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 18pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">knowledge
claims</SPAN></B><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"> requiring
logical consistency and in the case of statements outside of axiomatic or
quasi-axiomatic systems, some kind of observational confirmation to be
rationally believed.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN><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">Personally, I do not chose nor
psychologically need to chose to believe any of the current knowledge claims
about supernatural beings, powers, etc because, unlike statements about, birds,
areas, the composition of soil on Mars, etc, there is no way to test the
probability of the truth of such claims except by testing them for
contradictions (which is what part of this discussion is about). Personally, I
do not chose to regulate my behavior or attempt to regulate the behavior of
others on assertions about the nature of some supernatural being(s), which
statements, </SPAN><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 18pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">as of the present</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">, are without a whit of rational
proof.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>However, there is always the
possibility that future theories/models and observations will shed some light on
the nature of the now or future alleged supernatural
beings.<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">There is an interesting analysis
of an inductive theory/model asserting the existence of a powerful, but not
all-powerful god with certain other traits including benevolence.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I could also post that, but it is very
likely you would not find it at all comforting the current state of your
spiritual safari.<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">Perhaps, before you get too
enamored of applying inductive methodology to supernatural
phenomena/superstitions, you might learn a bit more about it.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Perhaps you could do this by taking Dr.
Joseph Campbell's <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Philosophy of Science
</I>course.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Such a venture may or
may not be soul-satisfying, but it would allow you to understand some of the
tools you are attempting in your spiritual quest.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It may also provide you with some
welcome growth.<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 you have a basic knowledge of
symbolic logic, I could recast the statements of the problem of evil and the
problem of freewill/predestination given before in a form to which you could
apply the sentential calculus (a decidable system) to test their
validity.<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">I suspect all but one or two
Vision 2020 users grow weary of this thread.<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></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<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 10:19
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><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="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Wayne Fox Writes:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">“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><B><FONT
face="Times New Roman">and</FONT></B></STRONG> verifiable evidence, not just
fanciful and/or linguistically
nonsensical speculation.”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Me: <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Wayne</SPAN></FONT></st1:City></st1:place>, you are
correct. The problem of evil is not necessarily an argument for or against the
existence of some actual god. Rather the problem of evil is an argument
against any god who is all knowing, all good, and all powerful. Of
course, the Christian God must be all three of these things, so if it is shown
that any god who is all knowing, all good, and all powerful does not exist,
then you have by default an argument also against the Christian God. And
since human beings are usually not concerned about whatever dozens of ‘logical
possibilities’ might be out there (see discussion with Ted), the non-existence
of the Christian God is typically the ultimate goal behind this sort of
argumentation. I’m not sure if all philosophers with PhD’s who have given
their lives to this subject matter need to “retake Logic 101.” I’m
beginning to wonder who really is for or against contemporary academia, the
secularist or the fundamentalist? Have fundamentalists successfully
taken over our public schools at the graduate level already? But I now
speak merely rhetorically, so I’ll go on.<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Wayne</SPAN></FONT></st1:City></st1:place>
Writes:<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">However, all of what you argue below is irrelevant to
the central point of my post, which is:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">If god did not know, then it/she/him is not
omniscient.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">If god did know, then it/she/him is not
omnibenevolent.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Me:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">I’m not sure how all I wrote is irrelevant to this
central point. Your claim here is that if god-x knows the evil in the world,
then god-x cannot be truly good. Obviously the assumed premises here are
1) a truly good god-x is also all powerful, and 2) a truly good god-x would
use this power to keep evil non-existent. Also obvious is that it is
this second assumed premise that does all the work for you. In fact,
this argument is so stream-lined and simple (in its archaic deductive form),
it would seem that we should just state the argument by stating this premise:
a truly good god-x would use this power to keep evil non-existent. The
existence of evil is clearly a premise accepted by all people normally
participating in this particular discussion. Therefore a god-x who is all good
and all powerful cannot exist. Certainly, we need not worry ourselves
about the logical possibility of a god-x who doesn’t know anything, just as we
need not worry about Zeus or Athena, or other logically possible metaphysical
oddities. So to stream line the argument even further, at the expense of
removing all the beauty of its more historical and complex form, here’s the
gist of the argument: an all good (and all powerful) god-x would not permit
all this evil in the world. Therefore, an all good (all powerful) god-x
must not exist. The real contention here is obviously the moral
one. And if it were not the Christian God that was ultimately in the
cross-hairs, we would not be currently having this discussion to begin
with. Thus, the primary contention boils down to this: the goodness
claimed by the Christian God is called into question by all the evil in the
world. The suffering, the blood, and the torment rebuke the claim to
goodness Christians make for this so-called God.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">This deductive form of the argument has apparently
been abandoned for about 20 years among philosophers because of the issue of
‘free-will.’ The logical possibility of the freedom of the will of man I
guess reeks havoc to the deduction; but this is beyond my understanding.
Since most philosophers are concerned about the more interesting inductive
approach, I haven’t found the deductive form a fascinating field of study. The
free-will problem is with regard to the “all powerful” attribute of god-x, but
I’m willing to grant that there is no important ‘limit’ to the power of God
regarding the problem of evil. So it is the “all good” attribute we now
must confront. You say that any all good god-x could not permit evil,
and so therefore the particular Christian God could not permit evil. In
response, I say that regardless of how all the other logical possible god-x’s
fair on this matter, the Christian god-x could permit evil. In other
words, God’s goodness is not incompatible with a sovereign permission and
sustaining of evil in the world. In turn, of course, if the Christian God’s
goodness is not incompatible with evil, then your more general claim about any
god-x could not be true. Only one possible god-x would refute your
claim.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">And this last point is important given some of your
claims about the problem of evil. Even if the Christian God were not in
your cross hairs, all I must do to refute your more general claim about god-x
is propose one logically possible god-x who’s goodness is compatible with
evil. Now, the fact that the Christian God is not some sort of “alleged”
deity, proposed religion, or metaphysical hypothesis needs to be
stressed. The Christian God is not something thought up by a philosophy
graduate student in the last few years. This is the Hebraic, ancient
religion that goes back further than western philosophy and that spans the
course of much of the world’s recorded history and culture. It is
something that has commanded kinds, brought arrogant men to their knees, and
is claimed to indwell the hearts of children. So ultimately, we should not
accept an analysis of the Christian God as if ‘he’ were merely some new
scientific, ‘alleged’ hypothesis, up for scrutiny by the minds of weak and
finite people. With that qualification strongly noted however, I
reiterate that all I need to do, for the sake of argument, is propose a
logically possible god who’s goodness is not incompatible evil, and your
deductive argument fails. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate, merely on the
logical level, to discuss the uniqueness of only the Christian God.
Perhaps there is no other god-x will do. Perhaps you have successfully
mounted an argument against Allah, or the Great Unicorn. I’m right with
you; I’d be happy to help further the cause. I’m sure that Allah and the Great
Unicorn don’t weather your argument very well. However, I think the unique
character of the Christian God, as revealed in church tradition, the testimony
of believers, and the scriptures, is immune to your deduction. His
goodness is compatible with evil; in fact the nature of His goodness is
immensely compatible with the world’s evil. The world’s evil is what
will display the goodness, glory, grace, truth, and mercy of the eternal God
forever. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Wayne</SPAN></FONT></st1:City></st1:place> Writes:
<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">“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.”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Me:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Actually, I don’t think this is true of
deduction. Most our acquired knowledge and most of the arguments we are
able to really ‘make stick’ are inductive in nature. Certainly, math is highly
axiomatic, but science is primarily inductive. Deductive syllogisms are very
simple, and in disagreement and debate, it is always one of the premises that
is found to be wanting, the truth of which is usually decided through
inductive means. Also, to say that the deductive approach to a particular
argument doesn’t work does not in any way call into question ‘deduction’
itself. It just means that induction is going to have to ultimately
settle the matter. But this will have to just play itself out naturally;
for now, I’m willing to go with the deductive way you’ve laid out your
argument, but this just means I have to dispute one of the premises, namely,
that goodness and evil are incompatible for any god-x. I will do this by
‘proposing’ a particular god-x for which this is not
true.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Wayne</SPAN></FONT></st1:City></st1:place>
Wrote:<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">“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.”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Me:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">I’m not following you here <st1:place
w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Wayne</st1:City></st1:place>. However, I
think Ted and I have already taken this up a little bit, but we’re still
waiting for Ted’s response (which he informed me he still plans to
give). Just because everybody in the world does not believe a statement
is not necessarily evidence for the fact that the statement is not true.
In fact, just the opposite is the case. Most statements we currently
take as true about science, medicine, politics, and religion have not been
thought true by most people (as far as I can tell).
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Wayne</SPAN></FONT></st1:City></st1:place>
Wrote: <o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">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. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Me: <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">I really don’t think you have yet established
equivocation on my part. I compared contemporary secular intuitions
about what is ‘good’ for something like a Christian God with classical
Christian intuitions about what is ‘good’ for something like a Christian God.
We can disagree about what would truly be ‘good’ without equivocation.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Michael Metzler<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></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>