Problem of Evil / Suffering
Paul Bramscher
evil, if you want to attach morality to it). I've come up with a
general categorical breakdown of all past attempts I've seen to describe
it:
(1) Non-theism. Science. The way of things. Things experience
erosion and death, it's simply imbedded in nature's laws: isotopic
decay, entropy, neurons, etc. With the capacity to experience pleasure
comes the capacity to experience pain and suffering. With health and
life comes disease and death.
(2) Suffering does not exist. (Buddhism: it's illusory, the result of
attachment to ego).
(3) Punishment. Suffering is diving retribution for sins, original
sin, wrong in a past life (karma), or wrongs committed by your
racial/ethnic group (Judaism/Christian interpretation). Maybe there's
justice in the end, maybe not.
(4) Freewill. Suffering results from freewill. We're free agents, and
suffering is simply the necessary byproduct of such a world. Of course,
if you're in the path of someone else's freewill -- too bad.
(5) A limited deity. A religious explanation, this category requires
that God is somehow not omniscient to see suffering, not omnipotent to
stop it, or not omnibenevolent to desire its cessation.
(6) An external source. The devil did it, the evil spirits, etc. This
approach is easiest under polytheistic systems, since one can attribute
goodness to good spirits, and evil to evil spirits. In a monotheistic
system, you have no choice but to attribute good and evil -- ultimately
-- to the same Creator divinity.
(7) Some kind of semantic redefinition. For example, maybe we simply
mislabel suffering. Perhaps it's actually partial goodness.
(8) A change of perspective. Maybe the whole question is wrong, and we
need to focus on our response rather than on the reasons. Or that we
simply can't understand suffering enough to phrase the question, let
alone understand the answer.
(9) A Master Plan. Some divine master plan of which we're completely
ignorant and must accept on faith.
Anyone have new ideas on this topic? What are the merits and pitfalls
of various explanations? Which explanations overlap? Which are
mutually exclusive?
WebAndRob
>of various explanations? Which explanations overlap? Which are
>mutually exclusive?
>
I would like to propose a variant on 9, just for discussion. It is an attempted
answer to your point 5 (the 'incompatible triad' argument - that belief in an
omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is incompatible with acknowledging the existence
of evil).
Concepts can only exist in relation to what they are not, their opposites. For
example, if there was no darkness, there could be no light, because if it was
light always and everywhere, there would be no need for a concept of light. If
there was no left, there could be no right; if there was no top, there could be
no bottom.
It is the existence of evil and suffering which makes one appreciate and value
virtue and happiness all the more. In fact, without evil and suffering, one
could not even identify what is good - in theory or in practice.
Mike Dubbeld
"Paul Bramscher" <bram...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message
news:3C854064...@tc.umn.edu...
> I'm interested in everyone's thoughts on the problem of suffering (or
> evil, if you want to attach morality to it). I've come up with a
> general categorical breakdown of all past attempts I've seen to describe
> it:
>
> (1) Non-theism. Science. The way of things. Things experience
> erosion and death, it's simply imbedded in nature's laws: isotopic
> decay, entropy, neurons, etc. With the capacity to experience pleasure
> comes the capacity to experience pain and suffering. With health and
> life comes disease and death.
> (2) Suffering does not exist. (Buddhism: it's illusory, the result of
> attachment to ego).
This is true. It is not possible for the soul to suffer. Only the mind and
ego.
Pain from the body is natures mechanism to enable survival. But the body
is nature also. Which reminds me actually that I need to check on pain
and cortical representation in the brain. How pain is shut down exactly.
Dharma Sing Khalsa a neuroscientist and pain expert I need to talk to.
> (3) Punishment. Suffering is diving retribution for sins, original
> sin, wrong in a past life (karma), or wrongs committed by your
> racial/ethnic group (Judaism/Christian interpretation). Maybe there's
> justice in the end, maybe not.
You are the creator of all you attract. Everything that we experience at
all times is due to causes in our past. They may not make sense to the
mind because the mind can not remember past births. Suffering can
appear to be unjust. 'Everything is as it should be' Every single thing down
to the atomic level in the universe is exactly how it should be.
> (4) Freewill. Suffering results from freewill. We're free agents, and
> suffering is simply the necessary byproduct of such a world. Of course,
> if you're in the path of someone else's freewill -- too bad.
Freewill only exists for the mind. It appears to exist for the mind because
the mind can not know the future. In Reality there is no such thing. God
knows all things at all times. So do we who are the image of that God.
It is a matter of recollection. (In the West this first appeared or was one
of the first appearances as the Platonic Dialogue Meno. How did the
barbarian slave boy know the Pythagorean Theorem? Socrates answer
is that he always knew it. It is a matter of recollection.) The mind sorts
experiences into sets of good and bad as determined by the ego. One
label for the 'bad' box is 'suffering'. Suffering as you say above is a
byproduct of the world - the result of your past karma. The soul has
free will. The ego as a reflection of the soul falsely belives that this
reflected quality of the soul it also has. But the ego is not the soul and
appears to suffer in experiences. It can not and never will understand
why it is not free. The physical body is bound to the laws of the physical
universe. You can not fly. Your body must obey the law of gravity.
Your body is not free. Your mind also is composed of matter. As such
it also is not free. The soul is the only thing that is free - but because
it
is fooled by the ego into believing it is the Doer (Karta) and Experiencer
(Bhota) it is bound to to the universe also as a Jiva - bound soul. In
Reality however the universe has no hold on the soul whatsoever and in
Swami Viviekanandas words 'and the Purusha (soul) so great that the
whole universe seems as a drop in the ocean and falls off by its own
nothingness'.
> (5) A limited deity. A religious explanation, this category requires
> that God is somehow not omniscient to see suffering, not omnipotent to
> stop it, or not omnibenevolent to desire its cessation.
Gods exist. They are what the west would call a 'fallen angel'
> (6) An external source. The devil did it, the evil spirits, etc. This
> approach is easiest under polytheistic systems, since one can attribute
> goodness to good spirits, and evil to evil spirits. In a monotheistic
> system, you have no choice but to attribute good and evil -- ultimately
> -- to the same Creator divinity.
The ego is the devil. The ego is the master deceiver and is literally 'that
which separates you from God.' (I can easily elaborate in great detail)
> (7) Some kind of semantic redefinition. For example, maybe we simply
> mislabel suffering. Perhaps it's actually partial goodness.
There is no such thing as good and bad. These are constructions of the mind.
Good and bad are arbitrary buckets that the ego classifies experiences into.
When something is good or bad it can depend on whos shoes you are standing
in at the time of the event. It is the morality issue. Good and bad are of
the same
stuff as all other dualistic concepts the mind understands things with. That
is
a major flaw of the mind. The mind can not grasp certain things. It can only
understand something in terms of another thing. For this exact same reason
the mind can never understand infinity - or God.
> (8) A change of perspective. Maybe the whole question is wrong, and we
> need to focus on our response rather than on the reasons. Or that we
> simply can't understand suffering enough to phrase the question, let
> alone understand the answer.
> (9) A Master Plan. Some divine master plan of which we're completely
> ignorant and must accept on faith.
Western Religions bank heavily on faith. Yoga does not require faith - only
insofar as you have to have faith to test its hypothesis/theory. Faith is
the
sort of thing you walk around with until you get the facts.
>
>
>
> Anyone have new ideas on this topic? What are the merits and pitfalls
> of various explanations? Which explanations overlap? Which are
> mutually exclusive?
You mind is asking these questions. In the west it is generally accepted
that
we are our minds (and egos) From concentration and meditation and
other spiritual activities this little bubble is burst. But it is not
something
you will ever get from intellectualizing about - ever. The practice of the
activities of concentration and meditation are the only things that
will enable a person to perceive the truth. The mind can not and never will
be able to know God. God is an experience and of the type of experience
that can not be had by the sense organs. The mind and sense organs need
to be made quite to be able to perceive your own real nature of the soul
and concentration and meditation are the means to do this.
Mike Dubbeld
>
Douglas E Gogerty
<bram...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>I'm interested in everyone's thoughts on the problem of suffering (or
>evil, if you want to attach morality to it). I've come up with a
>general categorical breakdown of all past attempts I've seen to describe
>it:
>
>(1) Non-theism. Science. The way of things. Things experience
>erosion and death, it's simply imbedded in nature's laws: isotopic
>decay, entropy, neurons, etc. With the capacity to experience pleasure
>comes the capacity to experience pain and suffering. With health and
>life comes disease and death.
>(2) Suffering does not exist. (Buddhism: it's illusory, the result of
>attachment to ego).
>(3) Punishment. Suffering is diving retribution for sins, original
>sin, wrong in a past life (karma), or wrongs committed by your
>racial/ethnic group (Judaism/Christian interpretation). Maybe there's
>justice in the end, maybe not.
>(4) Freewill. Suffering results from freewill. We're free agents, and
>suffering is simply the necessary byproduct of such a world. Of course,
>if you're in the path of someone else's freewill -- too bad.
>(5) A limited deity. A religious explanation, this category requires
>that God is somehow not omniscient to see suffering, not omnipotent to
>stop it, or not omnibenevolent to desire its cessation.
I would say the above 5 are all reasonable and not mutually exclusive.
Everything dies. It is part of the great cycle of things. How do we
react to the death of friends and loved ones? Most western cultures
impose suffering upon themselves. In some cultures death is
celebrated. It is a time of great rejoicing. The spirit has been
freed and will experience great things in the afterlife. Which is
right? It is two different points of view on the same event. IE [2]
in response to [1].
Why wouldn't the nature of things put forward a system that would
punish those who behaved badly in a past life? If an eternal soul
existed, then it seems to reason that a mechanism could easily be put
in place to punish those that chose the wrong path. This would allow
free will. People could choose to inflict suffering upon others.
That is, to sin against their fellow inhabitants. If we allow free
will, we must allow for a limited deity. How would an omnicient being
know the future and what will happen in it if our free will dictates
that the future is unknown? Thus, [4] implies [5].
If this limited deity's job was not to meddle in the actions of
others, then free will would definitely be the result. Thus, it isn't
necessarily the case that this limited deity doesn't care or doesn't
want to stop it, it is just that their may be limited tools at its
disposal. In the way that I see the Universe, [1] - [5] are all the
causes for our suffering.
>(6) An external source. The devil did it, the evil spirits, etc. This
>approach is easiest under polytheistic systems, since one can attribute
>goodness to good spirits, and evil to evil spirits. In a monotheistic
>system, you have no choice but to attribute good and evil -- ultimately
>-- to the same Creator divinity.
"The devil made me do it" is just a way for people to have to justify
their actions or the actions of others. If an action is unfathomable,
some mystic being must be responsible. It just seems like a cop out
to me. I am responsible for all my actions, and should be held
accountable as such.
>(7) Some kind of semantic redefinition. For example, maybe we simply
>mislabel suffering. Perhaps it's actually partial goodness.
Starvation is not semantic. I suppose it could be seen by some as
being good as there is more food for the rest of us. However, if
suffering is personal, it can't be semantic.
>(8) A change of perspective. Maybe the whole question is wrong, and we
>need to focus on our response rather than on the reasons. Or that we
>simply can't understand suffering enough to phrase the question, let
>alone understand the answer.
I'm waffling on this one. I think it is because I don't really know
what it means. I certainly think that the best way to end suffering
is for everyone to try to stop inflicting it upon each other. A very
daunting task to say the least. If the Israelis and the Palestinians
could forgive what each party has done for the last 2000 years, then
there could be peace in the middle east.
However, I don't know how the dwelling upon the causes of suffering
causes suffering. (Wasn't that the thesis of this post???) If that
is not the intent of this item, I think it becomes essentially [2]
>(9) A Master Plan. Some divine master plan of which we're completely
>ignorant and must accept on faith.
>
This one is of course mutually exclusive to [4] and [5]. If we have
free will, then there could be no master plan. The future is
undecided by us having the will to shape it. Thus, there can be no
plan. Also, if we have a limitted deity, then again how would this
deity be able to shape and mold circumstances as part of a master
plan?
>
>
>Anyone have new ideas on this topic? What are the merits and pitfalls
>of various explanations? Which explanations overlap? Which are
>mutually exclusive?
This was well thought out and analyzed. Go Gophers!
Douglas E Gogerty No, I'm from Iowa...
DougG...@hotmail.com I just work in outer space.
http://DougGogerty.homestead.com -James T. Kirk
Paul Bramscher
more of a model of suffering than an explanatory device -- although there is
potential to take it a bit further. It goes roughly like this:
Borrowing from early computer science theory, suffering is like a "finite
state machine." Anything which can change state (even at a low level:
temperature, location, etc.) involves certain potentials. Something might
not be as warm as we'd like it, or as near as we'd like it, etc. Or maybe
something drops in its desired state (we get older, we get less healthy,
someone dies, etc.). Therefore, the simple ability to change state can
result in suffering.
But it's even more fundamental than this. Even if our FSM (finite state
machine) were halted, frozen statically, there would still be the potential
for suffering because we might notice that some things are warmer, closer,
more pleasurable, etc. than others. This would apply to things in the same
class of objects, as well as when comparing classes against each other.
Thus, I conclude that (a) ability to change and (b) ability to be
distinguishable as a separate entity (showing variation) can produce
suffering. This applies equally to all things/labels/concepts/actions. The
only things/labels/concepts/actions removed from the possibility of suffering
are those things which cannot possibly change, and those things (that thing)
which is not differentiated. There may be other prerequisites as well.
Interestingly, this is a reasonable conclusion from a Western science
perspective -- as well as basic Buddhist understanding of suffering.
But it's purely an intellectual exercise and doesn't do anything to alleviate
real suffering. It's like making the statement that A + A = 2A. It's not
the same as putting two apples in a basket and giving them to someone as a
gift. So I conclude that all attempts to explain the problem of suffering,
evil, theodicy, etc. which don't include a social action component can only
solve this problem in the abstract -- and this is the fundamental observation
that participants in religious bigotry and warfare have not made.
Mike Dubbeld
The intellectual exercise needs to be particularly pointed out here as you
have done. It is intellectual baggage. But still allowing the mind to
identify
the dream counts for something. By identifying all things that change can
cause suffering - says as you say brings conclusion that things that do
not change may not. What things do not change? God and the soul.
Which things can not be 'differentiated'? God and the soul. This won't
alleviate your suffering but by identifying more closely the causes of
suffering allows the mind to discriminate and attempt to validify through
experience this notion that things that do not change do not cause
suffering. The theory is one thing. The experience quite another. As
non-differentiation type entities the soul and mind can not be known
by the mind. But they can be experienced. Arm-chair philosophers and
Monday morning quarterbacks however are more the rule rather than the
exception. Theorizing endlessly but never dirtying your hands by actually
testing your theories/hypothesis appears to be the way of Western
philosophy.
"The devil made me do it" - translation - "My ego made me do it"
The will is not free from an Absolute standpoint but appears free to a
mind that does not know the future. God knows everything at all times.
In Vedanta there is a notion higher than God. God is the human Provincial
God that takes an interest in His creation. While this is true enough -
Brahman is the Impersonal/non-human aspect of Reality. God is
something 'humans' can understand. Brahman has no particular interest
in humanity per se.
Mike Dubbeld
Paul Bramscher
> The intellectual exercise needs to be particularly pointed out here as you
> have done. It is intellectual baggage. But still allowing the mind to
> identify
> the dream counts for something. By identifying all things that change can
> cause suffering - says as you say brings conclusion that things that do
> not change may not. What things do not change? God and the soul.
Note that the logical inverse does not necessarily follow. While any recipe has
certain ingredients, the ingredients can be used for other recipes and it's
possible to omit (or substitute) certain ingredients and still make something
edible. The only observation I'm willing to commit to is that with the
possibility to change and show variation comes the possibility for suffering.
Absence of change or variation (by themselves) do not necessarily imply absense
of suffering, although absense of suffering DOES imply absence of AT LEAST
possibility to change and show variation.
It could be argued that we were all in a perfect state before our conception.
Do I recall any suffering before I was conceived? No, but through heresay and
the study of history I know that it existed for others. It does seem reasonable
to assume that death is identical to the state of pre-conception. So, going
into death, we'll personally be released from suffering but we will do so with
the understanding that suffering for others will continue.
> Monday morning quarterbacks however are more the rule rather than the
> exception. Theorizing endlessly but never dirtying your hands by actually
> testing your theories/hypothesis appears to be the way of Western
> philosophy.
There have been a number of Western mystics
(http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/mys/whoswho.htm) that don't limit
themselves to theory. Your disillusionment results from the way that Western
philosophy is taught academically. I've come to observe that most all of the
humanities are taught as subject specialities of history. I've said elsewhere
that while we teach studio art, creative writing, and music performance (as
opposed to art history, literary criticism, and music history), we do not teach
an applied philosophy in academia. Rather than teaching philosophy as a
language or set of tools (potter's clay, paint, violin, language, math, the
surgeon's scalpel, etc.) we teach it as dry, and dead, history of thinkers.
It's rendered harmless, and socially- and politically-irrelevant this way.
I don't see this a problem with Western philosophy itself so much as with
academia. The upshot, however, is that it has caused a stagnation of many
ideas, some uniquely Western and some essentially in agreement with Eastern
ideas.
> God that takes an interest in His creation. While this is true enough -
> Brahman is the Impersonal/non-human aspect of Reality. God is
> something 'humans' can understand. Brahman has no particular interest
> in humanity per se.
I've found Hinduism much less accessible to the West than Buddhism or Zen. It
seems wrapped up in so many more cultural layers, a rich pantheon, and literary
tradition (sometimes contradictory) as to make it almost incomprehensible in
comparison to the relative simplicity and exportability of non-theistic
Zen/Buddhism.
Mike Dubbeld
Suffering can happen after death. The circumstances of death play a big role
in that. Ghosts are like dead people in shock. They have such a death-grip
(pun intended) on a circumstance left behind that they 'haunt' places. Their
souls feel forlorn. They need to be released from their anguish to rest.
There
are other circumstances but I have no real great interest in the subject any
longer so I only pick these things up along the way. See Merging With
Siva by Master Subramunia for all the 'gory details'
But still you are right - by and large suffering is decreased at least at
death.
In fact there are cultures that celebrate death. But actually both birth and
death are traumatic experiences. The death itself is a real yawner. No
continuity is lost. It is much like the Bruce Willis movie The Sixth Sense.
The mind stays. Ego stays. Emotions stay. Same body. Basically better.
But desires pull us back to be reborn again. The length of the stay there
varies greatly. I could say a lot more but most people would not believe
it and it is not a particularly interesting subject anyway.
>
> > Monday morning quarterbacks however are more the rule rather than the
> > exception. Theorizing endlessly but never dirtying your hands by
actually
> > testing your theories/hypothesis appears to be the way of Western
> > philosophy.
>
> There have been a number of Western mystics
> (http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/mys/whoswho.htm) that don't limit
> themselves to theory. Your disillusionment results from the way that
Western
> philosophy is taught academically.
Nope! That too! There are as you say Western philosophers that are not
arm-chair but their philosophy basically takes you no where anyway. If one
knew in advance which pieces were true and not - then I could say that
Western philosophy can be helpful. It can anyway - but it would be pot
luck someone arrives things that do not simply contradict other philosophers
and leave them dazed and bewildered as ever - not only not knowing
the shallowness of the particular philosophers - but having been mauled
by just plain old bad advise.
Western philosophy is just a huge collection of unrelated facts that are
not comprehensive in any way shape or form. There is no end or purpose
to Western philosophy and I have also found that most had such big egos
that they never even bothered to read each others philosophy's very
closely to a large extent - misunderstanding previous philosophers abounds.
I've come to observe that most all of the
> humanities are taught as subject specialities of history. I've said
elsewhere
> that while we teach studio art, creative writing, and music performance
(as
> opposed to art history, literary criticism, and music history), we do not
teach
> an applied philosophy in academia. Rather than teaching philosophy as a
> language or set of tools (potter's clay, paint, violin, language, math,
the
> surgeon's scalpel, etc.) we teach it as dry, and dead, history of
thinkers.
> It's rendered harmless, and socially- and politically-irrelevant this way.
It is a good idea on the surface of it. But actually I think a person has to
have
an interest in a subject to pursue it.
>
> I don't see this a problem with Western philosophy itself so much as with
> academia. The upshot, however, is that it has caused a stagnation of many
> ideas, some uniquely Western and some essentially in agreement with
Eastern
> ideas.
More like stolen ideas from the East. Some philosophers freely admit
getting their ideas from the East. But the entire Western philosophy started
going down the tubes worshiping logic and reason beginning with
Plato - who indirectly got a major part of his ideas from the East - in
particular from Parmenides 'The One' who got this along with transmigration
of the soul (reincarnation) from Vedanta. But even though this intellectual
idea set Plato on his butt with his Theory of Forms never the same again,
Parmenides could not also steal the culture. Indians did not place that
high a value on the intellect and saw it as falliable. The knowledge was
simply the outcome of Revelations in meditation. But the Greeks were
not a meditating sort! They did however worship logic and reason and
beginning with Plato distorted the original teachings to mean the soul was
'the rational principle'. From the time of Plato on the West has basically
held this foolish notion to the present day. The entire basis of Western
philosophy around the 'Rational Principle' - is flawed. Today in the
Western world as a result to a large extent of this Westerners foolishly
came to believe they are their minds. A tangled web 'we' weave.
>
> > God that takes an interest in His creation. While this is true enough -
> > Brahman is the Impersonal/non-human aspect of Reality. God is
> > something 'humans' can understand. Brahman has no particular interest
> > in humanity per se.
>
> I've found Hinduism much less accessible to the West than Buddhism or Zen.
It
> seems wrapped up in so many more cultural layers, a rich pantheon, and
literary
> tradition (sometimes contradictory) as to make it almost incomprehensible
in
> comparison to the relative simplicity and exportability of non-theistic
> Zen/Buddhism.
Absolutely. I think Buddhism has a monopoly on the intellectual crowd.
In other words if one is to select a religion based on intellect - chances
are
you will find him or her a Buddhist. This is unfortunate however because
Vedanta is the highest intellectual achievement mankind has ever had.
Shankara its founder nearly singlehandly ousted Buddhism from India
due to his superior intellectual basis. Among scholars today Vedanta stands
out far and away over Buddhism as the superior intellectual choice and
indeed
all branches of Hinduism (mostly not admitting it) try and associate their
branch with the non-dual Vedanta. But Buddhism is widely deployed and
receives far better press in the west. Westerners tend to think of Hinduism
as elaborate rituals and weird things. So I am not surprised. I stick with
yoga
and Vedanta but I attend Buddhist stuff. (and Christian also) Religions
generally tend to be based on faith in the west. Entire religions have come
and gone due to 'culture bound assumptions' (Brahmanism for one). The
Upanishads are called 'Breath of the Eternal' because of the very fact that
their intellectual teachings are not culture bound. Yoga does not require
faith as religions do. Only enough to test the techniques and develop
knowing. Faith is the kind of thing you walk around with until you get the
facts.
Mike Dubbeld
>
Averroes
Evil is necessary for good to take place.
Without the opportunity to struggle against 'evil' we would never have
the chance for self improvement and being good (if we choose to).
This is the wisdom of there being evil in the world.
Peace,
Averroes
Paul Bramscher <bram...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message news:<3C854064...@tc.umn.edu>...
Buddha Thu
Number 1: It dehumanizes evil. Science cannot tell us what is good or
evil, just true or false. It's not part of the scientific experience,
but it is a human one.
Number 2: According to Buddhism, suffering exists and has reality even
though it is mind projected. This relates back to Berkeleyian radical
empiricism. Our experience is not of the world, they are of the sense
contents of the world. And just because it is mind projected changes
nothing about the reality of the world. The Reality of suffering
remains as it is, (as this chair and this computer before me), and to
change the reality of this suffering is to train the mind. Remember
that the Buddha saw that the nature of all reality is change, it is
not illusory.
Number 4: This is find and true if evil is man made and free will is
of our own to choose between good and evil. But what about natural
calamities where the free will has no part????
Number: 5 If the deity is limited, then what good is he??? According
to Whitehead, "God is the fellow sufferer who understands." (Process
and Reality) But what use is worshipping such a God who only merely
understands??? I want a God who can take action and prevent that evil
so that it does not happen to me. It is from a practical point of
view.
Numbers 6: This is not from a monotheistic view. It is a form of
dualism or Zoroasterianism, where Good and Evil are represented
between two gods doing battle. Some people like Thomas Aquinas and
Leibniz say that God can only do things that are possible, (Matt:
19:26, Lk. 1:37), meaning he cannot sin. But that is not because he is
subjugated under some moral or natural law. It is because he is above
the law, above Good and Evil, which are highly relativistic and
contingent terms. It is for this reason that he cannot sin. To me, the
statement that God can do impossible things is a grammar mistake. If
God can do, it is possible. Remember, if God is able to accomplish the
task, then it is possible, not that it is possible that God can
accomplish the task. We may live in a possible world where the Creator
made evil good and who is to say????
Number 7, 8 & 9: This may follow on the preceeding point, but there is
still an issue. It goes with the question, is there an objective evil?
My view is, for us, "yes." This may sound contradictory, but it is
not. For instance, the classic example is the question can a war be
justified "good," if it involves the killing of a Hitler or a bin
Laden? To me, war is war, it is an objective evil. When someone's son
or daughter goes off to kill someone else's son or daughter whom he
hardly knows, then it is definitely an evil. Perhaps it is a necessary
evil, but it does not stop us from call "evil."
Number 9: Where is the practical applications to this theory and its
meaning to us individuals??? Tell this to a mother who lost her baby
or entire familiy in an earthquake. It is heartless and cruel and the
theory itself a byproduct of a philosopher's mind who has yet to live
through life and its meanings. Tell her that God has killed her baby
in the most torturous way because he had a master plan in mind. Until
you experience a love one die needlessly and through much suffering,
you cannot posit this view.
Buddha Thu
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy
Subject: Re: Problem of Evil / Suffering
References: <3C854064...@tc.umn.edu>
<e279cb15.02031...@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.49.147.65
Message-ID: <781e1cec.02031...@posting.google.com>
All are flawed.
>
>