39 comments to “A Little Logic”

1. Frank:
   22 March 2005, on 2:11 pm

   Two of the three propositions assume too much and frame the “inconsistent triad” blatantly toward the atheistic argument.

   1. “The world contains instances of innocent (or unnecessary) suffering.” — The obvious problem with this statement is the subjective nature of the characterization “innocent” or “unnecessary.” When a parent has to punish a child the child may consider their suffering at that moment to be “unnecessary” but we know that they are learning that actions have consequences. Hopefully they will grow to be better adults as a result of the process. The ultimate example that illustrates my point is the death of Jesus. His disciples considered his death to be innocent (which it was) and unnecessary. But it was through that death God attoned for the sins of the world. The disciples didn’t know it at the time and were in no position to make a judgment about the nature of Christ’s suffering as being unnecessary. A better propostion for number 1 would be, “The world contains instances of suffering.”

   2. I’ll agree with 2.

   3. “An all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good being would have no morally sufficient reason for allowing instances of innocent (or unnecessary) suffering.” None of us is all-powerful, all-knowing, nor perfectly good. It stands to reason that if a God exists who possesses these traits that He knows more than we do. Since He knows all things and we don’t know all things we can conclude that He knows things we don’t. If that is the case then we can’t make the statement that such a God would have no morally sufficient reason for allowing instances of suffering. We can only say, “It is impossible for us to know whether or not an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good being has a morally sufficient reason for allowing instances of suffering.”

2. Bob:
   22 March 2005, on 2:24 pm

   The obvious problem with this statement is the subjective nature of the characterization “innocent” or “unnecessary.” — Huh? Really? When a two-year-old suffers for a week and dies from a painful disease, my calling that innocent is merely subjective? One can’t get an objective judgment on innocent — ever? No one ever died that was innocent in any objective sense — ever? Watch your scope, Frank. (I’ll leave your problem with (3) to others after they go back and re-read the argument.)

3. Frank:
   22 March 2005, on 2:39 pm

   Bob — from a human perspective we can make determinations about innocence. From our point of view, certainly a two-year-old is considered innocent (hey, none of us is perfect and any bad behavior by the two-year-old is nothing we haven’t seen in ourselves. Besides, the baby hasn’t had time to do anything REALLY bad yet.) However, from God’s perspective things change. He IS holy. Verse after verse in the Bible indicate our standing before Him. “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” “There is none righteous, no not one.” “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, who can know it?” So, from God’s perspective, we can have an objective judgment on innocence — none of us is innocent, period. My worldview and your worldview are at odds over “unnecessary” suffering. That is why your proposition 1. was skewed toward the atheistic argument. I just wanted to point out that we BOTH can agree to the existence of suffering. It seems a discussion between a Christian and an atheist can progress better when we begin at some common ground.

4. John:
   22 March 2005, on 3:47 pm

   See? The toddler wasn’t innocent. He DESERVED it.

   And that’s the kind of shit that trying to save your belief in invisible daddy drives you to.

   Reductio done. If there were a shred of evidence that such a God existed, He would deserve no worship. We meet a higher ethical standard than that.

   At least, some of us do.

5. Kim:
   22 March 2005, on 3:52 pm

   Whoa, Frank. That’s nuts. Or evil. Or both. When you start saying these horrible things aren’t unnecessary, you lose all credibility with someone like me. If your God says toddlers aren’t innocents, then he’s not my God.

   Not really helping our cause, I think.

6. Bob:
   22 March 2005, on 4:22 pm

   Reductio done. — Dammit again, John, ya beat me to it. Nice job. Frank, good luck with the damage control. I’m out. Later. (Frank is now the Black Knight in Monty Python: “It’s just a flesh wound! I’ve had worse! Runnin’ away?!…”)

7. jim:
   22 March 2005, on 4:28 pm

   Just some tangential thoughts…
   This topic is not precisely a novelty, nor are the arguments presented. The religious texts are full of discussions of theodicy, although not always in modern “logical” terms (in the Bible: Job, Ecclesiastes, the Prophets, even Genesis). In those contexts it tends to be embedded as part of narrative and/or dialogue and not approached propositionally (at least not as we would). I don’t really want to compare these ways of thinking but I think some details might be missed by modern logical discourse founded upon Enlightment thought. And viceversa too!
   This might not be the most accurate rendition but those contexts seem to grapple with the issue from the dual presumption that “God is merciful and compassionate and that God is great and powerful.” (from Heschel, Heavenly Torah. 118) Rabbinical thought picked up on this big time, especially reflecting on Jewish history.
   Undfortunately “Modern” thought tends to be quite arrogant and dogmatic about its so-called “objective” thinking and its assumed superiority. It would be wiser to also look to how the issue has been grappled with historically, both in religious and non-religious contexts.

8. Frank:
   22 March 2005, on 4:38 pm

   John — no one is innocent before God, period. I feel just as much compassion for a toddler suffering from a terminal illness as anyone. It breaks my heart. But placing the blame on God for it is to misunderstand the nature of sin and it’s impact on our world. The bad news is that we all deserve death for our sin. But that is just half of the story. The GOOD news is that God offers us grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

   Kim — God’s Word is plain. All I did was quote from it. It makes me wonder what you think the message of the Bible is. Perhaps you’d share with me what your belief on the matter is.

9. Frank:
   22 March 2005, on 4:58 pm

   … and Bob — no one seems to want to tackle the third point of my original post as you anticipated they might. I know you said you were done but — since you characterized me as the Black Knight from Monty Python — let me (in that spirit) invite you back to, at the very least, address just that one point …..

   “CHICKEN! CHICKEN!”

10. Badger:
    22 March 2005, on 5:58 pm

    Frank, the standard Christian conception of sin is so cool. It’s sort of like the Force from Star Wars–you are just born with it. It is disconnected from merit. That is wild. Imagine having that sort of take in the business world: “Ed, I’m afraid we’re going to have to let you go…no, it’s nothing you did or failed to do, it’s just that you’re no good…no, you didn’t demonstrate this by any action, it’s just that from the outset you deserved to be fired. However, because I’m a good guy, I’m going to fire my very best employee in your place and you’ll be kept on.”

    I’m being funny but really I’m curious, how do you feel about the fact that in your Christian conception of things sin (which is what exactly? moral demerit?) is something we’re born with? I
    can think of two ways this can cash out:

    1) Everyone is born sinful but babies don’t yet have the chance to act on it. But, given time
    and opportunity they will (”potentially evil”).

    2) Whether one ever acts on sin or not doesn’t matter, sin is something weird and metaphysical and totally divorced from actions good or ill. In this one, even the sweetest most loving human being is still sinful. (I find this one the more intriguing one somehow…it’s more mystical).

    I guess these are not mutually exclusive either. So Frank, it might be helpful to hear your thoughts on sin. Not the Bible’s words only, but how this concept sits with you personally.
    I’m not interesting in catching you in an inconsistency, I just find it fascinating to hear how thoughtful religious people find these non-intuitives fit into their worldview.

11. Tim:
    22 March 2005, on 9:09 pm

    Frank, If we can’t say that the extermination of a large group of people, or young children dying from horrible diseases is bad and anybody who has the power to stop such events from happening but chooses not to act in these circumstances, then what standard do we judge a god’s morality by? Do we just go by his say so? Should we just allow murderers to go on killing if they say they are doing their killing for the greater good? Sort of like what George Bush is doing at the moment. Finally, if all of our morality stems from this god and he knows everything about morality since he wrote the book on it, then how can he be called moral himself? By calling this god moral, a believer would be saying that this god, a god who makes the rules of morality, is living by his own rules. This means that he isn’t constrained in any way other than by what he says. That means that he can make every fourth child die a painful death at a young age just for the hell of it, no particular reason; just because he says so. It seems like this view is drifting into nihlism, but what do I know? I’m just a puny, pathetic, sinful human, because god says so.

12. Kevin:
    22 March 2005, on 11:46 pm

    I’ll take you on point 3, Frank. Sure, if an all-power yadda yadda being existed, it would have knowledge and stuff that I would not. Just as when a clever pedophile does his thing, I’m not privy to his thoughts and motives. I can only judge based on what I know and what I see. Given all of my faculties and experiences, I am led repeatedly and without exception to the conclusion that any being running this world must be either completely indifferent to human concerns or is an absolute sadist. I can’t KNOW that, but I can’t KNOW that a pedophile will strike again- but I don’t give him the benefit of every concievable doubt. You’re telling us we should shape our lives around a being whose existence is only a logical possibility, and whose moral abhorrence might just be a failure of our perceptions. I wouldn’t buy a five cent candy for evidence this weak.

13. John:
    23 March 2005, on 4:54 am

    > “CHICKEN! CHICKEN!”

    This coming from the guy who plays dumb and tries to hide from the logic of the argument behind his transparently fallacious moves — like the “line drawing” one — that would get you spanked in any freshman “Critical Thinking” class.

14. Frank:
    23 March 2005, on 9:30 am

    Badger — good questions. We are not born with sin. Sin is any transgression against the law of God. It is, by definition, an action. We are born with a sinful nature, an inherent tendancy toward sin. When we become old enough to exercise our will with regard to doing good or bad things we all end up doing bad things. It is in our very nature. Just look at the conduct of small children. Why is it they all tend to be selfish, jealous, etc.? Why do they lie? It’s because of their sinful nature. You mentioned the sweetest, most loving individuals are still sinful and that it intrigued you. It’s true, we all have sinful natures. No exceptions. You can show me no example of a person who never, ever sinned. In fact, this is a pretty compelling argument for the Bible’s worldview. Why has there never been a person who was sinless? Surely evolution (or whatever) would have produced at least one individual who was perfect in their conduct. The Bible’s concept of a sinful nature answers this question quite well. There are some of my thoughts on the matter. Any specific things you’d like me to address and I didn’t, just let me know. I’ll do my best.

15. Frank:
    23 March 2005, on 9:54 am

    Tim, Kevin — again, good comments. I’ll respond to both of you like this: First, if God exists as described in the Bible, then He is the author, the creator of life. As such, He has every right to take life according to His will and for whatever purpose He deems necessary. As a direct consequence of sin He already does this. It’s called death. It happens to everyone. God, as the creator of life, is perfectly at liberty to determine the time, place and method of taking life.

    Second, (in response to Kevin) the pedophile analogy is not very good. With the pedophile we have a pretty good idea of the motivation for his actions. They are fairly self-evident. With God, this is not necessarily the case. We see examples of his justice in Scripture. We see examples of his love, mercy and grace in Scripture. The knowledge we lack concerning God’s actions is more of a “big picture” body of knowledge. We can see what God does in our own lives, homes, towns, etc. The bigger picture is harder to comprehend. What we can know is that God has exercised incredible patience toward humanity, providing opportunity after opportunity for repentance. Those who repent receive grace. Those who don’t, justice. In fact, that he continues to exercise patience with a mass of humanity who absolutely corrupted His creation is a pretty good indication that He is anything but indifferent to us.

    Finally, I’m not saying we should shape our lives around a God who is “only” a logical possibility. Showing that God is a logical possibility was only a means to demonstrate that the argument against God based on the existence of evil is a flawed argument. God is much more than merely a logical possibility. There is an impressive body of evidence to support the existence of God — archaeolgical, historical, scientific, biblical, philosophical and on and on.

16. Frank:
    23 March 2005, on 10:02 am

    (sigh) — John, John, John, … are you completely incapable of reading a comment within its proper context. The “CHICKEN, CHICKEN!” comment has a specific context that indicates it is absolutely, 100 percent, intended in jest. Everyone else seemed to have caught that. I know Bob’s not a chicken when it comes to debate. I just hoped he would point out the flaw he said was apparent in my third point.

    And, if you think the “line drawing” question is as transparent as you pretend, then why don’t you go ahead and answer it and show me, rather than feign superiority and continue to dodge the issue.

17. Tim:
    23 March 2005, on 10:11 am

    Tell you what Frank, send your so called proof of gods existence to me at atheossapiens@yahoo.com. I hate to burst you bubble but there isn’t any arghaeological, historical, scientific or philosophical proof that god exists. All philosophical arguments for the existence of god have been ripped apart time and again. Hence the reason why the majority of philosophers have rejected a belief in god; as do most scientists. As far as biblical evidence goes, any evidence that you give me based on the bible is begging the question, so leave that stuff out.

18. Frank:
    23 March 2005, on 11:05 am

    Tim — reread my post, I said there is “evidence” to support the existence of God, not proof. I can no more prove conclusively the existence of God than you can prove conclusively there is not God. I will, however, get back to you with some of the evidence to which I referred.

19. Kevin:
    23 March 2005, on 11:38 am

    So, Frank, let me get this straight, the ’sinful nature’ of humans is ‘pretty good evidence’ of God? Humans are evil therefore we were created by an infinitely good being? This is epic double-think. Especially when coupled with the reference to evolution, which you say should have surely allowed for some people with a sinless nature- this after years of xians questioning how evolution could account for the better, altruistic, part of human nature. It seems to me that you approach the world with the conviction that everything you see is further evidence of your pre-existing worldview. I’m sure you take this whole discussion as some sort of affirmation of your faith.

    Regarding your ‘evidence’ of god, I’ll bet I can come up with an equal amount of ‘evidence’ for the tooth fairy.

20. Frank:
    23 March 2005, on 12:24 pm

    Kevin — I didn’t say the sinful nature of man was pretty good evidence for God. I said the fact that everyone has done bad things is pretty good evidence in support of the biblical worldview concerning a sinful nature.

    Regarding your tooth fairy comment … betcha can’t

21. Badger:
    23 March 2005, on 1:10 pm

    Frank - “the fact that everyone has done bad things is pretty good evidence in support of the biblical worldview concerning a sinful nature.” You actually called it “a pretty compelling argument for the Bible’s worldview.” Anyway, neither statement is right.

    Imagine in my holy text and creation story, my God created humans with a certain “height nature”. It is said that before the fall from height-grace, the first man and woman were nine feet tall. Glorious giants were they. But, they bit of the Tree of Diminuition, and ever afterwards their descendents–us–have been shorter. I could claim that you could not show me one person–not one–who is nine feet tall, and I’m sure you couldn’t produce an example. If I were to say to you that this fact of not finding 9′ tall men was either “pretty good evidence” or a “pretty compelling argument for my holy book’s worldview”, you’d think that was wrong, no? First, you could point out that there may have been some people on Earth of the billions who have lived who were 9′ tall–we already know Robert Pershing Wadlow was 8′11″ tall (Guinness Book) so he was so close. Just because an observation is *rare* doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist (cf. eclipses, 4-leaf clovers, albinos, etc). But you could more directly get me on the likely possibility that my creation story was made up in order to *accomodate the observations of human nature already observed* and therefore it is no surprise that the Bible’s statement that we are all less than morally perfect accords with the observations of human nature–because that fact is obvious to any alert person. Any number of just-so stories can account for our less-than-perfect morality: aliens made us this way, evolution made us this way, God made us this way, etc. Yes, our human nature is *consistent* with the Bible’s worlview, but it is also consistent with atheist worldviews.

22. Frank:
    23 March 2005, on 1:34 pm

    Badger — an excellent response, seriously. That the Bible may have been written to conform to observable behavior is an excellent response. I will reserve the rest of my response until after others have a chance to express agreement or disagreement with your argument. (I would anticipate a lot of the former and none of the latter should anyone care to comment.)

    How ’bout it, gang? Anyone think Badger is off base?

23. John:
    23 March 2005, on 6:41 pm

    “if God exists… He has every right to take life according to His will and for whatever purpose He deems necessary… God, as the creator of life, is perfectly at liberty to determine the time, place and method of taking life.” Which is pretty much my definition of the ultimate despot. We no longer need to argue against Frank; he does it all, all by himself.

24. Dr Zen:
    23 March 2005, on 6:46 pm

    Badger would only have a point if Wadlow used stilts. Frank’s point was that we have a tendency to *do* sin, not to be it.

25. Tim:
    23 March 2005, on 7:48 pm

    Sorry Frank, I meant evidence and I reitterate, there isn’t any. Much like there isn’t any evidence of the existence of tooth fairies, as Kevin pointed out, there isn’t any reason to believe in god(s), unicorns, cyclops’, or any other fictional beings. There may not be any absolute proof against the existence of a god(s)(keep in mind, requiring this from an atheist is shifting the burden of proof) but there is a high degree of probability that one doesn’t exist. I will be more than willing to look at your “evidence” however.

26. Chris:
    24 March 2005, on 12:57 am

    I find this quite interesting.
    If we all deserve to die for our sins and the baby/child who hasnt learned or had the capacity to sin dies what we describe as a horrible prolonged death then the cause from Frank’s perspective is

    1. They were evil or potentially evil
    or
    2. God is punishing them for something they have or were about to do.

    So this means the people we see as really evil and lived to ripe old ages couldnt really be as evil as we think?

    Maybe we need to let them loose on the world to kill they who are more evil than themselves.

    Perhaps that is the answer, anarchy/genocide is actually god’s method of killing the very evil or those who deserve to die. Those doing the killing are performing gods work.

    hmmm

27. Kevin:
    24 March 2005, on 6:29 pm

    OOo, Frank wants us all to say whetehr we agree or disagree with Badger, because Frank thinks he has a clever response to Badger and wants us all to agree before he unleashes his devastating rebuttal. What rhetorical genius! Badger is, of course, right when he says the bible was written to conform to obvious truths about human nature.

    Oh, By the way, I score the total evidence Frank has presented for the existence of God so far as being a bunch of circular logic and references to authority. Since neither of these count as evidences, I rate my evidence for the tooth fairy, that my parents once told me she existed, as equal. I await additional evidence.

28. John:
    25 March 2005, on 7:36 am

    And if there were any evidence (which there isn’t), it would clearly be for a deity that would not deserve our worship or admiration, given his apparent views on toddler-shooting. (Of course, we might want to try to suck up to Him to get the goods in the afterlife, even if he is a horrible turd. Oh, damn, he can read my mind, right? Never mind.)

29. God is for Suckers! » Easter Carnival:
    27 March 2005, on 6:33 am

    [...] The new Carnival of the Godless is up over at yeah whatever, including Bob’s A Little Logic post — which, I’m afraid, gets misinterpreted a bit (altho [...]

30. Frank:
    28 March 2005, on 4:56 pm

    Kevin — I have no clever response to Badger’s argument. I said his response was excellent and I meant it. And, while you are afraid to ‘fess up to thinking the same, I will go ahead on the assumption that you (and probably every atheist here) thinks his response was excellent and adequately refuted mine. The ironic thing is this: he used EXACTLY the same kind of argument to refute me as I used to refute the notion that evil is proof God does not exist. Badger merely pointed out a plausible, logical alternative to my argument. That is what I did. When he does it, you think it’s a great argument. When I do it, you attach some label to it like, “fallacious,” “transparent,” or “circular.”

    All of this really just shows you for what you are. It is plain you are not the intellectual free-thinker you claim to be. Rather, by demonstrating a dogmatic fervor toward your atheism that rivals the most rabid “religious nutters,” you show yourself as more of a fundamentalist atheist. You are not really capable of honestly considering an argument from the other side, (as demonstrated by your hypocritical assessment of mine and Badger’s arguments).

    Hey, nothing wrong with that, Kevin. Take pride in your fundie atheist standing. But, please, don’t pretend you can lay claim to the intellectual high ground. You’ve kind of blown it there.

31. John:
    29 March 2005, on 6:58 am

    The ironic thing is this: he used EXACTLY the same kind of argument to refute me as I used to refute the notion that evil is proof God does not exist. Badger merely pointed out a plausible, logical alternative

    Well, not EXACTLY. His alternative is way more plausible than any other. Yours isn’t, and commits you to moral idiocy like thinking that toddler-shooting isn’t really so bad — not to mention all that other craziness of Big Invisible Daddy. So, except for the “plausible, logical” part, they’re kind of the same.

32. Frank:
    29 March 2005, on 9:20 am

    John — never said, nor implied, that a toddler being shot “isn’t really so bad.”

33. DamnRight:
    29 March 2005, on 2:14 pm

    … jealousy is a listed as a sin yet God admits to jealousy…
    … is a crack baby, born crying out because of the pain, experiencing only “necessary” suffering?… or a baby born with AIDS…
    … is the sin nature enough to condemn me to Hell?… or must I actually sin?…
    … I grew up experiencing the following… put tooth under pillow… by morning, tooth is gone & quarter sits in its place… therefore tooth fairy exists… as good as “the Bible says God exists, therefore God exists”…

34. Kiwi Dave:
    10 April 2005, on 8:30 pm

    “We are not born with sin.”

    Ah huh. So when the recent tsunami killed all those pregnant women, the unborn sin-free fetuses died for what reason?

    Interesting.

35. I dunno:
    12 April 2005, on 4:19 pm

    The assumptions naive and presumptive, but then again,
    they are the projection of simplistic Christian views about the mind of God
    onto what is really an intellectually unknowable essence.
    Any creature once born is surely going to die and suffer along the way.
    It is often unpredictable to us when or how either will occur, and as to
    having an identifiable and undisputable reason why (in terms of ‘deserving it’),
    forget it, there’s no way to know that.

    In shorter terms, to impute some moralistic reason for every occasion of suffering or death
    is a projection of moralistic small-mindedness onto what is truly a mystery.

36. Kiwi Dave:
    15 April 2005, on 7:19 pm

    If God’s mind is an unknowable essence then we can’t know if it is good,bad or indifferent.

    Since apologists for God invariably (at least in my limited experience as a former Christian and long-time atheist)do claim to have some knowledge about God’s intentions and/or actions, with particular emphasis on this entity’s special love for humans generally and individually, and often claim to read God’s character from his creation and specific interventions in the world, they can scarcely be surprised when sceptics point out that their interpretations require a selective view of human existance.

    I’m not a militant atheist, but being told by a well-meaning relative on the day of my wife’s funeral (prematurely dead from breast cancer) that the lord had given me a fine day for it reminded me just how offensive and obtuse this religious view is.

37. Simon Peter:
    17 April 2005, on 3:36 am

    The essence of the argument so far is to say that God is good but why certain things (that we perceived as bad is allowed to happen)=> thus God doesn’t exist.

    Several points I want to discuss:
    But before that I ‘ll tell u all more about Christianity in simple language.

    Christianity is about the teaching of heart. After we die we either go to hell or heaven.Those place only God knows exactly what. No one knows completely what God is. But I know that God is the King of Heaven and He is the essence of what we call ‘good things’ (love, peace,etc). Hence, it is a fact that only good hearted people can go to heaven. Since God loves us and want us to have a good afterlife (live in heaven), He tells us how our heart should be and how to achieve it(Christianity contains it and so other religion), though His words may be misunderstood by human stupidity, motives, emotion,etc.

    It’s fine if at this point u assume God as hypothetical being.

    1)About ‘innocent sufferings’ (i.e.: Bad people killing innocent people, natural disaster)
    God gives us freedom; whether to follow Him or not. For He do not want people to follow him just because of awe or fear but because we love him (we want to).
    If I were to sin (e.g. punch a stranger to vent my frustration,etc) God wouldn’t stop me by physically binding me or threatened me because it means I follow Him just because of fear and I can’t go to heaven as our heart is still bad. The only thing that prevent me from doing it is my conscience (given by God since He create us in His image).
    Some environmental disaster is caused by human (i.e global warming, air pollution). Thus akin to the example above.
    And in this world, God creates a law to function; the physics law. The natural disaster that has happened follow the law. God gives us intelligence to understand it. For example if I play a kite in rainy days and get struck by lightning and, wouldn’t you blame me for it? We know that lightning tend to strike at high objects. My Ignorant is at blame (blame God if you are unhappy with the law of physics.)
    Furthermore, death in this world may not be what we perceived as(a bad thing). This is a fact that none of you can deny unless you’ve came back from death before.

    2)Evidence on the existence of God:
    Note: I as a human in my early 20s, has no time to dig archaeological evidence, read historical books on religion, etc. These 2 things: Bible and me is enough evidence for me.
    How do u test whether a medicine is genuine or not?
    1) Bring it to lab and get a chemical test done. or
    2) Eat it and see if it works.
    For bible I use the 2nd method and I believe it. Bible suppose to make someone a better person.It says I must be forgiving, love even my enemy, be true to my heart, and be a truth seeker.If these thing be done I supposed to feel joy in me. And I did. The joy is not temporary as a drug would. So far the bible told me to find everlasting peace and joy if I ‘consume’ it and it did.
    Q: Why when I do good thing I ‘ll be in the state of peace and my conscience telling me this is the right thing to do? A: I am created in the image of God (pro peace and love)(from bible).
    If you still don’t believe in God then you should believe that someone (genius and excel at human psychology) whose intent is to create a better world without any selfish reason ‘lied’ that his masterpiece is from God. For me I choose to believe.

    Additional points:
    Attemps to find physical evidence on the existence of God should be hard because I think it wasn’t meant to be (by God). If God wants us to know he exist by obvious sensoral means He can easily make one apparition on the sky that thousands can see or by other means. But that means many people will follow him out of fear and awe but insincere at heart. God doesn’t want it.

38. Chris:
    28 June 2005, on 7:11 pm

    This is what someone told me when I asked them to consider this post:

    ‘But there is also free will. And if God stopped all instances of innocent suffering then he would be taking away free will. That doesn’t mean he enjoys the suffering. Jesus wept at the tomb of a friend. God weeps when his children (all of humanity) weep. What hurts them hurts him.’

    ‘But humanity chose to become their own god. That was Adam & Eve’s sin at the beginning. “You can be like God.” And humanity has been making that choice over and over since then. And people choose to be god rather than worship God, even many who are religious.’

    I don’t consider it valid, but I don’t know how to respond.

39. Adamsam:
    17 July 2005, on 9:15 pm

    Bob’s original proposition can be helpfully simplified to:

    1.God is supposed to be all-good.
    2.God is supposed to be all-powerful.
    3.(Unnecessary) pain and suffering occurs regularly in the world.

    1 and 2 cannot both be true.

Comment here