From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Mon Aug 16 2004 - 15:09:08 BST
Hi Mel,
Welcome back.
On 15 Aug 2004 at 0:34, ml wrote:
>msh:
> The P.O.E. is being thrown around, but, so far, reading Chuck and
> Mel (even though Mel's had four years of philosophy) I don't get a
> sense that the problem's been properly formulated. Here it is:
>
> P1) God exists
> P2) God is omniscient
> P3) God is omnipotent
> P4) God is benevolent
> P5) The world is full of suffering not caused by man.
>
> P5 is evident. Therefore God, as defined (P2-P4), does not exist.
Thanks for the formulation, but once again another
example that makes no REAL workd sense.
An implied duty slides unmentioned that the ability
to do something equates to a duty, but the whole
free will thing cancels that linkage...no need for
an emergence emergency ;-)
msh says:
I don't understand your response. We're not talking about HUMAN free
will and duty. In fact, this formulation explicitly excludes
suffering caused by human beings. So I don't see how this
formulation can be rejected as making no sense.
Tell me WHY it makes no sense to you.
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is everything." -- Henri Poincare' MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 17 2004 - 07:50:50 BST