From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Tue Aug 17 2004 - 15:42:59 BST
Hello Mark,
In some ways, this formulation was deprecated by
your QUALITY one and is therefore less interesting.
but for thoroughness sake I'll try"
(msh)
> > 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.
>
>mel: Thanks for the formulation, but once again another
> example that makes no REAL world 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.
mel:
ONE:
For (P2-4), an implication of a duty slides unmentioned but
strongly associated with the propositions that the ability
of such a god to do something equates to a duty to do so.
The ability to prevent suffering does NOT imply a duty
requiring the god to prevent suffering.
TWO:
We ARE talking about free will. Think of it as a degrees
of freedom problem. For free will to be significant, the
range of possible formulations of 'problems' to solve
(situations to react to) must be maximized. Otherwise
free will in a sanitized Disneyesque reality is trivial.
(e.g. I have the ability to prevent my daughter
from falling down and experiencing pain.
1, Do I have the duty to do so?
2, Is it desireable for her that I do so?
If the answer is YES to both, then she will never learn
how to ride a bicycle.)
Also, " The world is full of suffering not caused by man"
is a good description of one of the causes or an impetus
for adaptation and species radiation. Suffering indicates
the presence of a 'problem' which the response by a
population solves by adaptation, and a broader
distribution of 'problems' by radiation into many niches.
-----------------------
Part of MY problem with the traditional formulation
is obviously my own background, hence a REAL
world objection as opposed to a simply logical or
structural objection.
A western american "god helps those who help
themselves" outlook makes the traditional formulation
nonsensical in just such a world.
An omniscent, omnipresent, benevolent god presents
the challenges in the world to provide the individual
opportunity for development (on so many possible levels),
through those very "problems" percieved in the world.
How much value does a person bring with them, who
is from a background where they've been coddled like
a ceramic doll?
Not someone I want to go backpacking with...
So, that is my hidden assumption.
thanks--mel
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 - 18:21:24 BST