Why does God permit evil????

Sure it's possible, I did not say it was not. But does that make itgood justification for you to go on e.g. lead your life and believe it is true.

All non-contradictory concept are logically possible. And that is by definition. And, logical possibility is what is at issue. Not "real possibility". I have no idea what Kant could mean by that-if he said it.

What has that to do with it?

By logically possible (P) you are also asserting that it is logically not possible (not-P). I never said the problem of evil was logically certain, only that it brings up possible contradictions. Thus, the problem of evil still stands because it shows that you can still cast doubt on evil in the world and God's power. It's logically possible one way or the other. That is all the religious skeptic needs.

---------- Post added 11-06-2009 at 01:08 PM ----------



Think about it a bit more.

it shows that you can still cast doubt on evil in the world and God's power.

I don't know what you mean by this. What kind of doubt? No one doubt there is evil in the world. No one doubt God's omnipotence. Nor his perfect goodness. What is doubted is the logical consistency of all three.

Logical possibilty has nothing to do with certainty. It just means, not contradictory. If Leibniz is right, the concept of God is not self-contradictory. And that is the point of the logical problem of evil-that it is.

What do you think it implies? Or do I have to repeat the argument in formal form to you?

What implies? I guess I am missing your point? What the argument implies? I don't know that arguments imply anything. But the point of the argument is that the concept of God is logically incompatible with with the existence of evil. Leibniz attempts to show it is not.

Logical possibilty has nothing to do with certainty. It just means, not contradictory.

I guess I do have to spell it out for you. If there is evil in the world, and God is defined as omni-everything, then this implies a contradiction. Because there is a contradiction, one might doubt whether the concept of God holds.

Not sure how you couldn't have picked that out from what I said.

But there is no contradiction between God's goodness and power, and the existence of evil if Leibniz is right. That's the point of L's Theodicy. Does Leibniz show there is no contradiction? I see no reason not to think so.

All non-contradictory concept are logically possible. And that is by definition. And, logical possibility is what is at issue.

But there is no contradiction between God's goodness and power, and the existence of evil if Leibniz is right. That's the point of L's Theodicy. Does Leibniz show there is no contradiction? I see no reason not to think so. Maybe you ought to look at my post 120 again. I think you are confusing two things again.

I think you are confusing two different things. 1. Whether it is actually true that this is the best of all possible worlds, and 2. How it could be true that this is the best of all possible worlds despite the manifest amount to evil in it.

It is a common interpretation, whether it's correct or incorrect. Many do interpret "heaven" to literally mean a place of paradise they go after death. In fact, I know many of these people.

So, when you just say "heaven", without the clarification you just gave, you should not be surprised when people understand what you say to mean the literal interpretation very common in Christianity and Catholicism. Whether it's correct or incorrect is an entirely different story.

So, does that mean that God is good or not? And if He is not, then why is he praised?

I'd be spared a lot of time responding to Dawkins fanboys.

They want so desperately to discredit all spirituality that they cling to this assumption, an easy assumption to sell in today's world; books fly off the shelves.

You stated this yourself:

Leibniz only shows it is possible there is no contradiction, and you yourself say that as well. If it is possible there is no contradiction, it is also possible, logically speaking, there might be a contradiction involved. To argue otherwise would be inconsistent with your previous reasoning.

And like I have said, for the religous skeptic this proves nothing.

---------- Post added 11-06-2009 at 01:54 PM ----------


taken from post#120



By could you mean possible right? If Leibniz's reasoning is valid as you claim it to be, then it is only a possible this could be the best of all possible worlds. On the other hand it is also possible a-priori, it could not be.

Leibniz's whole point is to reject the idea that the contradiction implied by the problem of evil is logically inconsistent in all cases. But in some cases it could be inconsistent. Im not making any claim to the actual world at all.

Whether it is true or not in the real world is a whole other question, hence my critique of the Irenean Theodicy.

I'm beginning to wonder whether you have a full grasp of your reasoning.

"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."

Exactly. And other writers have pointed this out, too. Many times, in fact.

The essential problem is that Dawkins, like Hitchens, believes that fundamentalism is the core of religion. And this is ridiculous. It's insane, a-historical daydreaming. They want so desperately to discredit all spirituality that they cling to this assumption, an easy assumption to sell in today's world; books fly off the shelves.

Why can't they admit that fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon... as historians understand?

I have not read his books. I do not intend to read his books. I've heard him speak several times about religion, and each time he exposed his underlying false premise about religion. So long as he persists in falsely asserting that fundamentalism is the heart and soul of the religious man, Dawkins will be incapable of making a profound criticism of religion - except, of course, against fundamentalism. But that is beating up old ladies. It's not cool to beat up old ladies. Stop beating up old ladies, Richard Dawkins.

I guess I do have to spell it out for you. If there is evil in the world, and God is defined as omni-everything, then this implies a contradiction. Because there is a contradiction, one might doubt whether the concept of God holds.

Not sure how you couldn't have picked that out from what I said.

---------- Post added 11-06-2009 at 01:32 PM ----------



And you should also add that is only possibly not self contradicting, since it is not certain. It could still be the case that it is a contradiction, possibly right?

What has this to do with the thread? The thread is on the problem of evil. Not Dawkins.

This may be so, but still, I find stories like this very disturbing: Half of Americans believe in angels - Washington Times

I have made plenty of directly on topic posts in this thread if you would care to respond. You stopped doing so a while ago.

But I would argue that Dawkins, in this case, is on topic. Dawkins is a popular writer who makes assumptions about religion that many other people make as well, assumptions that lie just underneath many assumptions made in this thread. By exposing these assumptions, and showing them to be false, many of the arguments in this thread are eviscerated. [/COLOR]



Sad news in that one. And this is exactly why it is easy to sell the assumptions Dawkins makes. In theory, most people will admit that God is transcendent, yet when it comes down to their practices, they let that notion drop and fall into fundamentalism. It is a modern and terrible trend in religion.

I don't believe I know anything that Dawkins wrote on the problem of evil. Do you.

As for your posts, I don't remember anything I could respond to.

As for his relevance, again, he makes assumptions about religion which underpin many of the arguments that have appeared in this thread. If those assumptions are false, which they are, that would mean that many arguments in this thread lack bite.

Scripture calls God good. If this is literally true, then the problem of evil is a real problem. But this is only literally true if we accept a fundamentalist interpretation; such an interpretation is the sort that Dawkins believes to be the inherent, ancient style of religion.

If Dawkins is wrong, and Mr. Steiner is correct, then the problem of evil is not a problem at all.

We were somewhere in that discussion until you stopped responding to me after post #11. Later you stated that you were bewildered about the traditional concept of God, bewildered by the thought of God transcending language. Maybe that's your hangup.