Bayesian Argument and the PoE (Supporting PoE Post 3)

[PureX]

You have developed a null loop with these sentences. You claim the perspective of God considers equal importance of all materials He has created. In other words, An ice rock being the same importance as billions of souls, yet than immediately state afterwards its inconceivable to understand God's perspective because we are not God.

The latter being the proposed case, the presumption of the former must then just a presumption. "Loop" resolved. The problem here is that we cannot escape the bias of our own perspective. You state "an ice rock being the same importance as billions of souls"; an idea (importance) based on a human comparison. But why would the source of all that is (God) compare aspects of that "all" with other aspect of it? Why would the source of all that is even consider that "all" as being a multiplicity or 'aspects', as opposed to a singular whole?

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

It is a reasonable belief that if God exists and Created our physical existence than all of our existence including ice rock(?) are intimately interrelated and inseperable from the Quantum particle to humanity throughout the billions of years of our physical existence.

No matter how intimately related we are we are not created equal with equal function etc . It is more a question of determining importance than relationship. Whenever we use the expression "To God we are...." or claim we can evaluate his perspective, we must have a solid grasp of His character. In the comment, it was unclear to me whether the point was we would never understand God or that we have equal importance. Both positions are equally valid yet to me contradictory.

 

[shunyadragon]

No matter how intimately related we are we are not created equal with equal function etc . It is more a question of determining importance than relationship. Whenever we use the expression "To God we are...." or claim we can evaluate his perspective, we must have a solid grasp of His character. In the comment, it was unclear to me whether the point was we would never understand God or that we have equal importance. Both positions are equally valid yet to me contradictory.

God holds the scales.

 

[Meow Mix]

The latter being the proposed case, the presumption of the former must then just a presumption. "Loop" resolved. The problem here is that we cannot escape the bias of our own perspective. You state "an ice rock being the same importance as billions of souls"; an idea (importance) based on a human comparison. But why would the source of all that is (God) compare aspects of that "all" with other aspect of it? Why would the source of all that is even consider that "all" as being a multiplicity or 'aspects', as opposed to a singular whole?

I have limited time to respond today, but I wanted to quickly note that one of the premises of the PoE as presented is that God cares about our suffering; this precludes considering a rock (or world as a whole) having equal moral weight. If someone holds a different premise the PoE simply doesn’t apply

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

The latter being the proposed case, the presumption of the former must then just a presumption. "Loop" resolved. The problem here is that we cannot escape the bias of our own perspective. You state "an ice rock being the same importance as billions of souls"; an idea (importance) based on a human comparison. But why would the source of all that is (God) compare aspects of that "all" with other aspect of it? Why would the source of all that is even consider that "all" as being a multiplicity or 'aspects', as opposed to a singular whole?

I just want to make sure I understand the questions you asked at the end. Perhaps they were rhetorical in nature, so I want to reiterate what I think your were saying. Is your position that human perspective and God's perspective are not aligned? Where God sees holistically and humans fractionally. That we base importance on how we feel (bias) in our immediate surroundings and God has no such bias, only concerned with a specific outcome for His own design? Are you suggesting God is completely oblivious to the human emotion or rather that he has infinite concern for all things so humankind is just a spec of dust in His point of view? What do think?

 

[PureX]

I have limited time to respond today, but I wanted to quickly note that one of the premises of the PoE as presented is that God cares about our suffering; this precludes considering a rock (or world as a whole) having equal moral weight. If someone holds a different premise the PoE simply doesn’t apply

But the assumption that God cares about suffering is clearly an assumption made from a human perspective, that of course cares about human suffering. And that is my point. We humans are not capable of grasping God's perspective. "Suffering" may not even be a relevant consideration from God's perspective on existence. Or maybe our suffering results in some massive advantage later on that we are unaware of, and is thereby a great gift to us. There is simply no way for us to know, and therefor we have no business making assumptions and then using them to pass judgment on a God that we have no real comprehension of. The premise we are applying is irrational, and so naturally, then, is the dilemma that results. Once we realize that the premise is unfounded then the whole dilemma disappears.

 

[Koldo]

But the assumption that God cares about suffering is clearly an assumption made from a human perspective, that of course cares about human suffering. And that is my point. We humans are not capable of grasping God's perspective. "Suffering" may not even be a relevant consideration from God's perspective on existence. Or maybe our suffering results in some massive advantage later on that we are unaware of, and is thereby a great gift to us. There is simply no way for us to know, and therefor we have no business making assumptions and then using them to pass judgment on a God that we have no real comprehension of. The premise we are applying is irrational, and so naturally, then, is the dilemma that results. Once we realize that the premise is unfounded then the whole dilemma disappears.

You have claimed that God may or may not be omnibenevolent. Yes, that does solve the dilemma.

 

[PureX]

I just want to make sure I understand the questions you asked at the end. Perhaps they were rhetorical in nature, so I want to reiterate what I think your were saying. Is your position that human perspective and God's perspective are not aligned?

My position it that we cannot possibly know what God's perspective is. Or what "God's perspective" even means given the conditions of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. How can there even BE a "perspective" from the condition of omnipresence?

Where God sees holistically and humans fractionally. That we base importance on how we feel (bias) in our immediate surroundings and God has no such bias, only concerned with a specific outcome for His own design? Are you suggesting God is completely oblivious to the human emotion or rather that he has infinite concern for all things so humankind is just a spec of dust in His point of view? What do think?

What I am saying is that we have no idea what it means, or what it's like to be God. So we have no basis from which to ascribe motives and characteristics to God except ourselves. Which only nets us this incoherent dilemma (the PoE) because we are not God.

 

[PureX]

You have claimed that God may or may not be omnibenevolent. Yes, that does solve the dilemma.

We created the dilemma by making assumptions based on our own very biased and limited grasp of divinity. And we can therefor resolve the dilemma by simply admitting that we have created it, unwisely.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

But the assumption that God cares about suffering is clearly an assumption made from a human perspective, that of course cares about human suffering. And that is my point. We humans are not capable of grasping God's perspective. "Suffering" may not even be a relevant consideration from God's perspective on existence. Or maybe our suffering results in some massive advantage later on that we are unaware of, and is thereby a great gift to us. There is simply no way for us to know, and therefor we have no business making assumptions and then using them to pass judgment on a God that we have no real comprehension of. The premise we are applying is irrational, and so naturally, then, is the dilemma that results. Once we realize that the premise is unfounded then the whole dilemma disappears.

I agree that we might not be able to fully perceive Gods personality if there is one. But would you rather we sit down and not even try to understand God? I think you might be in the wrong forum if that is the case. As humans, we are naturally curious, and because of our curiosity we are able to create many cool things. God, perhaps being one of them. Sharing opinions and ideas. Making inferences and equations are the only reason we haven't given up on this world all together. There is so much left to learn. Even if God had intended it or not, doesn't mean we as humans won't stop trying to create personalities for God in the hopes to understand or gain a relationship with Him. This actually has created much benefit already. The real dilemma is forgetting that it is 100% our business to try and reach to God's understanding. If we exist till tomorrow or for millions of more years to come, the function of humanity is discovery, which comes by creating hypothesis and then proof. Our assumptions are very necessary despite our ability to understand.

 

[PureX]

I agree that we might not be able to fully perceive Gods personality if there is one. But would you rather we sit down and not even try to understand God?

I am a Taoist. I do not presume to know the the will of the Divine Realm (or even what that means). And yet I can understand that I must have a place in it, and a purpose of some kind. So what to do? Like all humans, I am sort of trapped between the material realm, and divine realm, aware of both, but fully a part of neither.

But I don't have to know the "mind of the gods" to align with their intent. Because I can assume that the way of existence as I experience it all around me is an expression of that divine will. And I can observe how that flows, and choose to flow with it. And thereby align myself with that divine will without having to know what that divine will, is. Taoism is the path of humility, and spontaneity: of being rather than knowing. I am not trying to "understand God", as that is impossible. I can't even know that God exists, let alone how. But whatever the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of existence is, I can still fulfill my role in it, by being who and what I am as fully as I can. The word "Tao" means "way". More specifically, it refers to the way existence exists. The 'flow of being'. And that is my guide to fulfilling my purpose within this existence. Beyond that I cannot reach.

I think you might be in the wrong forum if that is the case. As humans, we are naturally curious, and because of our curiosity we are able to create many cool things. God, perhaps being one of them. Sharing opinions and ideas. Making inferences and equations are the only reason we haven't given up on this world all together. There is so much left to learn. Even if God had intended it or not, doesn't mean we as humans won't stop trying to create personalities for God in the hopes to understand or gain a relationship with Him. This actually has created much benefit already. The real dilemma is forgetting that it is 100% our business to try and reach to God's understanding. If we exist till tomorrow or for millions of more years to come, the function of humanity is discovery, which comes by creating hypothesis and then proof. Our assumptions are very necessary despite our ability to understand.

"God" is an idea that we humans commonly engage in to help us deal with the great mystery of existence. As a taoist I would neither promote nor discourage engaging with this idea. It is the 'way of man' to invent gods to represent the great mystery of being, and to try and understand it (and control) it.

It is what it is.

 

[BrightShadow]

This is going to be a stretch, but hear me out. In my most recent PoE thread (Special Pleading and the PoE (Part 3)), I put forth an argument based on the incongruence between certain theodicies and the way our moral compasses register things.

For background:

• By "moral compass," I mean that faculty by which we judge things to be morally good or morally bad under the assumption that theism is true, God is omnipotent, God is omniscient, God is responsible for giving us cognitive faculties that are geared towards finding the truth (they aren't just random nonsense), and that God is ostensibly responsible for having given us our moral compasses.
• In the PoE (part 3) post, I pointed out that if God is in charge of our moral faculties being geared towards correctly detecting moral good and bad (that a benevolent God would not bestow a faulty faculty), there is a problem in that we look at something like a child suffering and dying from leukemia and our moral compass usually points to "if someone caused or allowed this when it could have been otherwise, that would be bad."

• Now the theodicy in question retorts: "Suffering that God allows isn't bad because God has some unknown reason for it that actually justifies it in a way that's congruent with benevolence." The argument would be that just as a child doesn't understand why they're being stabbed with a needle during a vaccine to ultimately foster some greater good (gaining immunity to something much worse), perhaps God has some reason for setting up the world in such a way that children get leukemia and suffer and die that's congruent with benevolence.

Last bit of background regarding Baye's Theorem:

• Baye's Theorem lets us calculate a probability based on prior probabilities and the probabilities of components of some state of affairs, such as if we want to know the probability that somebody in the room was born before a certain year given some other factor like the usual demographics that attend the type of meeting held in that room.
• It's expressed thusly: P(A|B) = [P(B|A)*P(A)]/P(B) (read as: the probability of A given B...)

Now, moving on.

Let's say that the proposition "our moral faculties are geared towards correctly detecting moral good and bad" is equivalent to the proposition "our moral faculties are not faulty," and call this proposition K.

Then let's say that the proposition "our moral faculties tell us that giving or allowing children to get leukemia when it's possible not to give/let children have leukemia" is called L.

Then let's say that the proposition "God has a good reason for giving/letting kids have leukemia" is called G, and keep in mind we have sub-premises that God is omnipotent and omniscient.

The argument is simply this: P(G|K&L) is low or inscrutable: someone arguing G is arguing up a massive hill and will need to have really good justification for their argument.

That's it, all that background for that simple argument.

I recently came across this term "PoE". I still don't know what the "problem of Evil" argument really attempts to show. But lets say it attempts to show a logical contradiction between two concepts. In one concept a omnibenevolent God exists and in another concept Evil exists but these two concepts cannot intertwine.
Meaning - Evil cannot coexist with an omnibenevolent God because an omnibenevolent God couldn't and wouldn't allow it to exist because he is all loving and all good and therefore by nature he shouldn't allow any sufferings, otherwise he cannot call himself "omnibenevolent".
I think some Atheists are using this conundrum to justify that there cannot be a omnibenevolent God behind our creation because Evil exists! However, this can easily be resolved if only we knew a bit more about God. What we do know from some of the primary religions is that - God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. But how about omnipresent? Does God has a choice regarding his "omnipresent" status? Does he need to be present in all of the realms that he created at the same time and all the time?
If we go with a God that does have a choice whether or not to be omnipresent and he decides not to be present at a particular section of the universe then we will see that - the existence of Evil in that particular realm where God temporarily choose not to be around (for whatever reason) - does not violate the hypothesis that God is omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent because he can be all that on a different realm (his realm!). Of course God would have a good reason for his absence from any particular realm for any given amount of time but it should be within God's power to not be omnipresent in a particular realm if he so chooses. May be he can get busy elsewhere creating another universe or maybe he just choose to be absent to see how certain aspects of his creation play out!
Does God's voluntary absence from a particular realm where Evil is manifesting - cancel out the hypothesis that he is omnibenevolent? I would argue that it won't because if he is not actively present in a particular realm then he is not required to stop the Evil or sufferings that is taking place in that particular realm. He doesn't need to stop anything to stay in compliance with his omnibenevolent standing in his original realm! In other words - he is still an omnibenevolent God in his realm.

Look around the world we live in - do we see God actively present here? Of course not! But of course I am not considering modern NT version of Christianity where Jesus is wrongfully portrayed as a deity IMO because I sincerely believe Jesus was just a prophet and was not Devine in any shape or form! I also don't accept that Jesus died erasing any future Christians' sins either. A God doesn't need to do that! I believe the only sin Jesus erased was the one particular sin of his disciples who started the false rumor that he was god or son of god. So, I think Jesus went through the crucifixion process just to erase that misconception (that one particular sin). He was accused of blasphemy and he was asked to save himself if he was really a God/god. So, when someone finds himself in that predicament then the only way to show he is not God - was to go through the crucifixion process. If the real God saved him and Jesus walked out of there unharmed then everyone including Romans and Jews would have wrongfully accepted him as God/god. Anyhow, so Jesus/god concept doesn't add up, it doesn't count! In my opinion God never came to this world as a human being. He has been operating from another realm without actively getting involved. We were the rebellious souls. He is allowing this world to take its course. He has decided not to be omnipresent here! But of course he can tap in anytime.

So, once again, since history shows that - God has only been sending prophets and Angels here with his messages for us and that he is not directly communicating with each and everyone of us - it is fair to say that - God is not directly involved with the affairs of this world. I believe Angels are assigned with us and they are taking accounts of everything we do. God will collect all data from his Angels (and from our companions) on judgement day to make a ruling. I believe we are the rejects - so we are not worthy for God's "round the clock" presence!

So, in a world where God is not actively present - it is not impossible for Evil to be present. Thus no PoE! (No problem of Evil!) No coexisting issues! Since God is not omnipresent in this realm - he can still be omnibenevolent in his primary realm!

There is also a history of why God is not actively involved here and why Evil is allowed. As I wrote earlier in the other thread - I believe we all have a history with God prior to our coming to this world. We rebelled, we questioned his absolute authority. Each and every one of us has our own history. Our offense was from mild to severe and I think we are placed on this world accordingly. Even a child that suffers and dies with leukemia had a history prior to being born into this world. No one is born good IMO. With all the distortions in the Bible it got some of the things right! It rightfully states that "no one is good". [Mark 10:18] & [Luke 18:19]. For the child that dies early - it was probably a symbolic visit but he/she had to come into this world to be redeemed. For the rest of us - we have to go through a tougher process. We have to maintain a covenant that we won't question the absolute authority of God ever again and furthermore we would need to lead a honest and good life by using our moral compass that God gave us. Incidentally [Quran 2:62] states that followers of some religions other than Islam (Christians, Jews etc.) can also make it if they maintain the covenant I just mentioned... which is - belief in one God concept, leading a righteous life and believing in the final judgment day. I like that verse from Quran because it applies to anyone who believes in a singular God concept.
If we don't uphold that promise that we made to God then we cannot complain if God takes a harsher ruling against us next time we face him. I think that is what the Angels wanted in the first place when we first rebelled. They didn't want the impure, sinful and wicked ones back among them without some sort of retribution. I am not talking about Crucifixion. I already mentioned that I don't believe Jesus died to erase any future Christians sins at all. We are responsible for our own sins and we have to redeem ourselves by our own merit!

Our moral compass correctly detects a child's early demise as a sad and bad thing from earth's prospective - but from God prospective no permanent damage was done to the soul of that child. Surely God would forgive him/her and put him/her back in the heavens. Angels will be happy that some sort of reparation was made by the child and thus everyone happy in heavens!
Parents' sufferings may or may not have any direct correlation with the child dying from leukemia. We are all sentenced to this world. While in confinement - one person's fault can cause some others to share the burden sometimes! But I am not saying that is the case! But everything has a reason. Sometimes we can figure out the reason and sometimes we can't!

We cannot compute God. Our brain is like a cash register or a simple calculator and we are trying to compute complex mathematics problems with that. We are trying to compute Logarithms, Binary functions, Sine, cosine, and tangent functions with a brain that is like a cash register. It can only do addition and subtraction. We need a scientific calculator! In other words - we need more data and a superior brain to process the data regarding God! So, IMO it is pointless to try and calculate God or worry about God's attributes because we can only process so much data with our limited brain.

 

[night912]

I recently came across this term "PoE". I still don't know what the "problem of Evil" argument really attempts to show. But lets say it attempts to show a logical contradiction between two concepts. In one concept a omnibenevolent God exists and in another concept Evil exists but these two concepts cannot intertwine.
Meaning - Evil cannot coexist with an omnibenevolent God because an omnibenevolent God couldn't and wouldn't allow it to exist because he is all loving and all good and therefore by nature he shouldn't allow any sufferings, otherwise he cannot call himself "omnibenevolent".
I think some Atheists are using this conundrum to justify that there cannot be a omnibenevolent God behind our creation because Evil exists! However, this can easily be resolved if only we knew a bit more about God. What we do know from some of the primary religions is that - God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. But how about omnipresent? Does God has a choice regarding his "omnipresent" status? Does he need to be present in all of the realms that he created at the same time and all the time?
If we go with a God that does have a choice whether or not to be omnipresent and he decides not to be present at a particular section of the universe then we will see that - the existence of Evil in that particular realm where God temporarily choose not to be around (for whatever reason) - does not violate the hypothesis that God is omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent because he can be all that on a different realm (his realm!). Of course God would have a good reason for his absence from any particular realm for any given amount of time but it should be within God's power to not be omnipresent in a particular realm if he so chooses. May be he can get busy elsewhere creating another universe or maybe he just choose to be absent to see how certain aspects of his creation play out!
Does God's voluntary absence from a particular realm where Evil is manifesting - cancel out the hypothesis that he is omnibenevolent? I would argue that it won't because if he is not actively present in a particular realm then he is not required to stop the Evil or sufferings that is taking place in that particular realm. He doesn't need to stop anything to stay in compliance with his omnibenevolent standing in his original realm! In other words - he is still an omnibenevolent God in his realm.

Look around the world we live in - do we see God actively present here? Of course not! But of course I am not considering modern NT version of Christianity where Jesus is wrongfully portrayed as a deity IMO because I sincerely believe Jesus was just a prophet and was not Devine in any shape or form! I also don't accept that Jesus died erasing any future Christians' sins either. A God doesn't need to do that! I believe the only sin Jesus erased was the one particular sin of his disciples who started the false rumor that he was god or son of god. So, I think Jesus went through the crucifixion process just to erase that misconception (that one particular sin). He was accused of blasphemy and he was asked to save himself if he was really a God/god. So, when someone finds himself in that predicament then the only way to show he is not God - was to go through the crucifixion process. If the real God saved him and Jesus walked out of there unharmed then everyone including Romans and Jews would have wrongfully accepted him as God/god. Anyhow, so Jesus/god concept doesn't add up, it doesn't count! In my opinion God never came to this world as a human being. He has been operating from another realm without actively getting involved. We were the rebellious souls. He is allowing this world to take its course. He has decided not to be omnipresent here! But of course he can tap in anytime.

So, once again, since history shows that - God has only been sending prophets and Angels here with his messages for us and that he is not directly communicating with each and everyone of us - it is fair to say that - God is not directly involved with the affairs of this world. I believe Angels are assigned with us and they are taking accounts of everything we do. God will collect all data from his Angels (and from our companions) on judgement day to make a ruling. I believe we are the rejects - so we are not worthy for God's "round the clock" presence!

So, in a world where God is not actively present - it is not impossible for Evil to be present. Thus no PoE! (No problem of Evil!) No coexisting issues! Since God is not omnipresent in this realm - he can still be omnibenevolent in his primary realm!

There is also a history of why God is not actively involved here and why Evil is allowed. As I wrote earlier in the other thread - I believe we all have a history with God prior to our coming to this world. We rebelled, we questioned his absolute authority. Each and every one of us has our own history. Our offense was from mild to severe and I think we are placed on this world accordingly. Even a child that suffers and dies with leukemia had a history prior to being born into this world. No one is born good IMO. With all the distortions in the Bible it got some of the things right! It rightfully states that "no one is good". [Mark 10:18] & [Luke 18:19]. For the child that dies early - it was probably a symbolic visit but he/she had to come into this world to be redeemed. For the rest of us - we have to go through a tougher process. We have to maintain a covenant that we won't question the absolute authority of God ever again and furthermore we would need to lead a honest and good life by using our moral compass that God gave us. Incidentally [Quran 2:62] states that followers of some religions other than Islam (Christians, Jews etc.) can also make it if they maintain the covenant I just mentioned... which is - belief in one God concept, leading a righteous life and believing in the final judgment day. I like that verse from Quran because it applies to anyone who believes in a singular God concept.
If we don't uphold that promise that we made to God then we cannot complain if God takes a harsher ruling against us next time we face him. I think that is what the Angels wanted in the first place when we first rebelled. They didn't want the impure, sinful and wicked ones back among them without some sort of retribution. I am not talking about Crucifixion. I already mentioned that I don't believe Jesus died to erase any future Christians sins at all. We are responsible for our own sins and we have to redeem ourselves by our own merit!

Our moral compass correctly detects a child's early demise as a sad and bad thing from earth's prospective - but from God prospective no permanent damage was done to the soul of that child. Surely God would forgive him/her and put him/her back in the heavens. Angels will be happy that some sort of reparation was made by the child and thus everyone happy in heavens!
Parents' sufferings may or may not have any direct correlation with the child dying from leukemia. We are all sentenced to this world. While in confinement - one person's fault can cause some others to share the burden sometimes! But I am not saying that is the case! But everything has a reason. Sometimes we can figure out the reason and sometimes we can't!

We cannot compute God. Our brain is like a cash register or a simple calculator and we are trying to compute complex mathematics problems with that. We are trying to compute Logarithms, Binary functions, Sine, cosine, and tangent functions with a brain that is like a cash register. It can only do addition and subtraction. We need a scientific calculator! In other words - we need more data and a superior brain to process the data regarding God! So, IMO it is pointless to try and calculate God or worry about God's attributes because we can only process so much data with our limited brain.

What does God not existing in a particular realm that has evil, got anything to do with God's omnibenevolence as a character?

If you only murder and rape people in the USA and no where else, you would still qualify as being a murderer and rapist, even if you are currently living in the UK.

Or would you consider a white person racist if he/she only hate black people but not any other race and/or other people of color? Now hiow about if I change it to be a black person hating all Asian people and no other different race/ethnicity?

 

[night912]

We cannot compute God. Our brain is like a cash register or a simple calculator and we are trying to compute complex mathematics problems with that. We are trying to compute Logarithms, Binary functions, Sine, cosine, and tangent functions with a brain that is like a cash register. It can only do addition and subtraction. We need a scientific calculator! In other words - we need more data and a superior brain to process the data regarding God! So, IMO it is pointless to try and calculate God or worry about God's attributes because we can only process so much data with our limited brain.

That's why it ultimately comes down to it just being about the belief in the existence of God and things relating to it.

 

[BrightShadow]

What does God not existing in a particular realm that has evil, got anything to do with God's omnibenevolence as a character?

If you only murder and rape people in the USA and no where else, you would still qualify as being a murderer and rapist, even if you are currently living in the UK.

Or would you consider a white person racist if he/she only hate black people but not any other race and/or other people of color? Now hiow about if I change it to be a black person hating all Asian people and no other different race/ethnicity?

Yes! A murderer in USA would be considered the same in UK but action and non-action is not the same! A Murderer's action and a all loving and perfectly just God's non-action because he wasn't present - is not the same!

An omnibenevolent God is not obligated to stop Evil where he choose not to be present. Our world is like a drop in the ocean. God can be omnibenevolent everywhere else in that ocean and in every drop but if he created one single drop for an exclusive purpose where he choose not to be present himself but had his Angels watch over then it shouldn't make him non-omnibenevolent everywhere else in my opinion. This one drop that is used for a certain purpose (let just say - to show Angels how free will plays out) - does not make an omnibenevolent God suddenly not omnibenevolent anymore.

 

[paarsurrey]

Bayesian Argument and the PoE (Supporting PoE Post 3)

Why use Philosophical jargon in the religious forum, when there is a separate forum for Philosophy in RF, please?
Doesn't it show one's weakness, please?
Right?

Regards