From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Date: 6 Apr 92 12:43:44 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

In <5APR199214474472@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:

>In article <1992Apr5.150659.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes...
>> 
>>First of all, I am not addressing individual events.  The question is:  could
>>God create a world of beings able to freely choose between good and evil
>>and *guarantee* that no evil will be chosen.  The x and y analogy is in my
>>view a poor test case since we are in fact talking about a world of beings
>>and non just joe test-case. <snip.>

IF, as you say, we are not talking about joe test-case, then definitely, evil 
actions will be chosen, as quite often evil, or at least self-interest taken to
the extreme, will get you further in the short run.  The long run, I don't know
about.

>Because God supposedly has divine foreknowledge, he knows what actions
>each of his creations will freely choose to perform throughout their
>lifetimes.  He may therefore choose not to create any of those which
>will choose to perform evil acts.

Isn't that limiting a bit the explanatory power of the model.  A model is only 
secure if it will stand up to all test conditions; there's no sense in limiting
the permutations of the environment.  If god does that then he is cheating.



>>>>>>Lastly, christians do not generally hold that "God is all good (by human
>>>>>>perceptions)".  Not because they do not think that God is good, but
>>>>>>because 'by human perceptions' is an easily misunderstood term.  That is, 
>>>>>>it's not
>>>>>>clear what the author of the argument has in mind by the word 'good', and
>>>>>>it is after all what the debater is defining which is in question here.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is just weaseling.  If "good" means something completely different
>>>>> for God than it does for human beings, then it makes no sense for us to
>>>>> apply *our* term "good" to him.  So Christians should just give up all
>>>>> this nonsense talk about how God is good, and recognize that their real
>>>>> response to the problem of evil is simply that God is not good. (If
>>>>> they're going to take the above tack.)
>> 
>>'completely different' is your phrase, not mine.

>I'll concede this part of the argument.

		Hear Hear!!!!!  [cue sound of clapping]

>>In my view, this argument against the existence of God is weak primarily
>>because it doesn't deal with the purpose of creation.  Now, if you could
>>show that God had a certain good purpose in creating the world, and it was
>>possible to attain that good purpose, and God has in fact, or will in fact,
>>fail to attain that purpose, now that would be something!

>What is the purpose of creation?

Why DOES CREATION HAVE TO HAVE A PURPOSE?????!!!!!
Assuming a purpose assumes a creator and a design, neither has yet to be
proven.

--
         ______________________________________________________________
	|  A.G. Williams          |        Plus qu'il n'en faut.       |    
	|  willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie  |                                    |
	|_________________________|____________________________________|