Destination: Hell in a handbasket

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

This bitch presents, in diminished form, the problem of explaining the existence of evil in the world as created by a God who is all-knowing and all-good. For a true believer, however, the “problem” presents no problem. Man was created with free will and, as such, is free to do both good or evil. End of “problem.”

Next.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

A CATEGORY MISTAKE (II)

The atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked what would he say if, on judgement day, he found himself confronted by God and asked to defend himself. “But Sir,” Russell replied, “you gave no evidence.”

It is not recorded how God responded if indeed He said anything at all since He knew that Russell, no dummy, would have been waiting for Him. He knew that whatever “evidence” He gave, Russell would have then demanded just how that was, in fact, to be understood as being evidence at all. For evidence, to be evidence, must in some fashion bear upon that for which it purports to be evidence, ie. for that which it purports to establish a thing as true. But, in the case of God, there can be no such evidence or, conversely, anything can count as evidence. This is so since evidence, minimally, must be drawn from the world comprehensible by natural reason and God, by definition, is supernatural, i.e., He is the object of another category, that of religious belief. Although Acquinas tried, one cannot rationally deduce the existence of God from the world.

A few RSVPs:

: eats.crayons (1:09PM) – Scientists and mathematicians don’t talk much about God because He is not – and cannot be – an object of scientific study. To suppose otherwise is to fall into the error of “scientism,” the (faith-based!) view that science has all the answers.

: paingirl (1:22PM) – Prove it.

: TheCaptain (1:34PM) – Or wrong.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

I’m looking for 3 more “Likes” to boost my score to 7 on a total-point basis. Don’t let me down.

A CATEGORY MISTAKE (III)

First, many thanks for the extra 3 “Likes” which has put me over the top in respect to my original estimate of 7 “Likes.” The rest, as they say, is gravy.

First, a couple of RSVPs:

: Paingirl (5:12PM)

But dear, it’s not a matter of what you do or do not ask for. Rather, it’s a matter of the independent truth of the matter.

: TollTrollbridge (5:12PM)

First sentence, incoherent; second sentence, incoherent; third sentence, true but irrelevant.

Reference was made to Thomas Acquinas and the “proofs” for the existence of God in my previous post. Two of such “proofs” require brief scrutiny:

(1) The proof from Intelligent Design: Very popular in some current fundamentalist circles, it maintains that God exists because of, well, intelligent design. For example, look at the structure of the snowflake. But note that the major premise, i.e., that of “Intelligent Design” assumes its own conclusions, to wit, that there IS Intelligent Design and it’s just a matter of sorting out just how it came about. Very false logic.

(2) The proof from the Uncaused Cause: A classic Thomist argument for the existence of God. Causation is inscribed in existence and the Uncaused Cause, i.e., that which has no cause but which causes all the other causes whether direcly or indirectly, must therefore be God. But this is what is called a “logical leap.” While it may be true that, at some time in the distant past there was an uncaused cause, there is no reason to believe that it is God. It just could have been, um, an uncaused cause.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

P.S. I’m thinking that, on a total score basis over three entries on “A Category Mistake” I might break the 10 “Like” barrier. Do not let me down.

RSVP

: troondon formosus (05/11, 9:36PM)

(1) “I think God is a matter of faith, if you believe it exists then it does.”

If I were to believe in unicorns then they do too? Is the concept of truth irrelevant to the assertion, “God exists?” Is Troon arguing for an “anything goes” moral relativism? What if I were to say, “I think God is a matter of knowedge, if you think it exists then it does.” Would Troon agree, thereby erasing the distinction between belief and knowledge?

(2) “I do not believe in the almighty as a superparent watching over us who’s image we have taken. That’s just man’s arrogance.”

But why don’t you believe in the almighty as a superparent, Troon? If the existence of God is a matter of faith (see #1 above) and the non-existence of God is similarly a matter of belief, on what grounds does the latter belief, unlike the former, escape the charge of “arrogance?”

(3) “The fact is that we cannot comprehend infinity and ‘everything’ and God makes a nice three letter word to represent all of that.”

Well if that’s the “fact” then we may just as well pack our bags and catch the next bus home. But how did you know that, Troon? And isn’t the categorical assertion to the effect that we cannot comprehend something as “arrogant” (see #2 above) as the assertion to the effect that the almighty is a superparent watching over us who’s image we have taken?

Chill out Troon.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

P.S. I’m looking for 2 “Likes” for this comment.

RSVPs

: Ivan, Master & Commander (05/14, 10:55AM)

Sorry for jumping in Ivan, but try addressing your posts to avoid confusion. No Fool, now’s your chance to step up give Ivan a taste of your steel-toed workboots, and you know where. Now, on to the unicorn!

“unicorn, n. (1) a fabulous animal with a single long horn, said to elude every captor save a virgin. (2) a heraldic representation of this animal, in the form of a horse with a lion’s tail and with a long, straight, and spirally twisted horn.” (American Collegiate Dictionary)

1. Note the word “FABULOUS”. This does not mean “like wow” but rather something derived from a FABLE! (Sorry No Fool, but I guess that leaves you out as a captor of a unicorn.)

2. Note the word HORSE. This does not mean “narwhal.” It means HORSE.

How did we get here from a philosophical (as opposed to psychological) analysis of the “proofs” for the existence of God?

: Hugo Phurst (11:27AM)

Oh no, not him again.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

P.S. On the basis of the mind-numbing absurdity of discussing the purported real-life provenance of the unicorn as well as the dispiriting re-appearance of Hugo Phurst, I feel that 3 “Likes” should not be excessive for this RSVP.