theodicy

[Martin Peter Clarke]

"Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." From a letter from Paul to the Corinthians. The verse quoted synthesises the Platonic Form or' Idea' of love and the Christian ('afterlife') idea of love.

No mention of love. Just transcendent subject object knowing. Which would be nice, especially if it were universal, of everything that ever suffered. If it facilitated Love.

[iambiguous]

Evil & An Omnipotent, Benevolent GodZdeněk Petráček looks at the biggest problem facing monotheism

Before diving into the problem of evil, it’s crucial to establish clear definitions of the key terms. Omnipotence means “being all-powerful, possessing unlimited capabilities and control” (Cambridge Dictionary).If we refer to God as omnipotent, we mean he has unlimited powers over our lives and everything else in the universe. 

Then the part where some will ask...

* can God create a rock he cannot lift?
* can God create a square circle?
* can God create another God?
* can God commit suicide?

Benevolence denotes the disposition to do good: good will, kindness, or the love of mankind accompanied by a desire to promote happiness. These attributes have long been associated with God, forming the foundation of monotheistic conceptions of a supreme being. Meanwhile, malevolence is “the quality of causing or wanting to cause harm or evil” (Cambridge Dictionary).

Benevolent, maybe, but only if you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior. If not, then, as with the captain -- https://youtu.be/l8ztGAhSEWs?si=NPTBjikYSivER3lm -- He can be one real mean "sombitch".

On the other hand, even the captain can't send anyone to Hell.

Then Epicurus's take on it:  https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/epicurea ... ed-kapoor/

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.”

This is Epicurus’ first assertion. Someone might counter-argue that a greater purpose or higher good served by the existence of evil may justify God’s merely apparent inability to prevent it. For instance, evil in the world allows for the exercise of free will, the development of certain virtues, and the growth of moral character. God in his wisdom may prioritize these ends over the immediate eradication of evil.

Again that's the sheer beauty of religion. You only have to be convinced [by others, by yourself] that what you believe about it -- about God -- need be as far as it goes in order to make it true. In your head. 

[Belinda]

"Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." From a letter from Paul to the Corinthians. The verse quoted synthesises the Platonic Form or' Idea' of love and the Christian ('afterlife') idea of love.

No mention of love. Just transcendent subject object knowing. Which would be nice, especially if it were universal, of everything that ever suffered. If it facilitated Love.

You , Martin, did so mention love!

I used reason to de- and re-construct God to Love. The trouble is it's too powerful for Him. I couldn't complete the final iteration. But it is liberating.

I would like you to elucidate please. The wee bit I quoted comes from Corinthians 1:13 which is all about love. NB I don't quote The Bible as God's words I quote The Bible as literature.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Evil & An Omnipotent, Benevolent GodZdeněk Petráček looks at the biggest problem facing monotheism

Before diving into the problem of evil, it’s crucial to establish clear definitions of the key terms. Omnipotence means “being all-powerful, possessing unlimited capabilities and control” (Cambridge Dictionary).If we refer to God as omnipotent, we mean he has unlimited powers over our lives and everything else in the universe. 

Then the part where some will ask...

* can God create a rock he cannot lift?
* can God create a square circle?
* can God create another God?
* can God commit suicide?

Benevolence denotes the disposition to do good: good will, kindness, or the love of mankind accompanied by a desire to promote happiness. These attributes have long been associated with God, forming the foundation of monotheistic conceptions of a supreme being. Meanwhile, malevolence is “the quality of causing or wanting to cause harm or evil” (Cambridge Dictionary).

Benevolent, maybe, but only if you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior. If not, then, as with the captain -- https://youtu.be/l8ztGAhSEWs?si=NPTBjikYSivER3lm -- He can be one real mean "sombitch".

On the other hand, even the captain can't send anyone to Hell.

Then Epicurus's take on it:  https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/epicurea ... ed-kapoor/

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.”

This is Epicurus’ first assertion. Someone might counter-argue that a greater purpose or higher good served by the existence of evil may justify God’s merely apparent inability to prevent it. For instance, evil in the world allows for the exercise of free will, the development of certain virtues, and the growth of moral character. God in his wisdom may prioritize these ends over the immediate eradication of evil.

Again that's the sheer beauty of religion. You only have to be convinced [by others, by yourself] that what you believe about it -- about God -- need be as far as it goes in order to make it true. In your head. 

I imagine it's only in the last 1% of our species timeline that a minority have realised that when you're dead, you're dead. Did any Archaic, Early Dynastic Egypt, Thinis Period priest know it was all Bee Ess? We've had our current level of language capability, 'behavioural modernity', for at least 50,000 years, easily 80,000 and probably 150,000 and more. It wouldn't have taken much clear thinking genius. It certainly didn't in Vedic India. It takes no genius at all to realise it now. We stand on the shoulders of these giants.

All of sadly risible, risibly sad theodicy, which is all of it, is less than a waste of time with there being no need for intentionality in the ground of being.

If intentionality were the ground of infinite, eternal nature, i.e. nature wouldn't exist without intention, then It, They, apparently can give no trace, no warrant, no justification in nature; no sign. By 'moral' compunction. It would be immoral, bad of Them to reveal themselves. There can be no other reason, for They could easily make it obvious, although paradoxically it gets easier going forward from the Axial Age. They could have done any time from any Iron Age culture, even Bronze Age.

The theodicy that justifies intentionality's absent presence is free will.

What a load of bollocks.

So what else could it be?

It may not be moral at all. Just aesthetic. Or just not important at all. Suffering obviously doesn't matter to Them whether we say it does or not. Unless they aesthetically appreciate it. The best case is that The Intentional uses nature to breed for transcedence. Transcendent imagoes can't be created by fiat in the transcendent. The have to metamorphose from material maggots, in the chrysalis of physical death and transcendent resurrection.

So, they are not Love as far as we're concerned in our suffering. For they leave not the faintest trace. Not a scintilla of care. Especially not in the grandiose false prospectus claim of Christianity. Which fails as badly as any lesser claim.

[seeds]

Evil & An Omnipotent, Benevolent GodZdeněk Petráček looks at the biggest problem facing monotheism

Before diving into the problem of evil, it’s crucial to establish clear definitions of the key terms. Omnipotence means “being all-powerful, possessing unlimited capabilities and control” (Cambridge Dictionary).If we refer to God as omnipotent, we mean he has unlimited powers over our lives and everything else in the universe. 

Then the part where some will ask...

* can God create a rock he cannot lift?

A meaningless riddle on a par with...

The following sentence is true.
The preceding sentence is false.

* can God create a square circle?

No.

* can God create another God?

Yes.

There are approximately 8 billion newly created Gods walking the earth at this present moment, one of which is you, iambiguous.

* can God commit suicide?

Probably.

I mean, somewhere within the context of the "ALL-THAT-IS," there no doubt exists a means by which the Creator of our universe could terminate its own existence if it truly wanted to.

Any other questions?
_______

[Gary Childress]

Evil & An Omnipotent, Benevolent GodZdeněk Petráček looks at the biggest problem facing monotheism

Before diving into the problem of evil, it’s crucial to establish clear definitions of the key terms. Omnipotence means “being all-powerful, possessing unlimited capabilities and control” (Cambridge Dictionary).If we refer to God as omnipotent, we mean he has unlimited powers over our lives and everything else in the universe. 

Then the part where some will ask...

* can God create a rock he cannot lift?

A meaningless riddle on a par with...

The following sentence is true.
The preceding sentence is false.

* can God create a square circle?

No.

* can God create another God?

Yes.

There are approximately 8 billion newly created Gods walking the earth at this present moment, one of which is you, iambiguous.

* can God commit suicide?

Probably.

I mean, somewhere within the context of the "ALL-THAT-IS," there no doubt exists a means by which the Creator of our universe could terminate its own existence if it truly wanted to.

Any other questions?
_______

Yes. If God farts does it smell 'good' or does it stink the worst?

[seeds]

Evil & An Omnipotent, Benevolent GodZdeněk Petráček looks at the biggest problem facing monotheism



Then the part where some will ask...

* can God create a rock he cannot lift?

A meaningless riddle on a par with...

The following sentence is true.
The preceding sentence is false.

* can God create a square circle?

No.

* can God create another God?

Yes.

There are approximately 8 billion newly created Gods walking the earth at this present moment, one of which is you, iambiguous.

* can God commit suicide?

Probably.

I mean, somewhere within the context of the "ALL-THAT-IS," there no doubt exists a means by which the Creator of our universe could terminate its own existence if it truly wanted to.

Any other questions?
_______

Yes. If God farts does it smell 'good' or does it stink the worst?

https://youtu.be/kkScDtCFdfs?t=24
_______

[Belinda]

Evil & An Omnipotent, Benevolent GodZdeněk Petráček looks at the biggest problem facing monotheism



Then the part where some will ask...

* can God create a rock he cannot lift?

A meaningless riddle on a par with...

The following sentence is true.
The preceding sentence is false.

* can God create a square circle?

No.

* can God create another God?

Yes.

There are approximately 8 billion newly created Gods walking the earth at this present moment, one of which is you, iambiguous.

* can God commit suicide?

Probably.

I mean, somewhere within the context of the "ALL-THAT-IS," there no doubt exists a means by which the Creator of our universe could terminate its own existence if it truly wanted to.

Any other questions?
_______

Yes. If God farts does it smell 'good' or does it stink the worst?

God , as agape love, is evident when people such as doctors and nurses are objective about "farts" to the extent that some experienced diagnosticians use their sense of smell.
"Worst" is subjective. I know, I am missing your point. But your point is based on the paradigm of a supernatural personal God. The other paradigm is that of God Who is always in the process of becoming and whose essence is the Platonic triad of Good, Beauty, and Truth.

[iambiguous]

Evil & An Omnipotent, Benevolent GodZdeněk Petráček looks at the biggest problem facing monotheism

Before diving into the problem of evil, it’s crucial to establish clear definitions of the key terms. Omnipotence means “being all-powerful, possessing unlimited capabilities and control” (Cambridge Dictionary).If we refer to God as omnipotent, we mean he has unlimited powers over our lives and everything else in the universe. 

Then the part where some will ask...

* can God create a rock he cannot lift?

A meaningless riddle on a par with...

The following sentence is true.
The preceding sentence is false.

Unless, perhaps, a God, the God does in fact exist. In that case, he either can do X or he can't. Whereas with your example, it's just a bunch of words commenting on another bunch of words. One sentence referring to another sentence with no reference whatsoever to any actual human-all-too-human existential context.

* can God create a square circle?

No.

Well, that settles that then, of course.

* can God create another God?

Yes.

So, any word on whether or not he actually has created another one? After all...

"According to calculations, the current comoving distance to particles from which the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) was emitted, which represents the radius of the visible universe, is about 14.0 billion parsecs (about 45.7 billion light-years). The comoving distance to the edge of the observable universe is about 14.3 billion parsecs (about 46.6 billion light-years),[ about 2% larger. The radius of the observable universe is therefore estimated to be about 46.5 billion light-years.[ Using the critical density and the diameter of the observable universe, the total mass of ordinary matter in the universe can be calculated to be about 1.5×1053 kg.[ In November 2018, astronomers reported that extragalactic background light (EBL) amounted to 4×1084 photons."  wiki

Ever wonder how a God, the God, might fit into all of that? Given a universe estimated to be 46.5 billion light years across, it may well be that one God was never going to be enough.

There are approximately 8 billion newly created Gods walking the earth at this present moment, one of which is you, iambiguous.

Okay, and admittedly, these mere mortal "Gods" often make the lives of other "Gods" down here a living Hell. For example, historically, when a community worshipping one God did battle with a community worshipping another God...or communities believing in no God at all. In fact, in regard to the God of Abraham, Christians and Muslims and Jews have on and off been slaughtering each other for centuries now. The same God!

But what about this part:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_e ... _pandemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_records
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

* can God commit suicide?

Probably.

I mean, somewhere within the context of the "ALL-THAT-IS," there no doubt exists a means by which the Creator of our universe could terminate its own existence if it truly wanted to.

And then the part where "ALL-THAT-IS,", may well include the multiverse. A different God for each one?

Any other questions?

I think perhaps I'll just wait for your next set of answers.

[seeds]

* can God create a rock he cannot lift?

A meaningless riddle on a par with...

The following sentence is true.
The preceding sentence is false.

Unless, perhaps, a God, the God does in fact exist. In that case, he either can do X or he can't. Whereas with your example, it's just a bunch of words commenting on another bunch of words. One sentence referring to another sentence with no reference whatsoever to any actual human-all-too-human existential context.

The "...all-too-human existential context..." is that humans like to ask silly questions about things that they are not yet conscious enough to comprehend.

You (like VA) are the living, breathing, walking, talking embodiment of "twin number two" in my whimsical little soap opera titled: "Oh the Irony"...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/fuck- ... -%E2%80%A6
.

* can God create a square circle?

No.

Well, that settles that then, of course.

No, what settles it is that there truly does exist impossible endeavors.

* can God create another God?

Yes.

So, any word on whether or not he actually has created another one? After all...

"According to calculations, the current comoving distance to particles from which the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) was emitted, which represents the radius of the visible universe, is about 14.0 billion parsecs (about 45.7 billion light-years). The comoving distance to the edge of the observable universe is about 14.3 billion parsecs (about 46.6 billion light-years),[ about 2% larger. The radius of the observable universe is therefore estimated to be about 46.5 billion light-years.[ Using the critical density and the diameter of the observable universe, the total mass of ordinary matter in the universe can be calculated to be about 1.5×1053 kg.[ In November 2018, astronomers reported that extragalactic background light (EBL) amounted to 4×1084 photons."  wiki

Ever wonder how a God, the God, might fit into all of that? Given a universe estimated to be 46.5 billion light years across, it may well be that one God was never going to be enough.

What you have proposed demonstrates your inability to think outside of the box when it comes to God.

First of all, get your facts straight, for the (observable) universe is estimated to be approximately 93 billion light years across.

And secondly, you don't seem to have any understanding of the meaning of the word "relativity" as it applies to concepts other than those suggested by Einstein.

I try to explain your problem with relativity in this YouTube video of a short segment from one of my video lectures I presented on Public Access Television in Grand Rapids, Michigan back in the 90s...

https://youtu.be/bVbpHy4nncA
.

There are approximately 8 billion newly created Gods walking the earth at this present moment, one of which is you, iambiguous.

Okay, and admittedly, these mere mortal "Gods" often make the lives of other "Gods" down here a living Hell. For example, historically, when a community worshipping one God did battle with a community worshipping another God...or communities believing in no God at all. In fact, in regard to the God of Abraham, Christians and Muslims and Jews have on and off been slaughtering each other for centuries now. The same God!

But what about this part:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_e ... _pandemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_records
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

Are you ever going to rise above the initial brainwashing you received as a child?

You never cease to embody the sentiment expressed in this quote from Einstein...

"...The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle..."

You need to stop envisioning God through the lens of ancient mythological nonsense.

* can God commit suicide?

Probably.

I mean, somewhere within the context of the "ALL-THAT-IS," there no doubt exists a means by which the Creator of our universe could terminate its own existence if it truly wanted to.

And then the part where "ALL-THAT-IS,", may well include the multiverse. A different God for each one?

Finally, you are touching on a true possibility.

As I posted in an alternate thread a couple of years ago (emphasis mine)...

...from the book: "COSMIC COINCIDENCES - Dark Matter, Mankind, and Anthropic Cosmology" by John Gribbin and Martin Rees...

Quantum cosmology allows the possibility of creating not just one universe but an infinite number of universes out of nothing at all. The universes may be inter-connected in some complex way, as new universes are born within, but then pinch off from, the vacuum of old universes, producing a complex multidimensional foam. Our universe may simply be a region of space-time that has pinched off from another bubble.

And the point was that if you just add life, mind, and consciousness to that materialistic theory, then you have a near perfect parallel to my "Ultimate Seed" theory which suggests that our minds are simply the "seed-like" embryos of the universe, with the universe simply being the fully-fruitioned reality of God's mind, which is simply the "adult version" of that which we are the embryos of and each destined to become like.

However, I suspect that your "twin two" mentality (please read the "Oh the Irony" post)...

(along with the still felt weight of your thrown-off chains)

...will not allow you to entertain such a possibility.
_______

[iambiguous]

Evil & An Omnipotent, Benevolent God
Zdeněk Petráček looks at the biggest problem facing monotheism

From this perspective [above], God’s omnipotence is not undermined, but rather redefined, to include voluntary constraints based on a broader understanding of his character and purposes. However, as David Hume argues in his Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion (1779), extreme cases of suffering, such as that in genocides or significant natural disasters, seem disproportionate to any conceivable greater purpose or higher good.

On the other hand, what can we mere mortals possibly grasp with any sophistication regarding an entity said to have created the universe itself? And while any number of atheists might insist this is all predicated on leaps of faith [or on Scripture] that is hardly likely to change many minds given all that is at stake in a No God universe.

And on the other hand, even without such pervasive evil, life presents us with numerous obstacles to be overcome by applying virtues and moral qualities which are developed in the face of these obstacles.

And which particular virtues might they actually be, given what particular set of obstacles to be overcome? How about someone noting how this is manifested given their own interactions with others. What were they able to overcome themselves?

Free will is often invoked to explain the existence of moral evil, which is to say, evil committed by people as opposed to natural disasters. The contemporary philosopher Alvin Plantinga, in his free will defense, argues that even an omnipotent being cannot do self-contradictory things like creating a square circle or controlling someone without violating their autonomy (God, Freedom, and Evil, 1977).

Back to that again. Simply assuming that a God, the God must exist because that really is the only way to account for free will. And who really dwells on God creating square circles? His job instead is to recognize that we've been either good or bad so that on Judgment Day the verdict will go in our favor.

Then back to this as well...

However, some atheists argue that the very notion of an all-knowing deity contradicts the concept of free will. Simply said, if God knows our future decisions, then they are fixed in advance, so we have no free will, and the free will argument collapses.

What rarely changes though is that, if moral commandments, immortality and salvation are important to you, you'll come up with a way to rationalize anything and everything that is ascribed to God on your very own One True Path in order to sustain the comfort and the consolation it gives you all the way to the grave.

I know that I would if I could.

[iambiguous]

Evil & An Omnipotent, Benevolent God
Zdeněk Petráček looks at the biggest problem facing monotheism

One last question is, could virtues be developed in a world without evil? Virtues like compassion and empathy could probably still develop, as even in a world without pervasive evil there could still be more minor difficulties that would help people to understand and support each other during challenging times.

Lots of people will note things like compassion and empathy as good things. When, of course, existentially, it always comes down to who or what you feel these things for. Is it only for those who are "one of us"? In other words, the reason some go through challenging times is because it is others who created them.

“Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.”

Epicurus’ second assertion is that if God can prevent evil but lacks the willingness to do so, then divine benevolence is undermined.

The part where some suggest that, given the simply staggering pain and suffering embedded in human interactions and in "acts of God", a God, the God may well be a sadistic monster. Then, however, those who refuse to accept this because they "just know" that everything will all be explained once they are privy to the reasons behind His "mysterious ways".

The notion that greater good is achieved through the existence of evil again might be used to justify God’s apparent indifference to instances of intense suffering. But one could argue that the existence of unnecessary and gratuitous suffering, such as child abuse or natural disasters causing widespread devastation, raises profound ethical concerns here. If an all-powerful God possesses the ability to prevent such suffering but chooses not to intervene, it challenges the traditional understanding of benevolence. So judging whether God is malevolent requires a broader perspective beyond individual instances of suffering.

Come on, it generally becomes as broad or as narrow as each of us individually need it to be.

Those who do believe God provides us with moral commandments and with the assurance that we will live on forever in paradise...?

In other words, what is it about God that you yourself are willing to accept in order to sustain that comfort and consolation up to and beyond the grave?

On the other hand, what part of God's mysterious ways don't you understand? It is there in fact to encompass, well, everything under the sun.

Or, to put it "spiritually"...

A comprehensive evaluation of God’s benevolence should take into account the entirety of life, including the potential long-term consequences of allowing evil. Human (lack of) understanding could be preventing us from fully grasping the ultimate reasons that God allows evil.

Now, you just have to "believe it", right? Let the ecclesiastics among us wallow in all that theological stuff.

However, I would argue that even when considering the broader perspective, there remain cases of extreme suffering that seem incompatible with the idea of a perfectly good God: the concept of a benevolent deity cannot, unqualified, genuinely account for the existence of such intense and unnecessary forms of evil. Even given the argument of virtues developing through facing evil, we have to ask what virtues are developed by genocide or child abuse.

So, what do you argue instead?

[Belinda]

Evil & An Omnipotent, Benevolent God
Zdeněk Petráček looks at the biggest problem facing monotheism

One last question is, could virtues be developed in a world without evil? Virtues like compassion and empathy could probably still develop, as even in a world without pervasive evil there could still be more minor difficulties that would help people to understand and support each other during challenging times.

Lots of people will note things like compassion and empathy as good things. When, of course, existentially, it always comes down to who or what you feel these things for. Is it only for those who are "one of us"? In other words, the reason some go through challenging times is because it is others who created them.

“Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.”

Epicurus’ second assertion is that if God can prevent evil but lacks the willingness to do so, then divine benevolence is undermined.

The part where some suggest that, given the simply staggering pain and suffering embedded in human interactions and in "acts of God", a God, the God may well be a sadistic monster. Then, however, those who refuse to accept this because they "just know" that everything will all be explained once they are privy to the reasons behind His "mysterious ways".

The notion that greater good is achieved through the existence of evil again might be used to justify God’s apparent indifference to instances of intense suffering. But one could argue that the existence of unnecessary and gratuitous suffering, such as child abuse or natural disasters causing widespread devastation, raises profound ethical concerns here. If an all-powerful God possesses the ability to prevent such suffering but chooses not to intervene, it challenges the traditional understanding of benevolence. So judging whether God is malevolent requires a broader perspective beyond individual instances of suffering.

Come on, it generally becomes as broad or as narrow as each of us individually need it to be.

Those who do believe God provides us with moral commandments and with the assurance that we will live on forever in paradise...?

In other words, what is it about God that you yourself are willing to accept in order to sustain that comfort and consolation up to and beyond the grave?

On the other hand, what part of God's mysterious ways don't you understand? It is there in fact to encompass, well, everything under the sun.

Or, to put it "spiritually"...

A comprehensive evaluation of God’s benevolence should take into account the entirety of life, including the potential long-term consequences of allowing evil. Human (lack of) understanding could be preventing us from fully grasping the ultimate reasons that God allows evil.

Now, you just have to "believe it", right? Let the ecclesiastics among us wallow in all that theological stuff.

However, I would argue that even when considering the broader perspective, there remain cases of extreme suffering that seem incompatible with the idea of a perfectly good God: the concept of a benevolent deity cannot, unqualified, genuinely account for the existence of such intense and unnecessary forms of evil. Even given the argument of virtues developing through facing evil, we have to ask what virtues are developed by genocide or child abuse.

So, what do you argue instead?

I argue the supernatural Being does not exist. What does exist is the human ability to quest for and to create ways to good, truth, and beauty.

If and when the human religious quest serves good, truth, or beauty or all three, then the human religious quest is good. There is a bit of good, truth, and beauty in every man.

[iambiguous]

Excusing God
Raymond Tallis highlights the problem of evil.

[Philip Goff] addresses the difficulty often invoked by infidels such as myself “of reconciling a loving all powerful God with the terrible suffering we see in the world.” The argument is that if God truly is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent – ideas central to Judeo-Christian belief – then he would not wish, nor indeed allow, that there should be suffering in the universe. So why is there so much suffering?

Of course, for any number of religious denominations, the answer revolves around God's mysterious ways. After all, invoking that allows them to sustain the comfort and the consolation that comes with believing they have access to moral commandments here and now and immortality and salvation there and then.

In fact, as I often note, I'd believe in them again if I could.

Indeed, the scale, intensity, ubiquity, and irremediability of that suffering is easy to under-imagine unless one is in the grip of it. But the constant possibility of suffering is built into our organic nature.

On the other hand, as the Camp Mystic tragedy revealed to us yet again, even in the grip of it what else is there?

"Camp Mystic, a girls' Christian summer camp in Texas, has a strong connection to faith, with many associated with the camp expressing that they feel God's presence there and relying on their faith to cope with the recent devastating floods. The tragedy has led to an outpouring of faith-based support and reflection on the role of spirituality in times of crisis." AI

Imagine if one of the young girls who died was your own daughter or sister or best friend. Without one or another spiritual denouement, you'd have to live with the "brute facticity" of a No God world.

Then this part:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_e ... _pandemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_records
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

Our vulnerability extends from external catastrophes, such as earthquakes, floods, and fires, reaching down to our individual bodies with their many ways of going off course, and, as a result, imposing pain as the price of continuing existence. Moreover, the evolutionary mechanism the non-survival of the less-than-fit that has led to exotic megafauna such as humans, is a tale of predation, starvation, and often protracted, painful death.

It's not for nothing that Harold Kushner's When Bad Things Happen to Good People" has sold over 4,000,000 copies.

Kushner was a Jew. He believed in the God of Abraham. Just as Christians and Muslims do. And yet over the centuries they have been inflicting God knows how much terrible pain and suffering on each other.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

The Intent has to ground infinite nature from eternity. In its single, dimensionlessness. Of course there would have to be an infinity of such Intents, as one is absurd. And each one perfectly pretends it isn't. How humble.