Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site uwvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!planting
From: planting@uwvax.UUCP (W. Harry Plantinga)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: God and suffering
Message-ID: <330@uwvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Sep-85 09:42:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: uwvax.330
Posted: Fri Sep 27 09:42:09 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 1-Oct-85 11:03:39 EDT
References: <389@decwrl.UUCP> <2203@sdcc6.UUCP> <351@pyuxn.UUCP> <328@uwvax.UUCP> <541@oakhill.UUCP>
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 62
Xref: linus net.religion:7396 net.religion.christian:1334

In article <541@oakhill.UUCP>, Hunter Scales (oakhill!hunter) writes
this in response to my article about why Paul's "damager God" argument
doesn't hold:

>       This line of thinking might hold for "evil" such as murder, rape,
> etc.  How does it apply to letting innocent children die from
> starvation, disease, storms, earthquakes etc?  Or are these children
> not christian and so are not "innocent" ?  A fundementalist once tried
> to convince me that people who had never heard of Christ would
> nevertheless be damned to eternal hellfire!!
> 
> Is it logically impossible to create a world without disease or at
> least create human beings who are immune to viruses and bacterial
> infection?  I think it is possible and, further that man will eventually
> create just such a world.  This is the difference between an optimistic
> but rational person and one who is besotted with a basically negative
> religion.

I could respond to this in two ways:  I could tell you Christian
doctrine on these points, or I could I could point out that your
extension of Paul's argument is not valid either.  Concerning
Christian doctrine, let me just state that no one is innocent; all are
deserving of punishment.  However, for my main response I choose to 
do the latter, since "proofs" of the non-existence of God is how this 
dicussion started.

As I see it, your extension of Paul's argument is this:

(1) There is an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good God.
(2) There is evil in the world which is not attributable to any human.
(3) If a wholly good God knew of any evil which was not 
attributable to any human, and had the ability to stop it, he would.
(4) This is a contradiction, so (1) is false.

This argument also fails for a couple of reasons.  First of all, it is
possible that there are beings other than humans and God; I have in
mind Satan, of course.  It is possible that Satan is responsible for
evil such as disease, etc.  And as we have already seen in an earlier
message, a wholly good could conceivably have reasons for allowing a
being to sin.

In another vein, there is a completely different reason for why this
argument is not valid.  Now let me point out that you don't have to
believe these following possibilities true in order for them to show
that your argument doesn't hold; you merely have to believe them
possible, for then your argument is no longer has a contradiction;
there are possible ways out.

Suppose that this wholly good God nevertheless has a sense of justice.
Their sin might deserve punishment in the form of disease, 
pestilence, etc.  What's more, hardship might be *good* for them in 
the long run, for example, in that it might make them deal with 
questions such as these!  It could be that if there were no 
hardship in the world, no on would seek God.

Well enough of this.  Arguments about whether God's exsistence is
impossible or necessary are of small value--they rarely convince
anyone of anything.

			Harry Plantinga
			planting@wisc-rsch.arpa
			{seismo,ihnp4,heurikon}!uwvax!planting


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com