Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: God and suffering
Message-ID: <1901@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Oct-85 10:22:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1901
Posted: Fri Oct 18 10:22:03 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Oct-85 08:17:05 EDT
References: <389@decwrl.UUCP> <2203@sdcc6.UUCP> <351@pyuxn.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 72
Xref: watmath net.religion:8008 net.religion.christian:1465

> I really don't know why I'm answering this, but . . . we all have our
> moments of weakness.

Yes, indeed.  Perhaps a good reason for "answering this" is for the reason
of understanding things.

>>>>Haven't you ever heard of Occam's Razor?  [Hunter Scales]

>>> If the argument holds logically, what's your problem?
>>> Do you have a simpler explanation for evil in the presence of an 
>>> omnipotent and benevolent God? [charli]

>>Obviously (unfortunately), the answer to Hunter's question in the
>>earlier paragraph is quite apparently a resounding "no".  For if she
>>had, she would know precisely what the problem is. [Rich]

> Mr. Rosen, you should learn not to jump to unjustified conclusions.
> Of course I'm familiar with Occam's Razor.  The second question should
> make that plain.

On the contrary, it is that very phrasing of that second question that makes
it all too clear that you do NOT understand the principle at all.  That
question is similar in nature to a question of the form "Why does Santa Claus
never leave me any toys?"  The assumptions don't even wait until the question
to end (to being the formulation of answers with assumptions).  The assumptions
are right there IN THE QUESTION!  A simpler for explanation "for evil"?
Isn't the notion that there is force of deliberate evil AT ALL a tremendous
assumption, which has been shown time and time again to be rooted in a
subjective wish to classify all things beneficial/harmful to YOU as "good"/
"evil"?  "In the presence of an omnipotent and benevolent God"?????  If
that's not a remarkable set of assumptions, I don't know what is!  Not only
do you assume the existence of a god, but you assume its shape, form, and
quality according to your liking!  Finally, from the earlier article you
ask "If the argument holds logically, what's your problem?"  Forgive me,
but that makes it clear that you do not understand at all the principle of
Occam's Razor?  The example of its usage bandied about this group goes
something like this:  You come home and find your bird missing from its cage
and feathers in the mouth of your sleeping cat.  You have at least two
possible conclusions you can draw:  (1)  Interdimensional aliens entered your
house through a space-time-cheese warp in the fabric of the continuum, put
your cat to sleep with an anti-matter ineptoid ray, stole the bird for their
own purposes, and placed feathers in your cat's mouth to incriminate him, or
(2) your cat ate the bird.  "If the argument holds logically (as the first
scenario does), what's your problem?"  is antithetical to the principle
of invoking the solution that has the least assumptions, which is (of course)
Occam's Razor.

> I asked if Hunter had a *simpler* explanation of evil
> in the presence of an omnipotent and benevolent God; Occam's Razor (just
> to make the point) is that the simplest explanation that takes into
> account all known facts is to be preferred over more complex explanations.

All known FACTS.  But the variables you add in are hardly facts.  As I have
shown they are assumptions themselves and have no place in the question in
the first place.  Asking that sort of question is about as presumptive as
you can get.

> You and I do not disagree on this philosophical principal; we disagree
> on the facts.

When you have enough eivdence to call them facts, then we can say that this
is just a "difference of opinion" about facts.  Since you don't, you are
merely invoking the "principle" in a very poor and erroneous fashion.

> (And I believe that Willam of Ockham would have agreed with me on the 
> facts. :-) )

And people of his day and age (and profession) have been wrong before about
such things...
-- 
Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus.
						Rich Rosen   pyuxd!rlr