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
Subject: Re: God and suffering
Message-ID: <1955@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Oct-85 14:16:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1955
Posted: Wed Oct 23 14:16:57 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Oct-85 08:15:44 EDT
References: <389@decwrl.UUCP> <2203@sdcc6.UUCP> <351@pyuxn.UUCP> <328@uwvax.UUCP> <171@l5.uucp> <388@pyuxn.UUCP> <206@l5.uucp>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 29

>>> It does not require omnipotence to design a world where there are no
>>> earthquakes or no common cold. I figure, either God is not omnipotent,
>>> or he/she/it is evil.  [LAURA]

>>That's not an exclusive or, Laura. Certainly He could be both (not omnipotent
>>and evil). In fact, He is.  [ZIMMERMAN]

> I guess I was not clear.  I meant this an an exclusive or.  
> 	IF (God is omnipotent)
> 		THEN (God is evil)	/* else there would be no earthquakes */
> 	ELSE
> 		(God could be other than evil)
> 					/* maybe God hates earthquakes as well*/

Sorry, Laura, that's NOT an exclusive or by any stretch.  You're saying
A is non-omnipotent, and B is evil, and you offer "If ~A then B", but you
don't have the opposing "If A then ~B" to make an exclusive or.  I think Paul
is saying that the possibility certainly exist that god could be BOTH evil
and non-omnipotent, there's nothing in the way of that.

> The binding is on omnipotence.  Either God is omnipotent and evil or not
> omnipotent.  (Non-omnipotent evil Gods are possible, of course.)

That's exactly what Paul was saying:  it's NOT an exclusive or.  (Remember
the two conditions you gave in your original article were "either god is
not omnipotent OR it is evil".)
-- 
"Meanwhile, I was still thinking..."
				Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr