Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cylixd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!akgub!cylixd!charli
From: charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: God and suffering
Message-ID: <388@cylixd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-Oct-85 10:26:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: cylixd.388
Posted: Thu Oct 17 10:26:18 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Oct-85 04:54:02 EDT
References: <389@decwrl.UUCP> <2203@sdcc6.UUCP> <351@pyuxn.UUCP>
Reply-To: charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips)
Organization: RCA Cylix Communications , Memphis, TN
Lines: 30
Xref: watmath net.religion:8000 net.religion.christian:1460
Summary: 

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

Rich Rosen writes:

>>>Haven't you ever heard of Occam's Razor?  [Hunter Scales]
>
>> If the argument holds logically, what's your problem?  [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]
>
>> Do you have a simpler explanation for evil in the presence of an 
>> omnipotent and benevolent God? [charli]
>

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

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

		charli