Questioning the Problem of Evil once again

[instantc]

Here is what I find slightly baffling about the Problem of Evil.

The argument essentially says that the present world is not what the universe would look like if it were ruled by a loving and powerful ruler. I.e, there is too much evil in the world.

There is too much evil in the world, that strikes me as an odd thing to say. What would be an appropriate amount of evil for an almighty ruler to allow? Is it logically possible to know happiness without knowing any suffering? Some variants of the PoE say that it is the unnecessary suffering that disproves God, but is any suffering completely unnecessary or gratuitous? I don't think so. Some instances of suffering may be highly disproportionate to the potential positive consequences, but every instance of suffering has at least some conceivable positive consequences.

I think that one who wants to endorse PoE also has to define where he draws the line with regard to the acceptable amount of suffering, i.e he should define what amount/type of suffering would be consistent with the God hypothesis. He would then have to show that a world with those conditions would be (1) conceivable and (2) desirable.

To make it short, if you are to claim that this is not how a loving God should act, then you should be able to explain how it is that a loving God should act. If you say that this is not what a universe ruled by a loving ruler looks like, then you should, according to the rules of inference, first have a vision of what a universe ruled by a loving ruler does look like.

What do you think?

[ttruscott]

...

Lets say you have a broken arm, when I touch it, it hurts a lot. I keep touching it and you rightly complain about the pain. Would the reasoning that "you have to feel pain, it is a logical necessity of me touching it" convince you that there are no option but to endure this pain? Or would you, like anybody else, tell me "no, I don't have to feel pain, you can stop touching my arm?"

Can you answer this as is, without adding your own meaning to it, please?

...

Yes I can. Sure I can / might say ""no, I don't have to feel pain, you can stop touching my arm?""

And I could expect you to stop...

Now can you answer clearly...So what? I can see no relationship with your action and my pain that relates to what I know of the problem of evil nor the inevitable answer to that problem (which we have sidetrack into) the necessity of hell.

I'll wait for an answer because I am obviously ill equipped to guess what it might be...

Peace, Ted

[Bust Nak]

...

Lets say you have a broken arm, when I touch it, it hurts a lot. I keep touching it and you rightly complain about the pain. Would the reasoning that "you have to feel pain, it is a logical necessity of me touching it" convince you that there are no option but to endure this pain? Or would you, like anybody else, tell me "no, I don't have to feel pain, you can stop touching my arm?"

Can you answer this as is, without adding your own meaning to it, please?

...

Yes I can. Sure I can / might say ""no, I don't have to feel pain, you can stop touching my arm?""

And I could expect you to stop...

Now can you answer clearly...So what? I can see no relationship with your action and my pain that relates to what I know of the problem of evil nor the inevitable answer to that problem (which we have sidetrack into) the necessity of hell.

I'll wait for an answer because I am obviously ill equipped to guess what it might be...

I'd glad to answer exactly what significance is: It demostrate that pain in your arm is not a logical necessity - you don't have to fell pain, even when it is a direct consequence of, and follows logically from, me touching your arm. Analogous to hell is not a logical necessity, even when it is a direct consequence of sinners rejecting God.

Up to this point you've responded with "but it is a logical necessity of rejection of God" to my point that hell is not a logical necessity. If "pain is a logical necessity of your arm being touched" does not counter the the claim that "pain is not a logical necessity." Why would "hell is a logical necessity of rejecting God" work against the claim that "hell is not a logical necessity?"

Now can you finally acknowledge that hell is not a logical necessity, even though hell must necessily follow from a rejection of God?

And if you do acknowledge that hell is not a logical necessity, you open your theology up to the problem of evil.

[ttruscott]

...

Lets say you have a broken arm, when I touch it, it hurts a lot. I keep touching it and you rightly complain about the pain. Would the reasoning that "you have to feel pain, it is a logical necessity of me touching it" convince you that there are no option but to endure this pain? Or would you, like anybody else, tell me "no, I don't have to feel pain, you can stop touching my arm?"

Can you answer this as is, without adding your own meaning to it, please?

...

Yes I can. Sure I can / might say ""no, I don't have to feel pain, you can stop touching my arm?""

And I could expect you to stop...

Now can you answer clearly...So what? I can see no relationship with your action and my pain that relates to what I know of the problem of evil nor the inevitable answer to that problem (which we have sidetrack into) the necessity of hell.

I'll wait for an answer because I am obviously ill equipped to guess what it might be...

I'd glad to answer exactly what significance is: It demostrate that pain in your arm is not a logical necessity - you don't have to fell pain, even when it is a direct consequence of, and follows logically from, me touching your arm. Analogous to hell is not a logical necessity, even when it is a direct consequence of sinners rejecting God.

Up to this point you've responded with "but it is a logical necessity of rejection of God" to my point that hell is not a logical necessity. If "pain is a logical necessity of your arm being touched" does not counter the the claim that "pain is not a logical necessity." Why would "hell is a logical necessity of rejecting God" work against the claim that "hell is not a logical necessity?"

Now can you finally acknowledge that hell is not a logical necessity, even though hell must necessily follow from a rejection of God?

And if you do acknowledge that hell is not a logical necessity, you open your theology up to the problem of evil.

I'm sorry, again I understand all the words you use but put together like this they are meaningless to me. Your use of analogies is outside of my understanding. As before it does not mean to me what it seems to mean to you and I can't understand you pov enough to even disagree with it...

this topic is also done for me I think, sigh.

Peace, ted

[Aetixintro]

Killing the cheap points, mind the role of Free-Will in religion.

That stupidity and failure toward God and Heaven gets punished and that stupidity is also cut away from nature by failing the principles of life. The corrupt minds, the negligence toward fellow human being, toward the duties of society... The failure toward God and Heaven...