Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!pez
From: pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: God and suffering
Message-ID: <391@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 25-Oct-85 08:25:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.391
Posted: Fri Oct 25 08:25:21 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Oct-85 07:51:06 EDT
References: <389@decwrl.UUCP> <2203@sdcc6.UUCP> <351@pyuxn.UUCP> <328@uwvax.UUCP> <171@l5.uucp> <388@pyuxn.UUCP> <206@l5.uucp>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Piscataway, N.J.
Lines: 30

Laura,

	The original premise you presented was that God is either
non-omnipotent or evil. I responded by saying that it wasn't necessarily
an exclusive or, that God could be (and in fact IS) both. Your latest
response said that you meant it as an exclusive or, but your proof of
this shows otherwise.

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

Well, Laura, that was my claim all along. But the definition of ``exclusive
or'' is that it could be one (non-omnipotent) or the other (evil) but not
both. You admit yourself that God could be both, thus we are not talking
about an exclusive or. My claim always has been that He IS both. You claimed
that I was stating that ``omnipotence is possible and thus the Christian God
is evil.'' This has never been my position, and I have no idea where you
acquired this misconception. I agree with you that ``the Christian God'' is
not omnipotent, but He most certainly is evil.

Be well,
-- 
Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories
pyuxn!pez