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