…
You said it yoruself: The PoE needs 'natural evil' (a.k.a. acts of God).
It's not 'wholly separate' since the PoE needs 'natural evil.' You have already accepted that damnation is the result of moral evil and the murder of Amalekite babies is a much lesser evil than that, so what's left over for 'natural evil' in a Catholic worldview? Are earthquakes and other 'Acts of God' less justified than hell and killing Amaelkite babies? Remember, the PoE needs 'natural evil.
Is there an argument somewhere here? The PoE needs ‘suffering’, yes, but it can accommodate the existence of (libertarian) free will. It is an equally effective argument whether or not one posits the existence of (libertarian) free will.
If you want to attribute
all natural events that cause innocent suffering to the
direct agency of God, then, if anything, the PoE argument is all the stronger.
(The Catholic Church rejects the doctrine of being saved by belief alone. It's un-Catholic to say... "an eternity of torture for simply not believing in him.")
Well, AFAIK, acceptance of Christ is a necessary (if not sufficient) condition for being ‘saved’. Even people who perform all kinds of good works are damned if they cannot bring themselves to believe in the divinity of Christ. (So it looks like I’ll be hanging out with Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Adam Smith, and David Hume once I arrive.)
In any case, this is completely irrelevant with respect to the PoE argument.
On the contrary, the entire argument hinges on the existence of natural evil so the status of foreknowledge and free will are essential.
Free will is irrelevant. Foreknowledge is indeed part of the argument. Sorry, I’m still not seeing how the PoE argument is now ‘ineffective’ or ‘inapplicable’.
But there is no 'natural evil' in Catholic theology unless you care to demonstrate something less justified than the moral evils of eternal hellfire and the Amalekite baby slaughter.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that there is no such thing as ‘natural evil’ (suffering not caused by the moral agency of others) in Catholic theology?
It's sufficient to note that you have not yet presented such a 'suitably modified version.'
Look, based on my understanding of the various versions of the PoE argument (for a discussion of the wide variety of these different versions, see this link [that I’ve included in many posts in the past]:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/ ),
nothing in what you’ve said renders the argument ineffective. (I only included the caveat ‘suitably modified version’ in case I was not correctly understanding your points.)
You're also right to say that your ideas about the supernatural are only your opinion, they're certainly not rationaly justified. )
Nope. They’re rationally justified. Since supernatural phenomena are not needed to
explain anything, they’re superfluous. Not positing them is simply using Occam’s razor to shave pointless dross.
If we accept your assertion that people who abandon religion for Atheism receive 'grief' and your earlier claim that religion is the happier and less true alternative it's clear that this mechanism rewards religiosity by giving 'joy' to the faithful and 'grief' to Atheists. Even if the undiscovered cause could be strictly material, it's worth noticing that the hypothesis of concience fits the evidence presented here.
Look, whenever anybody abandons anything that was once important to them – whether a religious belief, a set of political convictions, a relationship, whatever – they are likely to feel (temporarily) depressed about it.
The phenomenon in question is
not unique to religious belief.
Moreover, it is incorrect on your part to assume that this ‘grief’ is permanent. I’m quite happy in my life, and I know many happy atheists. Only 7 percent of leading scientists in the U.S. believe in a ‘personal God’. Yet I doubt that they’re all miserable.
In any case, whether religious people are happier or less happy than atheists is an empirical question – one that I don’t have the answer to. My earlier point (in response to some links from Hastur) is that
even if religious people were, on
average, ‘happier’, that has
absolutely no bearing on the truth or falseness of their beliefs.
Children who believe in Santa Claus might be happier because of that false belief than adults who no longer believe in Santa Claus. Still, I think it’s important for people to grow up.
Lol! People also '...seem to have radicaly different (indeed, incompatible) diets' does that mean people don't need to eat food?
Sorry, but this is an idiotic analogy. All diets – insofar as they sustain human life – provide adequate
nutrition, and thus are ‘compatible’ (i.e. they all have a place within a compatible account of human biology and nutrition).
In contrast, different revelations and religions make
incompatible metaphysical and ethical claims.
You seem to have an existential crisis whenever you consider matters of faith.
?
Before it was your 'delusion demon.'
You obviously completely misunderstood the whole point of that discussion (which had to do with the nature of ‘inductive belief’ and scepticism).
Now you're doubting hindsight?
What are you talking about? I’m merely concerned with coming up with the most plausible explanations for phenomena. Explanations that posit supernatural entities and processes are far less plausible than rival naturalistic explanations.
Any reason why asking the big questions is not such a 'particular situation?' Seems like if they can convey information to us, it's worth taking that information into consideration. .
Man, I don’t have time to keep explaining basic philosophical concepts to you. ‘Big questions’ concern questions of ‘theoretical reason’, and thus should be formed on the basis of the best available evidence and arguments – and should be
capable of withstanding scrutiny over time (i.e. questioning and examination by others with different emotional conditions). In contrast, emotions can play a role in cases where a decision has to be made
right now and we, as limited agents who have to act one way or another, do not have the time to take into account all the available evidence, etc. Emotions convey information about risks, etc. (information that can later be vindicated by theoretical reason).
I think you should judge them on their merits rather than being prejudiced against things that are not
'drempt of in your philosophy.' :Shakespeare: After all,
"any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" and all that. [/QUOTE]
I
do (and
have) judged rival explanations ‘on their merits’. Trying to come up with the best explanation for phenomena is
not an exercise in ‘dreaming’ -- rather, it is an exercise in coming up with the best explanation possible, given available data and arguments. Positing a whole set of supernatural entities and processes (God, souls, pixies, magic, etc.)
when they are wholly unnecessary is simply sloppy epistemology.