Kevin Wampler wrote:
> There's a further rather critical assumption in the article that's not 

> explicitly stated: That the definition of "good" as it applies to God 
> coincides with the definition of "good" as it applies to human actions.


Sure. And that's once again the "it isn't really evil, because then God 
would be doing evil" justification.

In other words, that's exactly what
"""
the bulk of the discussion then becomes a matter of theists arguing that 

actually, the world’s pretty great, the evil things in it are per
fectly 
justified and necessary, and everything is for the best
"""
is addressing in a nice concise way.

> Of course this leaves open the issue of how we can coherently 
> claim that God is "good" without being able to define what "good" means
, 
> but I can't see how he addresses this point.

He addresses it throughout the article. "Torturing and killing people is 

good, by definition".

> Overall I was left with the distinct impression that he was arguing 
> against straw-man versions to the resolutions to the problem of evil. 

I dunno. It seems that every rebuttal to the problem is essentially eithe
r 
"you don't realize that the Holocaust was good and not evil" or "everyone
 
tortured to death during the Holocaust deserved it."  That's what he's 
addressing, and that's what you're arguing as well.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message