tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post6699978919492515573..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: A spin on the problem of evilAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-54568841636931851142010-09-08T14:07:43.742-05:002010-09-08T14:07:43.742-05:00"I can't think of a story like this about..."I can't think of a story like this about courage right now. But that's fine. For the simple God surely has infinitely many attributes that are as yet, and maybe forever, unknown to us."<br /><br />That's a great point—one that I needed to be reminded of.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-74199574684524925802010-08-31T08:57:43.490-05:002010-08-31T08:57:43.490-05:00" I find it odd that God would want a world w..." I find it odd that God would want a world with a something like courage. I favor a sort of theistic Platonism a la Robert Adams, and I can't see how courage could be a refection of or participation in (or whatever) God's goodness, since courage doesn't exist until certain sorts of creatures exist."<br /><br />1. Maybe God can exhibit courage by becoming incarnate in dangerous circumstances. I don't want to push that line too much, because God <em>qua</em> God is not endangered.<br /><br />2. I would not conclude with confidence that because God can be in no danger, therefore God cannot have any perfection of which courage is an appropriate reflection. Consider another case. It seems that moral growth is something that God can't have. However, our moral growth may be an image of the way God has a goodness that is not externally imposed. In other words, the following is possible in general. God has some feature F in virtue whose literal possession requires an independence that no creature has. And it could be that what would need to mirror F in dependent critters like us would be something that involves evil.<br /><br />I can't think of a story like this about courage right now. But that's fine. For the simple God surely has infinitely many attributes that are as yet, and maybe forever, unknown to us.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-60434191382674599832010-08-31T08:45:59.377-05:002010-08-31T08:45:59.377-05:00Well, I guess we can keep running the argument: wh...Well, I guess we can keep running the argument: whatever "good" setup you have could be made even better by adding some evils and their dependent goods. As long as the evil doesn't outweigh any goods, it will always be better to have it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-24800438267356856082010-08-30T05:25:04.501-05:002010-08-30T05:25:04.501-05:00How about one great world with no evils or sufferi...How about one great world with no evils or suffering, and one even better paradise with no evils or suffering? =Dawatkins909https://www.blogger.com/profile/04272494240109130737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-24450364462722641292010-08-29T23:30:15.713-05:002010-08-29T23:30:15.713-05:00It seems pretty reasonable to think that God could...<i>It seems pretty reasonable to think that God could have just created us all in paradise, and this would be better.</i><br /><br />Isn't that the point? A world with some evil and their corresponding virtues is good; a heavenly world without any evil (but also without those virtues) is better; so to have the combination would be the best of both worlds — a world with some temporary evil that affords opportunities for those special virtues, followed by the eternal heavenly world with its own virtues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-9564882810613922562010-08-27T03:42:31.697-05:002010-08-27T03:42:31.697-05:00"Many significant goods, like courage, forgiv..."Many significant goods, like courage, forgiveness and perseverance, require at least some evil. Thus it is unlikely that God would strive to create a world where evils would be certain not to occur."<br /><br />It's true that some goods could not be acquired in a world without evil and strife. But isn't it such that in heaven, acquiring these goods is not possible? Will we say that this world is better than heaven? It seems pretty reasonable to think that God could have just created us all in paradise, and this would be better.awatkins909https://www.blogger.com/profile/04272494240109130737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-64779232993077681132010-08-26T19:23:28.645-05:002010-08-26T19:23:28.645-05:00To the idea that significant goods requiring evil:...To the idea that significant goods requiring evil:<br /><br />Even if the details of this one come out in favor of theism, I find it odd that God would want a world with a something like courage. I favor a sort of theistic Platonism a la Robert Adams, and I can't see how courage could be a refection of or participation in (or whatever) God's goodness, since courage doesn't exist until certain sorts of creatures exist. If God is perfectly good, how could a good suddenly come into existence upon the creation of certain sorts of creatures. A good that is independent of God? (Clearly courage exists so I've made a mistake somewhere, but I don't know where.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-10422904219213884672010-08-26T15:07:23.367-05:002010-08-26T15:07:23.367-05:00P(X|N) is the conditional probability of X given N...P(X|N) is the conditional probability of X given N.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-75548669153718851902010-08-26T14:30:09.730-05:002010-08-26T14:30:09.730-05:00Hello. I studied philosophy and formal logic many...Hello. I studied philosophy and formal logic many many years ago, but I haven't seen the P(X|N) notation before. A quick google search didn't yield an explanation. It might be helpful for readers whose logic/math skills are rusty/incomplete, but who would nevertheless like to follow some of your more technical posts, to provide a link to a cheat-sheet page with information on this and similar notation, and its meaning.Michael G. Muradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03680269186451895151noreply@blogger.com