Originally posted by bbarrGood point bbarr, I missed that one. Of course the "best of possible worlds" view would also seem to be at odds with the Christian idea of the fall of mankind - it's very point is, as I understand it, that we are now living in an imperfect world. If we now live in the best of possible worlds, what would we be "saved" to? It seems that that would mean that either Heaven is at best identical to our state here, or in heaven there are no suffering-dependant virtues. I doubt that many Christians would find this palatable.
Pyrrho,
A god with those three properties is not inconsistent the mere existence of evil, but rather with the existence of unnecessary evil. Some evil may have to exist in the world for there to be particular goods. For instance, some theists claim that the existence of evil is necessary prerequisite for the existence of virtues like compassion and charit ...[text shortened]... t theists believe in. But it is a coherent position, and as such deserves a place on your list.
Also, going a little further, if evil and suffering must exist in order for there to be virtues such as compassion, then that would seem to imply that God could not have been compassionate either, prior to creation, and thus his nature is not immutable, and his motivation for creation could not have included anything that required those virtues. Either that, or evil and suffering must have existed prior to creation independent of God, in which case God isn't responsible for all creation, and the Christian god is merely a part of a bigger picture. More implications that contradict Christian doctrine.
On another matter, I'm fairly busy for the next few days, so I probably won't participate much in the very interesting discussions we seem to be having here before Sunday or Monday night. Just so that you'll know I've not disappeared, should I uncharacteristically be a bit quiet! 🙂
-Jarno
There is a better answer. A living will and 'do not resucitate' order gives us less loving care and dignity than we give our pet dogs. We let someone die, but do not let doctors hasten death. That requires something like the Oregon Death With Dignity law.
I recently lost a 95 year old aunt after she and my 90 year old mother both had strokes in one week.They were in less than human condition, unable to care for themselves and delusional. Pain medicine made them near comatose.
My aunt luckily died. My mother has hung on for 8 months. She spent 50 years arguing for Death With Dignity. A few years ago she said she overdosed a sister with terminal cancer. I cannot help her this way, but will soon file a Florida Death With Dignity petition. Based on my past tax limit petition sucess, Florida's elderly population and Schiavo case publicity, volunteers should succeed with this.
Originally posted by mike block
There is a better answer. A living will and 'do not resucitate' order gives us less loving care and dignity than we give our pet dogs. We let someone die, but do not let doctors hasten death. That requires something like the Oregon Death With Dignity law.
I recently lost a 95 year old aunt after she and my 90 year old mother both had strokes in one w ...[text shortened]... , Florida's elderly population and Schiavo case publicity, volunteers should succeed with this.
Why is it that you assume that people who cannot take care of themselves, who are delusional, comatose or and dying are in a state that cannot be described as dignified.
What is dignity in your opinion ?