aletheist

That seems rather uncharitable on your part. I have read a fair amount of theology, but evidently from different traditions than what you have read. I...

There is much wisdom in this.

The point is that Jesus clearly taught that human beings since the Fall are not inherently good, contrary to your position. I did not think that it wo...

Christian theology teaches that sin does render us as evil. If we were not evil, then there would be no need for us to be forgiven - i.e., no need for...

That is precisely what the doctrine of original sin teaches. We commit individual sins (our actions) because our human nature is corrupted by original...

Are you not familiar with the traditional Christian doctrines of original sin and the Fall? God created the first humans in His own image, such that t...

All sin is evil. Do you disagree? I argue that to be inconsistent with God's nature is necessarily sinful, and therefore evil; and again, God does not...

Which Christian tradition do you have in mind? On the contrary, I think that most Christians would characterize "behaving selfishly, harming others, m...

It is not about "my Peirce" or "your Peirce" or even "the consistent Peirce," but about faithfully representing the man's actual views as expressed in...

Good question. In Peirce's terminology, a symbol indeed represents its object only in so far as it will be interpreted as doing so. Furthermore, a sym...

This is a bit misleading. As you are no doubt well aware, although you have adopted and adapted many of Peirce's ideas in developing your version of p...

Indeed, and it is related to the modal fallacy that came up a few days ago in the ongoing thread about the free will defense. Basically, the mistake i...

I almost included that caveat myself, but I share Peirce's view that there is no good reason to posit anything as real that is inaccessible or unknowa...

Only if God is not real.

That would be theology, rather than philosophy.

As should be clear by now, the meaning/definition of "good" is "whatever is consistent with God's nature," which accords with saying that "we ascertai...

Perhaps formulating my previous response as a syllogism will help you see your mistake. Whatever is consistent with God's nature is good. God's omnipo...

The Euthyphro dilemma poses a false dichotomy by assuming that either (a) good is defined apart from God as an independent standard to which He confor...

Peirce made a distinction between an Argument as "any process of thought reasonably tending to produce a definite belief" and an Argumentation as "an ...

The theist calls God "good" because whatever God is, that is what is good. We do not define "good" and then ascertain whether God satisfies that defin...

"Fluid" is probably too strong a term, since conceptual schemas tend to be relatively stable, especially for any given person. It seems to me that eac...

Keep in mind that Peirce was a self-described objective idealist who held "that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws" (CP 6...

This is an interesting point, consistent with Peirce's observation that only our future conduct is subject to self-control - obviously not our past co...

God's knowledge that Jane will buy the red car does not entail that Jane will necessarily buy the red car, such that buying the blue motorcycle instea...

Right, ¬?(A ? ¬B) entails ?(A ? B), not A ? ?B. Likewise, "if x knows that p, then p must be true" is properly formalized as ?(Kxp ? p), rather than K...

This is true, and (as you say) often overlooked or misunderstood. In fact, it is a rarely acknowledged assumption that the so-called "laws of nature" ...

Nothing at all. I am not the participant in this exchange who said "Go on" and "Either address it or stop replying."

Per the IEP article on "Foreknowledge and Free Will," "Ultimately the alleged incompatibility of foreknowledge and free will is shown to rest on a sub...

I am honestly not trying to be obtuse. What more do you want me to say? What is it that you want me to address? If your account is correct, then the G...

Address what? You evidently believe that there was life (and death) on earth for hundreds of millions of years before humans appeared. The Genesis acc...

Not really, I was just unsure what further elaboration you were seeking. I still do not see the problem. The Genesis account gives no indication of an...

The Genesis account does not involve "hundreds of millions of years" of "horrendous suffering, evil, and death."

I am one who would say this. God's foreknowledge that Jane will buy the red car does not cause Jane to buy the red car, He simply knows beforehand tha...

And if that were the case, whose point of view would be correct?

Your problem with the Genesis account is that you believe a different account, one that involves "hundreds of millions of years" of "horrendous suffer...

The point is that if God is real, then "perfectly good" is whatever He is. If that turns out to be different than what we humans define as "perfectly ...

If God is real, then who has the authority to define "perfectly good" as anything other than whatever God is?

Obviously, given your posts. If God is real, then whatever He is, is perfectly good. Who are we to judge otherwise?

Again, that explains why you are having so much difficulty with the free will defense. I would never argue otherwise.

Precisely by choosing to act well toward that person, despite your negative feelings about him/her, rather than simply acting in accordance with the l...

It is interesting that SETI, forensics, and certain other fields that are widely acknowledged to be properly scientific rely on the presupposition tha...

As I said before, love is not a matter of feelings (emotions). Otherwise, the exhortation to love our enemies would be absurd. Love is not a matter of...

Maintaining this kind of humility would be a significant step toward properly understanding the free will defense.

You are correct, the word "subject" has different meanings depending on the context. But that is not at all unusual, especially in English, which borr...

You are presupposing that being a sociopath, feeling empathy, and experiencing love are all entirely a matter of genetics. In other words, you are alr...

What would that world look like, if it were up to you? Would you prevent "all manner of evil," or only certain kinds of evil? What abilities would you...

What Peirce wrote about Cartesian doubt seems relevant here.

I choose to love my wife, even in those moments when I do not like her very much, and she does the same. That is what keeps our marriage intact. Wrong...

Really? It seems obvious to me that love, hate, or indifference is always a choice that we make. Jesus taught that we should choose to love everyone -...

Is love possible without free will? If not, could the possibility of love perhaps be a good that far outweighs the cost of permitting evil and sufferi...