Shawn

What's the issue here, in your view? That we do these things, is known. But, the why's are never really addressed.

It sucks, because it shows America as power-mad and driven to go to no end to exploit whatever facet of humanity towards this goal, or just sucks that...

Yes, I meant that sorry. Since this is an evidential claim, of a helpless fawn burning in a forest on fire, it seems that we're left with no recourse;...

Yes, well, what does that say about the mental gymnastics we play when presented with such things as God's omnibenevolence if we can come up with such...

But, the point is that is this some kind of joke we play on ourselves if God's omnibenevolence can be negated with such a simple example?

Not, really. The contradiction remains as stated. So, do we address the premises of the contradiction?

This seems more like trying to fit the characterization of God's omnibenevolence to the pertaining situation. One can always say, that God works in my...

Yeah, that makes sense. I don't suppose there's an afterlife for the matter, or anyone or any being judging us after our stay on this rock.

In what sense?

Couldn't you do that whilst teaching English, or is that too much?

What do you do when you're there. I just asked a friend the other day, about what he would do in regards to the above, and he pretty much said the sam...

Not only that; but, he's defying the expectations of the right and the left! But!@1 Chomsky said this and that!

Well, I know the main attribute being omni-everything. So, there's that.

What do you do in Thailand?

Is that always true?

God's character?

OK, so the point here is that God's actions are indefensible. So, then we plead ignorance or esoterics with regards to His character. Otherwise, what ...

OK Then you got the point? Since the point is indefensible by definition, then what are we left to do?

Not that I assumed you would agree; but, if this is the simplest case possible to demonstrate the problem of evil, if any such exist, then you can see...

Yes, the fawn burned. And since we're going to assume that this is hard evidence for the problem of evil with respect to God, in as simple a case poss...

Yet, we both understand the import of the burning fawn here. Therefore, you also understand that anything is moot about God at this point, including y...

Maybe the fact that it happened, then yes, we can all agree as to that. But, the ontological import is the same in any possible world, no?

Maybe I'm confused. But, if we reduce the notion of the problem of evil to such a simple case (let's assume it's the simplest case imaginable), which ...

Well, if we simplify things, then a burning fawn makes no rational sense in any possible world or one where a God resides. Let me try and use a mathem...

None... Therefore, one can either plead ignorance or simply retire from entertaining any notions/premises of A,B,C - in regards to trying to justify t...

But, the position is indefensible. So, what's the point of getting apologetic on this account?

I don't know what you are getting at. I'll repeat the point of this thread in standard form. A) God is omnibenevolent. B) A fawn burns in the forest. ...

Anyone who knows what suffering is?

No, that's not my point. Regardless of whatever I believe, if I can spot suffering in such a simple case, then so can anyone else?

So, she suffered? What a tragedy.

Yes, that is also a common response. But, what alternatives are we left with when presented with the most simple of evidential evidence towards denyin...

Yes, but, the bigger point here isn't justifying suffering, which is a common response. But, if at every point of the continuum of God's love towards ...

1. Says Him? 2. Aquinas, I believe? 3. Supposedly, no other book renders Him with such esoterics and grandeur than the Bible. The theme that follows f...

Exactly, the point here is that Occams razor has been applied to such a degree, that nothing simpler can be envisioned as evidential proof of a cold a...

I'm sorry to hear. I just hope she didn't have to suffer.

No, it feels more calculated this time around. In the sense, that I've given my best here in the US, and have some financial backing on this stay in P...

Well, I have citizenship in Poland and have lived there for some 10 years. Speak the language and know the people; so, it's not something entirely new...

What makes you say that? Quite interesting...

Apologies, then. My answer to my own question is that "I know" is vague because it seems to place the predicate on the individual speaker, when in fac...

I'm not sure of your position here. Are you for or against the use of the phrase, "I know"., assuming it is vague at all?

I understand that. My plans are to make a stay in some sanatorium and then move to someplace in Warsaw or nearby Bia?ystok working out some issues and...

Oh, well, to my defense, other people found it interesting? Yeah, the Skeptics would have a lot to say about that. OK, then a thread devoted to vaguen...

Usually, when we want to do this, we look for less ambiguous phrases to get the point across. The ambiguous "I know", can get substituted with "to the...

Usually, one isn't able to foresee the future, so I don't see the point of this assertion? In any case, I would most likely be able to live on my own ...

This doesn't make much sense to me. It seems that refinement comes first, and then a correction can ensue? But, some degree of ambiguity is always pre...

What do you mean?

One in which, someone learns some new facts about how to use language?

Vagueness? Maybe, this can be demonstrated by a person lying about that fact? There seems to me, to be some standard to communication that we implicit...

@"Banno", any thoughts?

Uhh, well. It's a matter of semantics, then?