Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck who wrote (20709)	12/19/2002 11:03:51 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27666

It is not MY proof. It is a classical argument in philosophy against God with the attributes "Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Benevolent". You would have read about it somewhere had your interests favored philosophy by philosophers to philosophy by bloggers in "Geocities". you need de-programming Right. I need to be "de-programmed" to a state of ignorance like some of us who have never heard of logical arguments re the existence of God, I suppose. Then I could perhaps understand you. As it is now, it seems it is YOU who need to read up a little bit on what the world has been discussing while you were out posting "piss on Islam" as your intellectual contribution to the world. Start here, for example: --------------------------------------------------- The Problem of Evil, used by Philo (= Hume) as an argument against the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, is that the following set of statements seems to be inconsistent. 1. God is omnipotent. 2. God is omniscient. 3. God is entirely benevolent. Yet 4. Evil and suffering exist (and in greater measure than is conceptually required for the existence of goods). unc.edu ---------------------------------------------------- Does this sound familiar, Darren? Does it not have more than a passing resemblance to the quasi-logic of your friend you quoted as disproving "Allah"? Is it not exactly what I have posted to you a few minutes ago, and to which you replied "Your so-called proof does not stand up"? siliconinvestor.com Aren't you ashamed now of your ignorance? I would be, if I were you, claiming this "doesn't stand up" (whatever that means) and then finding out that it was a classic philosophical argument against the existence of God. Ignorance is bliss. Sometimes. In most other times, it is quite shameful, I suppose.