tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-739763918885304552.post7059955159595268231..comments2022-10-28T19:03:14.571-07:00Comments on In the Stomach of the Jackal: The "Problem of Evil" in Context of my ProofsJachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01622919505576895393noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-739763918885304552.post-73827767951023126952007-06-05T18:26:00.000-07:002007-06-05T18:26:00.000-07:00"natural evils like hurricanes and disease" - in t..."natural evils like hurricanes and disease" - in this context natural means "beyond human control." This does not apply to an supposedly omniptent being. Omnipotent means able to do literally anything. Absolutely nothing could happen, anywhere, ever, without such a being's approval. A strong argument could be made that 'approval' should be 'desire.' If a tsunami kills millions of people, then either the omnipotent being let it happen, or doesn't exist.<BR/><BR/>You are correct that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God cannot logically exist, given the state of the world. Take away the omnibenevolence and the argument becomes slightly harder.<BR/><BR/>As for the problem of evil:<BR/><BR/>1) God want's to end suffering in the universe, but can't.<BR/><BR/>2) God could end suffering but doesn't want to.<BR/><BR/>3) God can't end suffering, and wouldn't even if he could.<BR/><BR/>4) God doesn't exist.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, philosophical arguments aside, I don't believe in God for one reason. Lack of real evidence.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com