For reasons/lack of/ reasons given before, I cannot pretend to have a full knowledge of this thread. But perhaps this does not matter.... 1)The idea that God (or anything) standing outside of our normal world, makes *explicable* (the evident suffering in, for example) this world is problemmatic. 2) 0f course, this problem cannot [I have already lost someone else's point at this point] resolve the question of whether there is a God (or anything) that lies behind the 'normal world'. 3) Behind 3) is the, perhaps, overiding point:- is there a world (hidden/discoverable?) behind the world as 'obviously experienced'? In crude terms (given that, to me, even) Robert Paul's comments on Popper's philosophy have for years now seemed either mistaken or misconceived [(:he certainly has not read his Popper but relies on general and secondhand (ie.'hand-me-down') mistakes. (But this is no reflection on his I/Q - of course).People of the highest IQ have previously mispresented and misinterpreted Popper's position. (Cynics beware: I have (currently, it is of no interest) nothing to sort out this misrepresenration and invalidity, and no book to sell - however back to the main theme........)] 4) There is a real issue, with its many sub-variants, and it seems to me profound:- Is there a world behind the world as 'obviously experienced'? If not, are we merely swimming as 'obviously experienced'? How can we so swim without there being a world behind this world we, perhaps, swim only upon? If there is a world behind the world as 'obviously experienced', to what extent might this underlying world be undiscoverable or discoverable? These are Kantian problems. Professor Paul has long , as I see it, been treating Popper as a Humean in the HumevKant debate. This is a mistake. Donal Fallible to a fault London == Subj: [lit-ideas] Re: The Problem of > Evil Date: 3/9/06 2:47:51 A.M. Central Standard Time From: > _teme17@xxxxxxxxxx > (mailto:teme17@xxxxxxxxx) To: _lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > (mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) Sent on: > I've been told, and not that I really know anything > about this, that the Catholic position on original sin > and existence of evil is from Augustine. Augustine, > and not that I know that much about his philosophy > either, held that God exists outside time, or perhaps > better that God sees the creation as a whole from > beginning to eternity. > > That is time itself is part of creation, and because > God is omnipotent, he therefore is not bound by time. > While everything that happens to us is predestined, > the whole notion of predestination presumes time, that > is a sequence of events. We are doomed by our > imperfection to see as a continuity what is a whole. I > think may be wrong about this, but isn't the original > sin for Augustine man choosing to step into temporal > existence with all the misery it contains? > > I always thought that the idea of God outside time was > extremely clever. Ad hoc and unhelpful, but still. > > > Cheers, > Teemu > Helsinki, Finland > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html > ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html