[lit-ideas] Re: The Problem of Evil

  • From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 11:02:46 +0000 (GMT)

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

Other related posts: