Nobody argues the violent and terrible death of grasses is evidence against a caring God. Why would they argue the violent and terrible death of people is evidence against a caring God?
"If we're bothered theologically here", writes Pruss http://bit.ly/7sSRUn, "it's apparently because we have an inclination to think God should have acted differently here". But how, exactly? What does God owe the people of Haiti that He does not owe the grasses of Haiti? On Jan 23, 8:07 pm, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > You have no idea whether or not grasses are denying their fictional > gods. > > The problem here is that we are aware of only a single species that > invents gods: ours. > The terrible and violent death of people is not proof against god, it > is proof against a caring one. > When a theist provides evidence that the FSM doesn't exist, I'll > provide evidence that his little god doesn't either. I do rest > comfortably in the knowledge that something that has no effect on this > world, leaves no evidence in or on this world, or is claimed as > simultaneously loving and murderous toward this world most likely > doesn't exist. > > On Jan 23, 2:07 pm, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The haiti disaster did not just kill people. It killed grass, too! > > > But from the fact that grass died, nobody argues God is not. Why do > > they argue that because people died, God is not? > > > As Alexandar Pruss points out inhttp://bit.ly/7sSRUn"We are only > > really bothered by the problem once we deal with critters that are > > conscious and capable of sophisticated lives" Why is this? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
