Re: virus: Fundamentals

Vicki Rosenzweig (rosenzweig@NY.hq.acm.org)
Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:12:00 -0800 (PST)

I think the "properties" being discussed are the fairly traditional
Christian trio, namely that god is supposed to be omniscient,
omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. The argument is, fairly simply,
that the amount of pointless suffering in the world proves that the
universe is not being run by an all-powerful being who is aware of
everything that happens and whose wishes toward everyone in
the universe are entirely benevolent. (This isn't the "problem of
evil," but what Poul Anderson called the "problem of pain": free
will does not explain why people suffer chronic pain from incurable
diseases.)

Vicki Rosenzweig
rosenzweig@acm.org
----------
From: virus-owner
To: virus
Subject: Re: virus: Fundamentals
Date: Wednesday, March 27, 1996 9:53AM

Hmmm.... the following statement strikes me as unlikely.
How does one even attempt to 'prove' something of this
type? (Maybe i don't understand what attributes are
prescribed to the entity...)

At 10:12 PM 3/26/96 -0700, David McFadzean wrote:
>Dan Henry wrote:
>
>Not a god by that definition. It has been shown with reasonable rigor that
>an entity possessing those attributes is logically impossible.