>>>So the problem is not just "pain".
>>>The problem is "a loving God, and pain".
>>>
>>>This, in fact, is the only "strong" argument for atheism.
>
>
>>There you go again, "knowing" the "truth." You arrogant,
>>whatever...
>
>
>Pain is not a problem until the notion that "there should not
>be pain" exists.
>An all-powerful, all-loving God provides the only conceivable
>grounds for such a notion.
>Therefore, the "problem of pain" is not a problem until God is
>introduced to the picture.

The fact that you can't "conceive" of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


>>Well, "He" does withhold a certain amount of free will from
>>us. I can't travel to the moon and back instantaneously,
>for
>>instance.
>
>
>I would ask you whether that's really an example of holding
>back "free will" from you or not. You can't do anything
>"instantaneously", can you Strav? Is there any such thing as
>"instantaneously"? Does not any event require the fabric of
>time to take place in? And if an event takes place in the
>fabric of time, then it "takes some time"... some, at least,
>even if a moment, doesn't it? Now, are you asking why you
>cannot fly to the moon and back "really fast"? Is that what
>you mean by "instantaneous"? If that's the case, the answer
>is "cause you havn't figured out the technology yet"... I
>don't see how this has anyting to do with God withholding your
>free will from you. Could you explain?

Alright, let's get precise! My clock says 8:35 right now. The causal structure of spacetime does not allow me to travel to the sun and return before the same clock, remaining here on earth, reads 8:36 (the moon, I think, would actually be possible within a minute, in principle). And this is not just a matter of "figuring out the technology." With the right technology, I *could* travel to the moon and back within a minute, but I couldn't do it within a nanosecond. This is a standard result of the theory of relativity, and it lies at the foundation of everything we know about the, um, objective world.


>>Lewis's statement seems entirely ill-conceived
>>here. This is actually, in my view, an important criticism
>of
>>this argument. We clearly have only a limited amount of
>free
>>will. Why doesn't God limit it in such a manner as to
>remove
>>the possibility of evil
>
>because doing so would remove the possibility of love.

Awwww, thweet.

>>Actually, it's not nonsense (walking and not walking through
>a wall at the same >time). Or rather, it's only nonsense
>>because you are assuming it to be so when you choose to work
>>with a bivalent logic system.
>
>
>What particular type of particle is this Strav?

Any. Even you, all of your material structure. Quantum theory governs the behavior of all the matter we have ever observed.

>By that I
>mean, one that you're sure really exists or one that exists
>insofar as it provides you wtih a good model for observable
>phenomenon?

To the extent that scientists know anything about an objective reality, we know that all matter exists in an entangled quantum state. Doubting this fact is no different than doubting evolution by natural selection. Oh, wait...

>>to pass
>>through a wall as it is not passing through that wall. This
>>state of affairs is referred to as "quantum entanglement"
>and
>>it has been confirmed not only by theoretical arguments but
>>also through repeated experimental verification.
>
>
>I have to say, I hardly believe that what's being perceived is
>what is actually the case.

The fact that you can't conceive of something doesn't mean it isn't so.

>Even if it is though, it's interesting that you're not a
>supernaturalist in light of it... or at least a
>"subnaturalist"...lol.

See that's the idea of science. When we see something that's hard to understand, we don't just attribute it to some anthropomorphic myth, we consider it in detail until it doesn't seem so strange anymore.

>>As well as
>>we know anything in science, we know that the quantum state
>of
>>any system does not precisely conform to a classical logic.
>>There are two standard ways of dealing with this state of
>>affairs.
>>
>>1.) The standard view among practical physicists is that
>the
>>world which we experience is not related to any objective
>>reality, that our own personal, subjective analysis of
>>experience is the only thing which provides any structure to
>>the world. My guess is that you disagree with this
>viewpoint,
>>in which case you'll be happy to learn that I do as well.
>>
>>2.) That a logic does apply to objects in a "real" world,
>but
>>it is simply not a classical logic.
>
>
>So would you suggest that we EITHER use a non-bivalent system
>OR none at all when explaining quantaum entanglement?

See, that's why I only said there were two "standard" ways of dealing with the situation. If you can, uhh, conceive of a third possibility you're welcome to suggest it.


>>>So if God chose to give us free choice, He could not at the
>>>same time take it away and force us to choose Him. It's
>>one
>>>or the other.
>
>
>
>>One or the other. Exactly. Why should we assume this?
>
>
>Because two contradictory statements cannot both be true.

Oh, you mean because 1 = 1. Again, your statement is not a "truth," it is a definition of the word "contradictory."