Short Sentences

Technology has improved our lives. Communication has become quicker and less formal. Online communication is less human. We place less attention on our messages. We assume people know what we are talking about. There becomes confusion. More emailing is needed. Time becomes more essential. We place even less time writing emails. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Emailing is a more preferred use of messaging and at the same time contains less information. The loss in nonverbal communication reduces the full interpretation of the message. Though things becomes faster they also become less efficient.

Blog Log

Is SMU challenging enough? Smiley felt it upset that some kid's thought we weren't challenging enough. SMU too easy?

Blog Log

I was talking to Claire about the significance of having a drinking age of 21. I am sure you have opinions that you would like to share too. 

Here is where you can find our talk....Drinking at the Age of 18

Blog Log

Hello there! Leth and I were discussing the importance of practice. How important do you think it is? Follow the link....Practice Practice Practice!

Faith

In my philosophy class we have been discussing the Problem of Evil from the perspective of Philosopher Mackie. The problem is actually very difficult to solve if you believe in God and it has caused much debate in our class. I often find myself scratching my head just trying to figure it out for myself. The problem goes a little like this:

Philosophers will accept each of the following three postulates:

1. God is omnipotent
   
2. God is omnibenevolent
   
3. Evil exists
   

However one cannot accept all 3 postulates together. To hold two true leaves the other false. If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent and evil clearly exists why is this so? Would not it seem that a perfectly good being would wish to eliminate evil and if he had the power to do so he would do so? Is it because God cannot destroy evil? No he would not then be omnipotent. Is it because he has leniency to evil? No he would not then be omnibenevolent. And Evil clearly exists.

What becomes even more confusing then is that Philosopher Mackie shows that each attempt to explain why evil exists can be convincingly refuted.

1. For example one might say that God could not have created good without creating evil and so this is why evil must exist.
   

   However Mackie will show that that statement puts a restriction on God's power. If God is truly Omnipotent then is it not possible that he may create Good without evil? Surely this seems possible so we cannot say that an omnipotent God should be subject to rules as this seems contradictory
   

   
    

2. One might say that God created evil on purpose so that a greater good can be achieved in the presence of evil. For example courage could not be brought about unless fear and malice existed. Or generosity could not occur without the existence of suffering.
   

   However Mackie will point out that there also exists a greater evil that can be achieved in the presence of evil. He provides that cowardice could not exist without fear or malice existing and similarly cruelty could not exists if suffering did not exist. Mackie then goes on to show that any greater good that could be brought about in the face of an evil there can equally be brought about a greater evil that could not have existed without the evil. This he points out answers nothing. The argument can be extended out to an infinite order of good and evil.
   

   
    

3. One might say that God could not create Free Will without creating Evil.
   

   Mackie says then a wholly good God would have seen Free Will as a greater virtue than evil if he wished Free will to exist. But he asks then if evil existed so that a being could freely choose between good and evil why could not God create a being that freely choose Good every time when presented the option between good and evil? Why are there some being who choose evil? Clearly God would have this ability when he designed us if he was omnipotent. But one might argue that God cannot do what is logically
   impossible. But Mackie is quick to ask what is logic? Is not logic created by God himself? Are there rules that exist that even an omnipotent being must follow? There are some that even say Logic is the way God arbitrarily chooses to think. Mackie extends into deeper arguments of the Free Will defense but which I will not explain here for the reasons of time and space.
   

These are challenging questions. As a logical person I am constrained to interpret my faith in a logical fashion. I will not accept from my faith that which is contrary to science but I will accept where science falls short. Questions like these are not just for the philosophical they concern us. I have found that many young people are losing their faith but I don't think it is a sin to question because questioning is important part of discovering the truth. Science has always seem to differ on faith in important issues but we live in a society where science has been continually evolving and continually disagreeing with some parts of our faith. Our job is to learn how this continually conflicting information can coexist. I wanted to know how do you guys handle this and perhaps Mackie might have introduced some things you need to think about as well.

Blog Log

Nathan and I are having a blast discussing policy, ethics, free markets, federal government and much much more.

You can read along right over here....Healthcare x2

Blog Log

Hello again,

Nathan was so courteous as to respond to my comment on his post about healthcare that I engaged in discussion with him again. Check it out here....Comment on Healthcare Dialogue

Blog Log

Nathan had an ethical consideration on his hands as he argued National Healthcare. I provided insight as to some problems such a policy would cause. You can read more about it in this think: Healthcare