Teancum

CFR. What a horrible idea. So five year old is kidnapped, raped and murdered and your god is a ok with that because all they needed was a body and five years or mortal existence. What a crock of horsepucky.

Ah that is always the true believer's defense when they have no answer for difficult issues and it is a lousy one and means you really are not able to answer or explain the ideas that are pretty good reasons to reject such a being existing.

Such a grand and wonderful plan....😕

So with man made evil, say those who murdered Jews during the Holocaust, when the victim is murdered they lose their agency. So if agency in regards to human afflicted atrocities, whose agency wins out? The perpetrator's or the victim's?

Exactly.

Your entire post and theories actually seem to show that you think yo do know the mind of God.

I think your idea that breath is a gift from God that he can stop giving any second of the day is nonsense and it conflicts with your belief in agency as well as the idea that God won't interfere with anyone's agency. If God can stop you from exercising your agency at any time God feels like it then you really do not have much agency.

It is amazing how after the advent of the modern camara how miracles suddenly pretty much stopped happening.

Well that is a nice sermon and certainly wishful thinking.

Ha! You always catch my frequent typos.

Define a lot. And how much of it is quality evidence which I guess is subjective.

Yes. Religion is plagued by such things. And religious apologetics is flawed from the beginning. It all starts with the premise that what is being defended is absolutely true. Then any "evidence" or arguments that can even slightly provide plausibility it is thus used. I do not know if any other comparably bad methodology for defending something.

I will read the article. The problem of evil and suffering is, in my view, a major philosophical issues for all theistic religions. I have found the LDS view on this as good, if not better than, most other ideas and attempt to answer this problem. But I still find it lacking. I like Paulsen's writings so I will definitely review this.

This is clearly hyperbole and wishful thinking. But it is effective apologetics.

Well I have not been on the board much so I must have missed it. I was simply curious.

Yes.

Why?