tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post6697344432277125482..comments2024-03-29T02:29:03.388-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Coronavirus complicationsEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger103125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27904109072853665322020-04-05T08:02:42.655-07:002020-04-05T08:02:42.655-07:00I've searched my Ott on the matter, and he doe...I've searched my Ott on the matter, and he doesn't even mention the Deluge. If it really were a matter of faith and morals, he would give an account that it is a "de fide" teaching of the Church, binding all Catholics to believe in it.<br /><br />- JohnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17204343269449620162020-03-30T06:06:49.130-07:002020-03-30T06:06:49.130-07:00HOW I GOT CURED OF HERPES VIRUS.
Hello everyone o...HOW I GOT CURED OF HERPES VIRUS.<br /><br />Hello everyone out there, i am here to give my testimony about a herbalist called dr imoloa. i was infected with herpes simplex virus 2 in 2013, i went to many hospitals for cure but there was no solution, so i was thinking on how i can get a solution out so that my body can be okay. one day i was in the pool side browsing and thinking of where i can get a solution. i go through many website were i saw so many testimonies about dr imoloa on how he cured them. i did not believe but i decided to give him a try, i contacted him and he prepared the herpes for me which i received through DHL courier service. i took it for two weeks after then he instructed me to go for check up, after the test i was confirmed herpes negative. am so free and happy. so, if you have problem or you are infected with any disease kindly contact him on email drimolaherbalmademedicine@gmail.com. or / whatssapp --+2347081986098.<br />This testimony serve as an expression of my gratitude. he also have<br /> herbal cure for, FEVER, BODY PAIN, DIARRHOEA, MOUTH ULCER, MOUTH CANCER FATIGUE, MUSCLE ACHES, LUPUS, SKIN CANCER, PENILE CANCER, BREAST CANCER, PANCREATIC CANCER, CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE, VAGINAL CANCER, CERVICAL CANCER, DISEASE, JOINT PAIN, POLIO DISEASE, PARKINSON'S DISEASE, ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE, BULIMIA DISEASE, INFLAMMATORY JOINT DISEASE CYSTIC FIBROSIS, SCHIZOPHRENIA, CORNEAL ULCER, EPILEPSY, FETAL ALCOHOL SPECTRUM, LICHEN PLANUS, COLD SORE, SHINGLES, CANCER, HEPATITIS A, B. DIABETES 1/2, HIV/AIDS, CHRONIC RESPIRATORY DISEASE, CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE, NEOPLASMS, MENTAL AND BEHAVIOURAL DISORDER, CHLAMYDIA, ZIKA VIRUS, EMPHYSEMA, TUBERCULOSIS LOW SPERM COUNT, ENZYMA, DRY COUGH, ARTHRITIS, LEUKAEMIA, LYME DISEASE, ASTHMA, IMPOTENCE, BARENESS/INFERTILITY, WEAK ERECTION, PENIS ENLARGEMENT. AND SO ON.Benjamin Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16009728629993976621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24181436505820160912020-03-26T19:48:55.368-07:002020-03-26T19:48:55.368-07:00@John
You sure did help me get him better. I agre...@John<br /><br />You sure did help me get him better. I agree that we should know Kant if we are going to discuss the existence of God(or even philosophy in general), the man was very important on the field and his arguments still get used when is time to discuss.<br /><br />This 'metaphysics of experience' does sounds to me like something we could use to reason if we reject Kant ideas about reason acting alone(and producing antinomies). Take for instance naturalism who reject intentionality, if naturalism is true, i can't even defend that or anything else(as Alex Rosenberg defends), so naturalism just is self-refuting and therefore false.<br /><br />Do you believe that would work for a kantian? The hopperian i mentioned before usually argues like that: if the act of defending some view is self-refuting or contradicts a view who can be rationally demonstrated, this view is false.Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3393704123278016422020-03-26T05:12:36.653-07:002020-03-26T05:12:36.653-07:00Talmid,
Thanks, I'm glad I've clarified s...Talmid,<br /><br />Thanks, I'm glad I've clarified some of K's positions, and I hope I've indicated some ways in which K's project still holds considerable philosophical interest and, at the very least, isn't blatantly incoherent.<br /><br />To your question, the way Kantians usually put it is that if K is right he successfully establishes a 'metaphysics of experience'. Likewise (again, if he's right) his positive account of human cognition undercuts any grounds we can have for doing metaphysics of the suprasensible (pertaining to God, the soul, etc).<br /><br />Re: appealing to Kant not being enough to defeat the cosmological argument (or other theistic metaphysical arguments), this is true, but I think this misses my point. Let me give an analogy: if an atheist insists that there are no good arguments for God's existence, you might understandably ask them what they think of Aquinas's or Leibniz's arguments. If in their response it becomes clear that they haven't made any serious effort to read and understand those arguments, I think it's safe to say that they just haven't fulfilled their epistemic duties regarding their own atheism. Likewise, if a Kantian asks a proponent of the cosmological argument what they think about K's epistemological criticisms, and if in response it becomes clear the latter hasn't made any effort to understand those criticisms, then I think it's fair to say they haven't done their epistemic duties as well. In both cases we've got arguments that are widely regarded in the philosophical literature as relevant to the question at hand <i>and</i> of great importance in the history of philosophy.Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5942485232950922562020-03-24T20:21:51.924-07:002020-03-24T20:21:51.924-07:00@John
Again, thanks man, you are sure being prett...@John<br /><br />Again, thanks man, you are sure being pretty clear to a noob like me. Even if i disagree with Kant in most things, he was a very smart guy and his philosophy was a pretty good analysis(or critique) of the philosophies he saw in his life.<br /><br />But i believe he, like most mordern philosophies, saw the rationalists and empirists as way more influential that Aquinas, so never studied the saint much and missed a lot. For instance, this argument you briefly gave is a pretty good blow to British Empirism, but i believe aristotelian epistemology or even a platonic one can take that blow.<br /><br />To get back to the point, this conversation started because you asked how we that use metaphysical arguments for the existence of God would deal with something like Kantianism: I would just question why should we see things like Kant did. Maybe Kant was right, but most people, like me, do not agree with him about metaphysics or philosophy of religion, so i think just a appeal to the prussian would not be enough.<br /><br />Speaking of it: do you think is possible to agree with Kant Transcendental Idealism and still do metaphysics? He believed that no, that pure reason would just find antinomies that could not be resolved, but i don't find this idea or his defense persuasive at all and this view seems to be reject today by a lot of philosophers even when his epistemology is not. I got curious mostly because of a hopperian i found who is pretty much a kantian and still do metaphysics, unfortunaly he never seemed to have talked directly about the problem. Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81183423522810247242020-03-24T09:45:37.653-07:002020-03-24T09:45:37.653-07:00Talmid,
Right, so similarly to Aquinas, Kant shar...Talmid,<br /><br />Right, so similarly to Aquinas, Kant sharply distinguishes between our faculties of sensibility and understanding (which is roughly analogous with what Aquinas would call the senses and intellect respectively), but in contrast to Aquinas, he holds that some concepts are <i>a priori</i> and cannot be derived from experience. There are a couple of reasons for this.<br /><br />For one thing, K's analysis of the conceptual conditions of empirical cognition is located in the broader context of his critical project. If the conceptual conditions of objects are to be explained critically, then those conditions must be <i>a priori</i>; objects cannot supply the conditions of their own possibility in experience, as it were. And, further, if the understanding is just irreducibly distinct from sensibility, then some of those conditions must relate to <i>a priori</i> concepts.<br /><br />But that kind of argument likely won't have much force against someone who doesn't already accept K's motivations for 'making trial' with his Copernican revolution. Even if that's the case, though, K has a simple but powerful argument for the necessity of <i>a priori</i> concepts in section 15 of the B Deduction. To state it very briefly: in any experience which is to have cognitive significance for us, there must be something that is taken as a unity. Most importantly, K thinks the <i>apprehension</i> of this unity is something over and above the mere occurrence of unity in the data of sensation, such that even if the data of the senses were already 'combined' in some way, there would still be the matter of the subject's <i>recognition</i> of unity, which would render the former redundant. <br /><br />But since our faculties of sensibility are merely receptive, the act of recognizing this unity must be a contribution of the understanding, which, as a faculty that deals in concepts, entails we must at least have the concept of unity independently of experience; to put it differently, since the concept of unity is presupposed as a condition of cognizing objects given in experience, it cannot coherently be said to be derived from the latter.<br /><br />Again, I realize this brief treatment will likely not be completely compelling, but hopefully it'll at least let you see where K is coming from.Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85698357206994881832020-03-24T06:30:16.726-07:002020-03-24T06:30:16.726-07:00Essencially, thomistic epistemology do not accept ...Essencially, thomistic epistemology do not accept a priori concepts. It is a bit close to empirism, except that Aquinas would deny that the empirist is right in thinking that the intellect and the imagination are the same thing.<br /><br />Edward did write a recent post about the diferences and similarities between Thomism and modern epystemology: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-rationalistempiricist-false-choice.html?m=1<br /><br />Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90981368671124733302020-03-24T06:19:46.683-07:002020-03-24T06:19:46.683-07:00@John
Thanks for trying to explain it, it will he...@John<br /><br />Thanks for trying to explain it, it will help. But my doubt ia still here, maybe because i do not get the prussian, i don't know.<br /><br />"First, K thinks there are conceptual conditions of the representation of objective states of affairs, and that this involves a priori or 'pure' concepts of the understanding"<br /><br />That is the thing: i'am a thomist, so i don't believe that our minds do much more that receive the data of the senses. Sure, you got the aristotelian common sense and the passive and the active intelect, but that is it.<br /><br />Kant seems to pressupose some sort of rationalist epistemology where our concepts are all a priori but i don't see any reason to believe that. All our sensorial experience pressuposes the categories because everything that is material pressuposes they. Is not that the mind has these things a priori, but she is mostly blank at birth and receives they from the senses.Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76596737323048283712020-03-23T22:05:26.660-07:002020-03-23T22:05:26.660-07:00Talmid,
Few quick points:
i - I wouldn't get...Talmid,<br /><br />Few quick points:<br /><br />i - I wouldn't get too hung up on the differences between two-world and two-aspect interpretations, as long as it's kept in mind that K isn't a Berkeleyan idealist nor a phenomenalist.<br /><br />ii - Your question is a good one, but difficult to answer succinctly. First, K thinks there are conceptual conditions of the representation of objective states of affairs, and that this involves <i>a priori</i> or 'pure' concepts of the understanding. But K notes a potential problem: the mere fact that we possess certain concepts independently of experience doesn't necessarily give us license to apply said concepts to experience, i.e. spatiotemporal appearances may not 'fit' with the pure concepts of the understanding.<br /><br />iii - K attempts to solve this problem by arguing that the representation of the spatiotemporal manifold itself presupposes the categories (which are essentially the pure concepts of the understanding in their real, rather than merely logical, use). But if the Transcendental Aesthetic has demonstrated that human sensibility is necessarily spatiotemporal, it follows that anything that appears to us will be structured by the categories.<br /><br />iv - Unfortunately, we cannot pull off a similar maneuver in appealing to conditions of the possibility of experience to demonstrate the categories have a real as opposed to merely logical use beyond all possible experience, viz. though we can <i>think</i> of things in themselves through the categories (indeed, in some sense we <i>must</i> do so), we cannot have genuine cognition of things in themselves.<br /><br />I realize that's very brief but hopefully it gives you a general idea of the overall structure of K's argument.Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44306777723091655852020-03-23T02:00:03.125-07:002020-03-23T02:00:03.125-07:00The story is an allegory. In the ancient world his...The story is an allegory. In the ancient world history was a moral narrative, it was not literal like it is for us.T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41034205982364067982020-03-22T19:41:55.762-07:002020-03-22T19:41:55.762-07:00After reading the thread i gave Genesis relevant c...After reading the thread i gave Genesis relevant chapters a quick reading and the idea of a global flood seems quite strange, the humans where not very scattered before Noah. Even after it seems(by the names in places and territories) that they never got too far from Mesopotamia, so a local flood could kill everyone.<br /><br />One could argue that their language with Noah saving all the especies and the thing about death of all men could be explained as the narrative being concentred on the important places, just like the time the Devil puts Christ on a mountain that alows him to see "all kingdoms of the world".<br /><br />The normal view is that the flood was a global one, but it seems something we can argue about actually. How a catholic should read the text is also something that is not simple to answer.Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34992885538142129942020-03-22T17:32:37.386-07:002020-03-22T17:32:37.386-07:00By the way: of course I am begging the question ag...By the way: of course I am begging the question against Kant's arguments. My whole point was that Kant's arguments can all be rationally, consistently rejected by appeal to a Moorean shift (if the person knows the truth of that which Kant is attacking - in this case, our real knowledge of PSR as an absolute, unlimited metaphysical principle). I know that contingent things cannot inexplicably exist without any cause; I know nothing comes from nothing; and I am far surer of this than I could ever be about the plausibility and/or validity of any of K's arguments against it. So it is supposed to be a question-begging response; it's perfectly fine for the rational justification of my beliefs.<br /><br />If you're looking for a more careful response to Kant on this topic, I suppose you could look at Gave Kerr's book "Aquinas's way to God". He answers Kant's psr objection there, and goes more in depth than Feser.Atnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13138424784532839636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43634762839947629632020-03-22T17:24:40.663-07:002020-03-22T17:24:40.663-07:00John,
I was just being honest. It seems like you&...John,<br /><br />I was just being honest. It seems like you're just mad that I don't take K's criticism seriously, but that's it, I don't. I think PSR skepticism is retarded. I am certain that PSR is true and I know it to be true, so what do you expect from me? What do you think Leibniz would say about skepticism of PSR? You mean it's dogmatic to insist that I know things cannot come from absolutely nothing? Okay. I still know PSR is true however, and I think PSR skepticism is retarded.<br /><br />It's no use complaining that I'm "dogmatic", it's like you missed the point entirely when I mentioned Moore. Comparisons with Huemer are also uncalled for here - sure he spends time refuting skepticism about the external world, but the point is I don't think this is required on Moorean grounds, pretty much. I am far more confident in my knowledge of PSR than I could ever be in K's arguments. So (joining ranks with most philosophers of religion today) I don't worry about Kant's objections. You seem to think that because in general our seemings give us only prima facie justification, we should take every potential defeater seriously. That doesn't follow from broad phenomenal conservatism. And it sure doesn't follow for Moorean common sense. You could come up with a fancy argument for solipsism and I would be perfectly within my epistemic rights to ignore such an argument and still believe solipsism to be false, because my knowledge that solipsism is false is way more solid than any potential idea of defeater you bring to me (especially K's arguments!).<br /><br />It is the same with PSR for me. I can't take seriously any argument or proposal to the effect that maybe I don't know that something cannot come from nothing; that a contingent thing cannot inexplicably exist without any cause. It's retarded to me, and I've made it explicit to you on how I would reject that skepticism: I would perform a Moorean shift on whatever K argues, since I know PSR is true. I'm "dogmatic" about it just like how I am "dogmatic" about solipsism being false. I know solipsism is false, and I know PSR is true, and I'm not gonna pretend that I don't know these truths or that I could seriously be wrong about them. <br /><br />"Retarded" was not meant as an offense or an insult. Great minds can believe and say retarded things; Kant is a good example. Descartes another great example (brilliant guy, but his idea of God's omnipotence? Retarded). Atnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13138424784532839636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73488920430240530622020-03-22T11:04:36.469-07:002020-03-22T11:04:36.469-07:00@James
Do you have a source? Like Atno, I'm ...@James<br /><br />Do you have a source? Like Atno, I'm just going to defer to scientific evidence (if any exists) and say that the flood was local and not global (which just seems obvious on the face of it anyway). So to make this into a fatal blow to the Catholic Church, we need some evidence that the Catholic Church intended, as a matter of faith or morals, to obligate the faithful to a strictly literal interpretation of the relevent passages in the Bible. I doubt this arguemnt can get any traction, but I invite anyone to produce evidence illustrating otherwise. <br /><br />Do you or anyone else have this information?T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41447029824576952222020-03-22T09:32:07.600-07:002020-03-22T09:32:07.600-07:00With the exception of Noah and his family, yes, th...With the exception of Noah and his family, yes, that's what it means.Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53443648936747743532020-03-22T07:40:26.021-07:002020-03-22T07:40:26.021-07:00As i understand Kant, his point would be:
1. The ...As i understand Kant, his point would be:<br /><br />1. The experiences we have has necessarily the structure we see because the mind organizes the raw data It gets from the senses with her own internal structure(the categories). <br /><br />So we can't know the structure of reality with our experience alone, since we do not know if the categories are more that the structure of our minds.<br /><br />2. Reason alone can't get very far alone when there is no empirical knowledgment together with it, so we will just produce antinomys if we try to know what lies above possible experience, so metaphysics can't do much.<br /><br />This is what i believe the prussian was saying. Is this very far from him?Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15615278972208579142020-03-22T03:07:50.343-07:002020-03-22T03:07:50.343-07:00@Lous XIV
Ok, I'm interested. Could you plea...@Lous XIV<br /><br />Ok, I'm interested. Could you please provide the specific citation? <br /><br />In order to do the work needed to disprove the claims of the Catholic Church to inerrantly teach faith an morals, it needs to be shown that something errant is/was taught (implicitly or explicitly) by the teaching authority of the Church. An entry in an encyclopedia doesn't itself do that, but it could point to it elsewhere so please provide the citation and specific details.<br /><br />One problem is what does it mean to say "an anthropologically universal die-off happened in the Bronze Age." Are you claiming that the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia claims that the Catholic Church claims that humanity completely disappeared and a new and seperate humanity was created in its place? That's what the words appear to say. So what do you mean? T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42299556967920224062020-03-21T19:38:56.276-07:002020-03-21T19:38:56.276-07:00@John
I already read about him, a book entirely a...@John<br /><br />I already read about him, a book entirely about the man and all. <br /><br />Still, the prussian is called a genius by everyone even when he seems larguely uninteresting to me, so i accept that i probably never got entirely what he was saying. I still insist that something like the two-worlds interpretation was probably the normal way to read him back them.<br /><br />I will read more about Kant when i can, but can you answer a question to me? Why exactly he defended the Categories where part of the structure of the mind? His Tanscendental Arguments never get me the impression we had to accept that.<br /><br />Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45604947970261848562020-03-21T11:21:38.906-07:002020-03-21T11:21:38.906-07:00It is actually quite difficult and complicated to ...It is actually quite difficult and complicated to draw out what exactly is a matter of "faith and morals" that has been infallibly known by the Church. I certainly don't think a universal die-off would count, though, since it seems it makes almost zero difference to the core ideas of our faith. Intuitively, we can point out such a difference, like if Jesus wasn't God Incarnate, and if He hadn't founded the Church, then that would make a huge essential difference to my faith and would basically falsify it. By comparison, even as a conservative Catholic, I don't really care at all whether there were people other than Noah who survived a flood, for instance. Put it differently, Catholic saints and mystics weren't typically meditating on the literal aspects of Noah's flood - but the Passion of Christ, the continuity of the Church, the Eucharist and Sacraments, etc. <br /><br />If one dogma is wrong, then Catholicism is invalidated, true. But what dogma? Literal details of the flood are not dogma, not even if most in the church have faithfully believed in it for most of history. Atnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13138424784532839636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34483089665735431142020-03-21T10:10:36.613-07:002020-03-21T10:10:36.613-07:00I just find it odd that the 1909 Catholic Encyclop...I just find it odd that the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia claims it has always been a matter of "faith and morals" that an anthropologically universal die-off happened in the Bronze Age. <br /><br />The issue with Catholicism is not that there aren't many positive cases for it (there are), but that if Catholic dogma is wrong on one *single* instance it is invalidated entirely. Louis XIVnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-92176011544113187702020-03-21T08:11:12.937-07:002020-03-21T08:11:12.937-07:00Atno,
Aside from the silliness of calling PSR ske...Atno,<br /><br />Aside from the silliness of calling PSR skepticism 'retarded', your post is a near perfect illustration of the metaphysical dogmatism Kant was criticizing, i.e. you continue to dig your feet in the ground and dogmatically insist our cognitive faculties are capable of making substantive metaphysical judgments beyond the bounds of possible experience. (There is, of course, also the issue that in a sense K isn't a PSR skeptic at all, as he holds that PSR is true for all possible human experience.)<br /><br />I understand why you're appealing to epistemic 'seemings' but to me it's entirely beside the point. Seemings can provide <i>prima facie</i> justification, but that doesn't hold up in the face of potential defeaters; those defeaters have to be answered. I take it this is why Huemer takes up a considerable portion of his book in actually <i>refuting</i> skeptical arguments, rather than just appealing <i>ad nauseam</i> to the fact that it seems those scenarios are unlikely. But that's precisely the opposite of what you've done here, and as such, you're just guilty of continuing to miss the point or beg the question against K's arguments.<br /><br />Talmid,<br /><br />I would say you are indeed misunderstanding K's position. If you're actually interested in learning about it, there are some good introductions to the CPR accessible to anyone with some basic familiarity with philosophy. Sebastian Gardner's <i>Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason</i> is a good one.Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84996292018418532342020-03-20T06:38:58.836-07:002020-03-20T06:38:58.836-07:00It was common in the Middle Ages that lots of thin...It was common in the Middle Ages that lots of things in the Bible are allegorical. Maybe they did not use that for the flood but it was used. You have to say it is lots of cases. King David wrote in Psalms, "I am a worm, and not a man." That surely has to be an allegory I think.Avraham https://www.blogger.com/profile/07822433921393627746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18426189922682139762020-03-20T06:34:47.051-07:002020-03-20T06:34:47.051-07:00Lots of the links to different philosophers on the...Lots of the links to different philosophers on the side of this blog are not operational.Avraham https://www.blogger.com/profile/07822433921393627746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14720752614118449342020-03-20T03:55:23.469-07:002020-03-20T03:55:23.469-07:00Yeah, why doesn't someone fix all the people o...Yeah, why doesn't someone fix all the people on the interent that are wrong?T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35170244260553233122020-03-20T03:21:40.577-07:002020-03-20T03:21:40.577-07:00Why is there a standard to appeal to that tells yo...Why is there a standard to appeal to that tells you suffering/evil is "bad"? How do you know it's "bad"? Why would God owe us an abscense of suffering?T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.com