(March 23, 2018 at 10:02 am)Grandizer Wrote:(March 23, 2018 at 9:18 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: You are entitled to your opinion. IMO your certainty is unjustified and not a sound basis on which to make any theological pronouncements. Personally, I don't know as a logical certainty that a world without bloodshed can be attained without sacrificing other potentially greater goods of which I am not aware.
If you disagree with what I said, then there's something not right with your reasoning, because such a disagreement implies that the likelihood of a world without bloodshed is higher under naturalism than under theism. This is clearly not rational.
Note we're not talking logical certainties here, we're doing probabilities.
Now your're lowering the bar for yourself. Initially, you maintained that the current world is incompatible with theism. Now, you maintain that it's probably incompatible.
That's my point. Your opinion of what is probable and what is not probable is just a judgment call. You're making an emotional argument based on your inability to imagine counterbalancing goods. Your proposed world is comparable to that of the Lotus Eaters - one without moral agency, honor, fortitude, or courage. Those are virtues that give meaning and value to human existence. Now are those virtues enough to justify the level of bloodshed we see in the world? Maybe not. But I am open to the idea that there are other goods I haven't yet considered that would tip the balance. You've already made up your mind - probably because you are filled with such anti-religious bigotry that you will not concede even the possibility that I could be right.
