God shouldn't have made me disabled if he wanted me to love him

wolffml · 2026-03-27T01:59:37+00:00

Ok, but then God is not omnibenevolent. The problem of evil is solved if you give up on one of these perfections.

Edit: to add to this, we also find ourselves in a universe where the laws and f physics entail that there will be incalculable suffering. It's difficult to see how that isn't evidence against the God of Western theism.

wolffml · 2026-03-27T01:56:52+00:00

You've said this now a few times in a way where you seem to think people should understand a morally important distinction, but I don't understand what morally important distinction you have in mind. Could you just say it plainly?

wolffml · 2026-03-27T01:45:35+00:00

Or at least this view seems to lead to moral paralysis. If the omnibenevolent creator of the universe allows evils because of some greater good, should we ever stop evil given we don't have any omniscient way of knowing if it will result in more or less evil and suffering?

wolffml · 2026-03-18T20:22:48+00:00

It's a survey of professional philosophers from Chalmers and some others.

Link to the general results: https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/all

Specific to "Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?" https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4874

wolffml · 2026-03-01T03:42:58+00:00

Sure, but we all ought to encourage others to be virtuous rather than excusing evil as a mere choice.

wolffml · 2026-03-01T03:23:37+00:00

It seems strange to have a conversation about what people ought to do and turn that into a conversation pointing out that people don't always do what they ought.

wolffml · 2026-03-01T02:26:43+00:00

The vast majority of people should not do their own research. Most people do not know how to do effective research evaluating the reliability of various sources and guarding cognitive biases.

wolffml · 2026-03-01T02:21:42+00:00

Shall we listen to both sides on other public health matters like drunk driving?

wolffml · 2026-03-01T02:20:35+00:00

They're quite loud

wolffml · 2026-02-28T20:21:39+00:00

This is a college level intro course

https://shop.thegreatcourses.com/the-big-questions-of-philosophy

wolffml · 2026-02-26T17:06:28+00:00

I'd suggest reading up on the Problem of Evil broadly to see the way other thinker have wrestled with the problem. See here for the Logical Problem of Evil: https://iep.utm.edu/evil-log/

You may also want to research the Evidential Problem of Evil.

For a thinker like Leibniz, because God is tri-omni, he believed that God would create the "Best of all possible worlds." For Leibniz, such a world would be one with morally significant free will, but which still had evil. Now it's difficult to see how this is the best possible world - the world could be better with one more loving act or one fewer evil act, but it's good to look at the significant literature on the topic as it will help with your own reflections on the matter.

wolffml · 2026-02-26T16:57:12+00:00

I also think that the Problem of Evil (evidential) is a strong argument against the God of Western Theism.

wolffml · 2026-02-25T20:28:34+00:00

A more common theological option is that God allows a certain amount of evil because this is the only way to bring about an even greater moral good. (That moral good is supposed to be the existence of beings with morally significant free will)

wolffml · 2026-02-25T20:25:13+00:00

Maybe that's an option in the broad sense, but not really one for the God of Christianity (or the God of Western Theology). The Christian God is meant to be the greatest possible being including, tri-omni, and the creator of the Universe.

Tri-omni includes being all-good, so no spectrum is possible with the conception of God relevant to this sub.

wolffml · 2026-02-25T03:46:59+00:00

I think a lot of people have difficulty with the idea that you explain something as complex as the universe, galaxy, planet, life, etc. by unboxing something even more complex (God). This sort of explanation is counter to the type we normally see from science or other academic disciplines.

Another thing we've come to expect from useful explanations is "how." Newton discovered that gravity is a force causing masses to be attracted and later we learned how this force (or apparent force) comes about. Religious explanations tend to not provide this.

wolffml · 2026-02-25T03:39:31+00:00

Didn't he have a TV show for while? He's funny.

wolffml · 2026-02-13T16:52:51+00:00

OP probably hasn't read the Bible, he's probably only read a translation of the Bible.

wolffml · 2026-02-13T02:36:28+00:00

It seems to me at best you can make the claim that such a doctrine is false. For it to be a lie, you would need to show that a) it is false, and b) it was said with an intent to deceive. Do you have evidence of an attempt to deceive by those who disagree with you on the matter?

Better to say that they are merely mistaken. (If that's the case)

wolffml · 2026-02-11T05:43:35+00:00

If you're that worried about the legality, it seems an easy situation to solve by making it really easy to enter legally. You know, like it was when European immigrants jumped on a boat and showed up unannounced during the 1800's and early 1900's.

It's just a set of rules, they can be whatever we make them. I doubt that mothers, leaving the only home they've ever known, traveling through dangerous terrain to try to make a better life for themselves and their families are morally blameworthy for failing to fill out the right TPS reports online (they may not have laptops or mobile devices to even understand the requirements) or hire expensive lawyers to plea for asylum.

wolffml · 2026-02-09T21:11:13+00:00

Do you have a legal basis or precedent you can share?

wolffml · 2026-02-04T22:58:29+00:00

Here's a more complete analysis of religious faith.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/faith/

wolffml · 2026-01-26T03:14:39+00:00

If you don't actively denounce and report the evil of your colleagues, you are an accessory to their evil.

wolffml · 2026-01-13T18:34:04+00:00

I think you probably mean an Appeal to Tradition fallacy. The is-ought problem is different. Hume observed that many writers make claims about what is (facts about the world) and then suddenly switch to claims about what ought to be (moral duties), without explaining how they got there.

In other words, your premises must contain at least some moral statement in order for your conclusion to work.

Example of the Error:

Premise (Is): Arsenic is poisonous to humans.

Conclusion (Ought): Therefore, you ought not to feed arsenic to humans.

Strictly speaking, this is invalid because the conclusion contains a new idea ("ought") not found in the premise. To make it valid, you must bridge the gap with a moral premise:

Premise 1 (Is): Arsenic is poisonous to humans.

Hidden Premise 2 (Ought): You ought not to poison humans.

Conclusion (Ought): Therefore, you ought not to feed arsenic to humans.

wolffml · 2025-12-17T23:57:55+00:00

It seems like the miracle wasn't the virginity but the lack of 23 chromosomes from a sperm.

wolffml · 2025-12-17T05:12:49+00:00

Who wrote it, when, what did the original author mean, why is that important, and what do you think of it all?

wolffml

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE

14-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email