Last Person To Post IV

Which play?

 

The Merchant of Venice, and he is playing Shylock

 

I regretted it for a second after saying it. I did not even think about what I was doing, it was reflexive.

Never seen it. Have you seen it or read it before?

 

Did you know the boy? If not then it's understandable xD

I have never read or seen it, however I know it's set in Vegas which should be interesting O.o

 

... It is being set in Vegas? Shakespeare did not have Vegas in his time...

 

That is what someone told me, it could just be a Vegas-esque thing, I will ahve to check. I think they said Venice and I heard wrong- maybe I wanted it to be more exciting :.-.:

 

Are you saying that Venice is not exciting? Well, I have not been to either one. Nothing to say.

 

Ienzo, what with all the a priori judgement? You should look into it before deciding its boring.

A priori < A posteriori

Unless it's prima facie that is.


._.

I appear to be in a very fanciful mood today. WOO

 

Thank you, I learned something today. I love gathering up Latin phrases from philosophy... I had not heard prima facie before.

 

o.o That's quite alright.

This is what happens when people let me read books u_u *is currently reading Lennox's debate with Dawkins as to whether science has killed God beyond any reasonable doubt*

 

Logic has killed the Christian god beyond any, but science has not killed anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence always leaves doubt.

 

How so?

 

Long argument, but if you want to read it yourself...

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=114549495273054

 

Not now, but I'll go through it sometime, probably at the weekend.

 

The simple breakdown is what I was going to show, but you would probably argue against it, and the defenses are argued in depth on the full article. To summarize, without greater depth:

P(1): An all-loving being would desire the elimination of gratuitous suffering.

P(2): An all-powerful being would be able to eliminate gratuitous suffering.

P(3): God exists. [The theist’s postulation.]

(3.a): God is all-loving.

(3.b): God is all-powerful.

P(4): Since a being that was all-loving and all-powerful would both desire the elimination of gratuitous suffering and be capable of eliminating it, gratuitous suffering could not exist in any world created by such a being.

[From 1, 2, 3.a and 3.b]

P(5): Gratuitous suffering, ARL (in all realistic likelihood), exists in our world.

C(6): ARL, our world was not created by an all-loving and omnipotent god.

[4, 5.]​

If you disagree, read the rest of it, and then come to me if you still have problems understanding it.

 

Ah, 'tis the incomplete triad/evil and suffering argument.

 

I would not know about that, but it is a complete argument as regards gratuitous suffering. Disregarding it without an argument of your own against it would be foolish.

 

Not disregarding, plan to read through it.

 

You can't blame God for suffering. It's not him doing it.

 

The argument is that, should he be omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent, should he not then stop suffering.

If he lacked any one of the three it would be explainable within the laws of non-theistic reasoning, however, with all three pieces intact it is a blatant contradiction.