"Tim Rhodes" <proftim@speakeasy.org>
> The argument from evil only attempts to refute the <omnipotent
> and all-loving God> meme. That still leaves a lot of other
> options out there within the <god> meme category.
Well, technically that's true, but I have several versions of the argument
which make even relatively benign gods more difficult to believe in, e.g.
"Either god would remove evil out of this world and cannot, or he can
and will not, or he has not the power nor will, or lastly he has both
the power and will. If he has the will and not the power, this shows
weakness, which is contrary to the nature of god. If he has the power
and not the will, it is malignity, and this is no less contrary to his
nature. And if he is neither able nor willing he is both impotent and
malignant and consequently cannot be god. And if he is both willing
and able, which alone is consonant with the nature of god, whence
comes evil? Or why does he not prevent it?"
-- Epicurus, 350-?270 BC
Clearly, however, such an argument will never prove the non-existence of
such trouble making gods as Eris (Discordia) or Kali (the destroyer).
ERiC