Problem of Evil

[Species8472]

To me, the origins of evil is the more difficult matter; I can see why an omnipotent God could not eliminate all evil, but in a way I'm not sure why God would allow a situation with the potential of degenerating into evil.

It is through concept and experience, according to free will, that predetermines whether we are to become good or evil. God allows evil to exist so that (greater) good may arise from the midst. God is all merciful that he even loves those that are evil; and shows his mercy by allowing evil to exist; but not left un-checked, rather, through his son, Jesus christ, of whom is the Light of the world--shines that light upon the good and the evil, the just and the unjust. To separate the sheep from the goats.
What really keeps evil going, within the world, is the fact that the so-called just believe it is there mission to wipe evil off the face of the earth, thereby, they become evil by committing evil against evil; therefore, perpetuating the ancient conflict between good and evil.
Many believe that this is the will of God, however, that is not the teaching of Christ. Jesus said, those who live by the sword shall fall by the sword (whether they be good or evil). He also said, Resist Not evil...turn the other cheek.
Many of the so-called good get delusions of grandeur and believe that their so-called good acts are that which God wills; unknowingly, they are not performing the will of God, rather, their own will. Therefore, men call good evil and evil good, without discernment of the nature of good.
As experience is entitled to Free will, so God allows evil to exist.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Not at all. The "McEar problem" is just a trivial and childish attempt to dismiss a rational discussion of omnipotence. (In fact, given your earlier postings, I'd bet dollars to donuts that you just went around the 'net, looking for ways to work around the conditions of omnipotence that I described earlier.)

I encountered McEar a few years ago in another philosophical forum, but your charity and good faith in my expertise are noted.

For the sake of the unfamiliar, the McEar problem posits that if we had a being named McEar who could do everything except (according to his basic nature) scratch his own ear, then that person would be omnipotent. Its proponents claim that this is a ridiculous scenario, and that it therefore casts aspersions on the aforementioned requirements of omnipotence (e.g. that an omnipotent being can only do what is logically possible, and that he cannot violate his own nature).

However, even a dilettante can see how childish the McEar objection is. The ability to scratch one's ear is merely a physical limitation. It is not a quality of one's fundamental nature--that is, the very core of one's being or character. The ability to scratch one's ear is nowhere in the same category as one's omnibenevolence, for example, or one's sense of justice.

The McEar problem does not demand that McEar's limitation be a physical one. Perhaps it is just not his nature to do anything but scratch his ear.

Moreover, even if we accept that the McEar problem leads to a rather ludicruous example of omnipotence, this does not logically imply that every hypothetical omnipotent being would be similarly ridiculous. And given the abundance of other philosophical pointers toward the Judeo-Christian God (the Kalam cosmological argument, for example, or the paths of Aquinas), we have no reason to accept that the McEar problem poses any serious difficulty to an omnipotent God.

As if Kalaam and Aquinas do not have their share of critics. In any case, McEar intends to show not that any particular omnipotent being is absurd, but that the proffered definition of omnipotence encompasses absurd beings.

In fact, one can see signs of such logical sloppiness in the article that I cited. In this article, a McEar proponent attacked the claim "that to do anything logically possible is a sufficient guarantor of the attribute of divine omnipotence." However, I claim not such thing; rather, I say that omnipotence does not require the ability to do what is logically impossible. See the difference? In fact, condition (b) ("God cannot contradict his own nature") shows that the ability to do everything logically possible is NOT the only criterion for omnipotence. (This same author later snuck that condition in circumspectly, when he talked about McEar's "nature"... but by doing so, he violated his condtion that the ability to do anything logically possible is a sufficient guarantor of omnipotence.)

That may or may not be a flawed attack, but it has nothing to do with McEar.

Besides, are you saying that God CAN contradict his own nature? That God can sin, for example? Every modern philosopher and theologian that I know would disagree. They acknowledge that God's omnipotence does not require him to violate his fundamental nature.

I am not familiar with the extent of your knowledge of persons philosophical and theological, but the very article that you yourself provided above seems to refute this claim.

But for the sake of argument, let us ignore condition (b). Condition (a) still remains -- namely, that God can only do what is logically consistent. Ergo, God cannot force people to freely obey Him -- and this is one reason why evil and suffering continue to exist.

Interesting. Those who defend compatibilistic free will seem to think God can know in advance what a free being will choose. If so, why can't God create a being he knows will freely obey him?

 

[LVdesigns]

Very interesting thread. I had a lot to say when I read the inital post, however most of my points have already been stated by a few people. I doubt very many people have changed their opinion of the nature of god and evil by reading this thread; it is a debate that has gone on for quite some time now. Hopefully this thread has at least allowed some to either understand the viewpoints of others or rethink their own stance. That said, I will throw in my two cents concerning the following post:

Obviously, it's not as simple as that. After all, the angels were in heaven, and some of them did sin. Some of them rebelled.

I'll admit that I don't know all the answers. It could be that the people who enter into heaven, having been refined by God, will no longer sin once they're in the direct presence of the Lord. They most certainly have free will, as evidenced by the fact that they sinned on earth, but upon entering God's direct presence, they lose all desire for sin.


Because we have direct, empirical, unassailable evidence that people on earth DO sin. It is a direct consequence of their free will. Now, if you can suggest a way of eliminating evil on earth without robbing people of their free will, then please get started on this grandiose plan right away.

Since god was able to create a heaven where free will can exist without evil, then it should logically follow that he could have done the same thing when he created earth. However, he chose to approach the design of earth in a different fashion and created a place where evil could exist.

Now, it could be argued that evil also exists in heaven, since some angels chose to go against god and going against god is evil. But that makes you have to let go of the idea that heaven is only good. If you argue that god couldn't create the earth without evil because evil is a tool to create good; bring people to god. Then you have to accept that god either couldn't find another means to allow people to freely choose him or prefers using evil as a tool.

Why does free will have to concern a decision between good and evil. There are many other instances in which free will can be exercised. I have the free will to choose between chocolate or strawberry ice cream. Neither are evil yet there is a choice. Basically, I don't see a conflict between designing an environment free of evil while still allowing free will.

 

[elman]

Very interesting thread. I had a lot to say when I read the inital post, however most of my points have already been stated by a few people. I doubt very many people have changed their opinion of the nature of god and evil by reading this thread; it is a debate that has gone on for quite some time now. Hopefully this thread has at least allowed some to either understand the viewpoints of others or rethink their own stance. That said, I will throw in my two cents concerning the following post:



Since god was able to create a heaven where free will can exist without evil, then it should logically follow that he could have done the same thing when he created earth. However, he chose to approach the design of earth in a different fashion and created a place where evil could exist.

Now, it could be argued that evil also exists in heaven, since some angels chose to go against god and going against god is evil. But that makes you have to let go of the idea that heaven is only good. If you argue that god couldn't create the earth without evil because evil is a tool to create good; bring people to god. Then you have to accept that god either couldn't find another means to allow people to freely choose him or prefers using evil as a tool.

Why does free will have to concern a decision between good and evil. There are many other instances in which free will can be exercised. I have the free will to choose between chocolate or strawberry ice cream. Neither are evil yet there is a choice. Basically, I don't see a conflict between designing an environment free of evil while still allowing free will.

How does one chose good in this world of your imagination that does not allow chosing evil?

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

Since god was able to create a heaven where free will can exist without evil, then it should logically follow that he could have done the same thing when he created earth. However, he chose to approach the design of earth in a different fashion and created a place where evil could exist.

Now, it could be argued that evil also exists in heaven, since some angels chose to go against god and going against god is evil. But that makes you have to let go of the idea that heaven is only good.

Not at all. It only means that there WAS evil in heaven. It does not logically follow that evil still exists there.

As I pointed out earlier, it could very well be that heaven is now sin-free because the angels who rebelled were purged... and the ones that remain, by basking in the direct presence of God, would not be inclined to sin. This could be a loose analogue to the human situation, wherein those who refuse God's grace would mostly likely continue to sin in heaven, whereas those that accept it would not.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Not at all. It only means that there WAS evil in heaven. It does not logically follow that evil still exists there.

As I pointed out earlier, it could very well be that heaven is now sin-free because the angels who rebelled were purged... and the ones that remain, by basking in the direct presence of God, would not be inclined to sin. This could be a loose analogue to the human situation, wherein those who refuse God's grace would mostly likely continue to sin in heaven, whereas those that accept it would not.

This appears to make a mockery of free will. Specifically, that God now can populate heaven with beings not "inclined to sin" whereas he could not (or would not) before.

 

[LVdesigns]

How does one chose good in this world of your imagination that does not allow chosing evil?

Essentially every choice would be "good" but free will would still exist. The environment would be arranged in such a way that good vs evil choices didn't exist. Such an arrangement is certainly logically possible for an all powerful being to create.

Not at all. It only means that there WAS evil in heaven. It does not logically follow that evil still exists there. As I pointed out earlier, it could very well be that heaven is now sin-free because the angels who rebelled were purged... and the ones that remain, by basking in the direct presence of God, would not be inclined to sin. This could be a loose analogue to the human situation, wherein those who refuse God's grace would mostly likely continue to sin in heaven, whereas those that accept it would not.

Ok, I'll accept the idea that evil was purged from heaven and therefore no longers exists there. But, If those in the direct presence of god were unable to accept his power, what would compel him to create beings who aren't directly in his presence and expect them to behave as desired? Why didn't this purging of evil on earth work the first time when he sent the flood?

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

This appears to make a mockery of free will. Specifically, that God now can populate heaven with beings not "inclined to sin" whereas he could not (or would not) before.

Pay attention. Nobody said that they are "not inclined to sin." Rather, the suggestion is that "by basking in the direct presence of God, [they] would not be inclined to sin." In other words, the direct presence of God would be sufficient for these particular beings to be disinclined to sin. See the difference? (I've spelled this out more than once before, so I'm a bit frustrated at having to elucidate this yet again.)

Look, if one is to debate on this forum, one should at least make sure to represent the opposite side with honesty, accuracy and integrity. Nobody said that God created angels that would never sin under any circumstances. However, it is entirely possible that some of them would choose not to sin, by virtue of having the constant reminder of God's presence in a direct and palpable way. The same would presumably hold true -- not for all humans -- but for humans who are repentant, have been redeemed, and have already chosen to obey their Maker.

I will address your support of the "McEar" problem (or rather, non-problem) shortly. Suffice to say that this discussion would go more smoothly if we could avoid going down rabbit trails just to repeat matters that have already been addressed at length.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

Ok, I'll accept the idea that evil was purged from heaven and therefore no longers exists there. But, If those in the direct presence of god were unable to accept his power, what would compel him to create beings who aren't directly in his presence and expect them to behave as desired?

I think it's hugely inaccurate to say that "those in the direct presence of god were unable to accept his power." Some of them did, some of them did not. Such is the nature of free will.

Why didn't this purging of evil on earth work the first time when he sent the flood?

Because the flood was not meant to purge the earth of evil. Rather, it was meant as an act of judgment. There's a difference.

I suggest that you read Genesis 5-8. Nowhere does it say that God intended to eliminate evil (or the potential thereof) completely from the earth. Indeed, since Noah's family could still reproduce, such a flood would not have guaranteed any such thing.

Additionally, as I've pointed out several times now, human beings on earth do not experience God's presence in the same direct manner that heavenly beings do. This alone means that one cannot extrapolate from the Biblical purge to conditions on earth -- even conditions immediately after the flood.

 

[elman]

Quote
Originally Posted by: elman

How does one chose good in this world of your imagination that does not allow chosing evil?

Essentially every choice would be "good" but free will would still exist. The environment would be arranged in such a way that good vs evil choices didn't exist. Such an arrangement is certainly logically possible for an all powerful being to create.

But if there is no choice but good, there is no free will to exist. No it is not logically possible for an all powerful being to create just as a square circle is not logically possible.

 

[LVdesigns]

I think it's hugely inaccurate to say that "those in the direct presence of god were unable to accept his power." Some of them did, some of them did not. Such is the nature of free will.


Because the flood was not meant to purge the earth of evil. Rather, it was meant as an act of judgment. There's a difference.

I suggest that you read Genesis 5-8. Nowhere does it say that God intended to eliminate evil (or the potential thereof) completely from the earth. Indeed, since Noah's family could still reproduce, such a flood would not have guaranteed any such thing.

Additionally, as I've pointed out several times now, human beings on earth do not experience God's presence in the same direct manner that heavenly beings do. This alone means that one cannot extrapolate from the Biblical purge to conditions on earth -- even conditions immediately after the flood.

I know humans don't experience God in the same manner, I didn't mean to apply that they did. If they did have this same experience then there wouldn't be any discussion over if God exists or who's religion is right.

I've read Genesis, I don't recall it litterally saying that god intended to remove all evil, however that was my interpretation. I have met very few people who interpret the bible in she same manner.

The free will defense of the problem of evil is a tricky one to say much against. Most refutations of it rest entirely on proving that free will doesn't have to consist of a choice between good and evil. I think I may be able to show this is possible. But, right now it is more of an idea I've been thinking about than one I've formulated into something that makes sense.

 

[LVdesigns]

Quote But if there is no choice but good, there is no free will to exist. No it is not logically possible for an all powerful being to create just as a square circle is not logically possible.

Imagine that the world was created differently. In this different world it might be that the ability to have free will and not do evil is just as logical as the ability to have free will and not be able to levitate. Basically, I don't think there is a reason why God would have to forfeit logic in order to achieve this state. It would just be one more thing humans are incapable of doing because that is how the environment was set up.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Pay attention. Nobody said that they are "not inclined to sin." Rather, the suggestion is that "by basking in the direct presence of God, [they] would not be inclined to sin." In other words, the direct presence of God would be sufficient for these particular beings to be disinclined to sin. See the difference? (I've spelled this out more than once before, so I'm a bit frustrated at having to elucidate this yet again.)

You're not the only one. Are you saying that the angels who rebelled were not sufficently disinclined to sin? Inclinations, as I understand, are phenomena internal to an individual. If God knows everyone's inclinations, why is He bothering with angels who are inclined to sin?

Look, if one is to debate on this forum, one should at least make sure to represent the opposite side with honesty, accuracy and integrity. Nobody said that God created angels that would never sin under any circumstances. However, it is entirely possible that some of them would choose not to sin, by virtue of having the constant reminder of God's presence in a direct and palpable way. The same would presumably hold true -- not for all humans -- but for humans who are repentant, have been redeemed, and have already chosen to obey their Maker.

But for God to have a sinless heaven, He has to know not only that a person is disinclined to sin, but that he will never sin. And if He knows now that the souls in heaven now will never sin, then He knew then that the angels would.

 

[Telephone]

With all due respect, your statement assumes a kindergarden-level definition of omnipotence. I do not know a single philosopher or theologian who defines omnipotence as "the abililty to do anything whatsoever."

I use the dictionary (and widely accepted ) definition of omnipotence.

I just typed "define: omnipotent" into google, do so yourself and you will find:

almighty: having unlimited power
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Omnipotence (literally, "all power") is power with no limits or inexhaustible, in other words, unlimited power. This trait is usually attributed only to God. Theists hold that examples of God's omnipotence include Creation and miracles.

Unlimited power, this pretty much squares with my understanding of omnipotence, but if you feel the need to redefine the meaning to make the nonsensical notions of thesim work in a forced logical context, don't let me stop you.

Rather, God is omnipotent because He can do anything that is (a) logically consistent and (b) consistent with His own character.

Logically consistent by whose definitions, by ours ? Are you saying god can do anything that is logically consistent by the standards of his creations ?

Or can he do anything logically consistent by the laws of nature ? but surely he created the laws of nature, again he is logically consistent by the standards of his own creation ?

Or maybe there is some underlying law to the universe that he is logically consistent to ? but this would negate his omnipotence ?

And what is his character and how does this limit his omnipotence, can he not change his character ? Is his character flawed in that it limits his omnipotence ?

And is it logically consistent to create time and all matter ? Logically consistent with what, a science fiction film perhaps ? or Logically consistent with a fable maybe ?

The simple additions of "logically consistent" and "of character" may seem attractive in solving problems of omnipotence but ultimately solve nothing.

Perhaps it is time for a redefinition of "logically consistent" to make omnipotence work ?

Can God create a round square or a married bachelor? Certainly not!

Or a person who lives after his death ?

Or a pregnant virgin ?

If we stick to euclidean geometry it is not possible to create a square circle, but is your gods omnipotence also limited by the types of geometry he must function within ? Can he not use non-euclidean geometry ?

Such concepts are self-contradictory. They are nothing more than words that were arbitrarily juxtaposed. Used together, they are meaningless.

In the same way, God cannot logically force human beings to freely repent and follow him. Either they do so freely, or they are coerced. That is simply the nature of logic, and it does not make God any less omnipotent.

It simply makes him malevolent.

If god can create a heaven where there is free will and a lack of sin/evil/suffering and does not, he is malevolent.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

I use the dictionary (and widely accepted ) definition of omnipotence.

I just typed "define: omnipotent" into google, do so yourself and you will find:

almighty: having unlimited power
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Omnipotence (literally, "all power") is power with no limits or inexhaustible, in other words, unlimited power. This trait is usually attributed only to God. Theists hold that examples of God's omnipotence include Creation and miracles.

Unlimited power, this pretty much squares with my understanding of omnipotence, but if you feel the need to redefine the meaning to make the nonsensical notions of thesim work in a forced logical context, don't let me stop you.

I'm not "redefining" it. Rather, I'm using the term as a philosopher or theologian would.

Dictionaries are useful, but they do not always capture all the nuances of how a term is used. This is especially true of esoteric terms, such as those used in philosophy. If you want a more thorough answer, consider the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which most assuredly does NOT treat omnipotence as merely the ability to do anything whatsoever.

Logically consistent by whose definitions, by ours ? Are you saying god can do anything that is logically consistent by the standards of his creations ?

Logic is not subjective. It is not subject to individual whims or personal definitions.

In fact, the statement "logic is just a matter of personal definition" is self-refuting. After all, what "logic" would you use to defend that claim?

Or can he do anything logically consistent by the laws of nature ?

The laws of nature are NOT an example of logic. Rather, they are physical rules... something entirely different.

Again, how would you propose creating a square circle, or a circular square? Do you deny that this is logically impossible?

Or maybe there is some underlying law to the universe that he is logically consistent to ? but this would negate his omnipotence ?

Again, that's not what omnipotence is.

And what is his character and how does this limit his omnipotence

It doesn't. He's still omnipotent.

, can he not change his character ?

Not if he is to remain God.

Is his character flawed in that it limits his omnipotence ?

Quite the opposite. It is God's FLAWLESS character that makes him God. If He changes his character, he is no longer God.

And is it logically consistent to create time and all matter ? Logically consistent with what, a science fiction film perhaps ? or Logically consistent with a fable maybe ?

Again, that's not what logic is. Physical laws are not an example of logic. You keep confusing the two.

The simple additions of "logically consistent" and "of character" may seem attractive in solving problems of omnipotence but ultimately solve nothing.

No, it is the IGNORING of these distinctions that solve nothing.

Perhaps it is time for a redefinition of "logically consistent" to make omnipotence work ?

You cannot logically redefine logic. In fact, any attempt to do so is self-refuting, for then one can easily redefine logic anew to refute your "proof."

Or a person who lives after his death ?

Or a pregnant virgin ?

Again, not example of "logic." Until you grasp the distinction between logical laws and physical laws, this discussion can go nowhere.

 

[Telephone]

whoops another double post !

 

[Telephone]

D/p (caused by satan tempting my fingers)

 

[Telephone]

I'm not "redefining" it. Rather, I'm using the term as a philosopher or theologian would.

Dictionaries are useful, but they do not always capture all the nuances of how a term is used. This is especially true of esoteric terms, such as those used in philosophy. If you want a more thorough answer, consider the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which most assuredly does NOT treat omnipotence as merely the ability to do anything whatsoever.

You have simply sourced a definition of the term to match your argumentative needs, you could perhaps say this of me but I will say my understanding of omnipotence, meaning unlimited power, is the common understanding, whilst your understanding serves a personal agenda, that of allowing your belief in a loving god to sit happily with the problem of evil.

In fact, the statement "logic is just a matter of personal definition" is self-refuting. After all, what "logic" would you use to defend that claim?

As I have not made that claim I feel little need to refute it.

The laws of nature are NOT an example of logic. Rather, they are physical rules... something entirely different.

Nature adheres to the quality of being justifiable by reason, it follows a logic.

Again, how would you propose creating a square circle, or a circular square? Do you deny that this is logically impossible?

Again, as I have pointed out a square circle is not allowed in euclidean geometry, but why would an omnipotent god not be able to employ non-euclidean geometry, what is it that is limiting him, our understanding of geometry ?

Or maybe there is some underlying law to the universe that he is logically consistent to ? but this would negate his omnipotence

Again, that's not what omnipotence is.

Then what is the logic he must be consistent with ? Where does it come from ? Is it naturally occurring without god ?

And what is his character and how does this limit his omnipotence

It doesn't. He's still omnipotent.

hmmmmmm, you say "God is omnipotent because He can do anything that is (a) logically consistent and (b) consistent with His own character."

I read this (b) as meaning that things that are not consitent with his own character are not possible for him to achieve, and infer that his omnipotence is limited by the need to be consistent with his own character.

And from this I quite reasonably ask: "What is his character and how does this limit his omnipotence"

If his character does not limit his omnipotence how can you claim God is omnipotent because He can do anything that is ...consistent with His own character

Indoctrinated theological agenda based semantic nonsense.

And is it logically consistent to create time and all matter ?

Again, that's not what logic is. Physical laws are not an example of logic. You keep confusing the two.

Ok, so god cannot create an enviroment with free will and keep it free from suffering* yet with ease he magics the universe into existence from nothing, creates life, morality and everything we see around us and then sets time in motion and your best defense in this argument is that I am confusing logic and physical laws, it would seem your view of reality is based on your faith (belief without evidence) and a need to protect the views burned into your mind at a young age.

* conveniently ignoring the paradox of heaven

Can God create a round square or a married bachelor? Certainly not!

Or a pregnant virgin?

Again, not example of "logic."

My "pregnant virgin" contradicts logic every bit as much as your "married bachelor", explain to me how a pregnant virgin does not contradict logic and how a married bachelor does ?

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

You have simply sourced a definition of the term to match your argumentative needs...

Nonsense. I am NOT picking an arbitrary definition of omnipotence. Rather, I am using established discussions of omnipotence based on the grand history of philosophy and an encyclopedic source thereof.

As I have not made that claim I feel little need to refute it.

You did not state in such bald terms. However, this is implicit in your question "Whose logic?" Logic is not a subjective matter, so the question "Whose logic?" is meaningless.

Nature adheres to the quality of being justifiable by reason, it follows a logic.

It *follows* logic, but the laws themselves are not the same as logical laws. In principle, the laws of nature could have been different. For example, in principle (in a world with slightly different laws), frogs could have reproduced asexually, but they don't.

This is vastly different from the laws of logic, which are much more fundamental that that. Consider the logical statement, "If A implies B, and B implies C, then A implies C." That is EXTREMELY fundamental. No logician worth his salt would suggest that it could be any other way.

Therein lies a critical difference between the laws of logic and the laws of nature. The laws of nature could have been different, and they can (in principle) be suspended. The laws of logic are immutable.

Again, as I have pointed out a square circle is not allowed in euclidean geometry, but why would an omnipotent god not be able to employ non-euclidean geometry, what is it that is limiting him, our understanding of geometry ?

Really? Then pray tell, what is this geometric system that would permit a square circle?

There is none. That's because a square is DEFINED as having four corners, while a circle is DEFINED as having none. One cannot simultaneously have four corners and none. This is a matter of basic logic, not geometry.

Therein lies the problem with your objections. Until you grasp the difference between laws of nature and laws of logic, there can be no meaningful discourse. It would be like discussing automotive mechanics with someone who refuses to acknowledge any difference between a spark plug and a sledgehamer.

Time does not permit a complete discussion of all your points, especially since most of them are predicated on this distinction between logic and nature. I would like to jump ahead to your final statement though, as I think it demonstrates that LOGIC is not what you think it is.

My "pregnant virgin" contradicts logic every bit as much as your "married bachelor", explain to me how a pregnant virgin does not contradict logic and how a married bachelor does ?

Because the concepts of virginity and pregnancy are not INHERENTLY contradictory.

A bachelor is DEFINED as someone who is not married. Ergo, there can be no married bachelor, as this would violate the definition of bachelorhood. It's just that simple.

In contrast, there is no such inherent contradiction between virginity and pregnancy. A virgin is DEFINED as someone who has never had sex. This is not logically contradictory with pregnancy... especially if you allow for a God who can suspend or change the laws of nature. In fact, one does not even require such a God; after all, a virgin can be inseminated artifically, and can therefore become pregnant. Ergo, the concept of a pregnant virgin is not LOGICALLY contradictory.

One might say that it violates the laws of nature (barring artificial insemination and other such techniques), but it is not logically contradictory. There's a difference.

Again, with all due respect, it appears to me that you don't quite grasp what logic is. You might want to read a book on the philosophy of logic sometime, as this would hopefully help delineate the difference between logic and nature.

 

[Edx]

A virgin is DEFINED as someone who has never had sex. This is not logically contradictory with pregnancy... especially if you allow for a God who can suspend or change the laws of nature. In fact, one does not even require such a God; after all, a virgin can be inseminated artifically, and can therefore become pregnant. Ergo, the concept of a pregnant virgin is not LOGICALLY contradictory.

Marys virginity is claimed to be a miracle, thats the point. A miracle is not a natural event, so you cant say its artifical insemination. Are you saying God has sperm too? To give birth to himself? Come on.

Ed