How do I turn the table on atheists?

[atheistgirl]

I think atheistgirl’s reaction is exactly right.

Inscrutable evil/suffering = an instance of evil/suffering for which we know of no moral justification for.

Unjustified evil/suffering = an instance of evil/suffering for which no moral justification exists.

The noseeum inference is the inference that some event E is an unjustified evil, from its being an instance of inscrutable evil.

She’s making the noseeum inference, and I think we should follow her in doing so.

The most popular reply is some brand of skeptical theism: Since we don’t have epistemic access to God’s moral justifications, we can’t say he doesn’t have any. For that reason, we’re not able to infer that any instance of evil is unjustified; it’s just as likely as not that God has a moral justification for it.

The problems with skeptical theism are legion. But, here’s one brilliant reply:

The observation of any event lowers the probability of skeptical theism, so long as its prior probability is less than 1 (a reasonable assumption, 1 being the highest degree of confidence, 0 being the least).

Take for instance…the death of Christopher Columbus. Our background knowledge makes it quite probable that Christopher Columbus died because of things like our knowledge of human physiology, the fact that Columbus lived centuries ago etc. So, on atheism it’s quite probable that Christopher Columbus died (since atheism doesn’t tweak with our background knowledge), I’d say 1.0.

But, on skeptical theism, you must introduce an omni-guy into the picture. The question arises, “Does God have morally good reason to prevent Columbus from dying, or is he morally obliged to preserve his life?” The skeptical theist is in an awkward position now. Who knows? He must say. God’s moral justifications are inscrutable to us. Therefore, it’s just as likely as not that God had morally good reasons for miraculously sustaining Columbus’ life, than that God didn’t. So, we can’t say whether Columbus died, given skeptical theism. That is, where Columbus’ death = C, Skeptical Theism = S, and Atheism = ~S:

P(C|S&K)=0.5, whereas P(C|~S&K)=1.0. It follows by the relevance criterion that P(~S|C&K) > P(~S|K). So, C is evidence for ~S against S. (And so forth for any observation)

Now, after you get P(S|E&K) you take that posterior and make it S’s prior in the next evaluation. So, suppose the following probabilities:

P(S)=0.99

P(~S)=0.01

P(W|S&K)=0.5

P(W|~S&K)=1.0

Plug these into Bayes’ theorem:

0.99 * 0.5 / [0.99 * 0.5] + [0.01 * 1.0] = 0.98

You take this posterior (0.98) and make it S’s prior in the next evaluation. As you can see, S’s posterior will eventually drop to near 0 (it just went from 0.99 to 0.98), considering the incredible amount of events we could and should evaluate. (Maintaining the same numbers above but adjusting the priors accordingly will give S a posterior of 0.96, this decrease will speed up).

The skeptical theist may reply that the relevant probability isn’t “0.5” but is inscrutable, hence no number can be assigned! (somewhere between 1-0.) But, the skeptical theist must generalize this idea to all observations, therefore the probability of anything at all given skeptical theism is inscrutable. So, there isn’t any evidence for anything. Super.

Bartender,

I’ll have a shot of whatever he’s drinking and pour him another one.



Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

If God were to prevent all suffering from the innocent, He would be limiting the free will of the guilty. He does not want innocent people to suffer, but it is not a consequence of His inaction but of the action of others.

Well, my thoughts on this are as an omnipotent merciful kind and loving ‘‘father’’ as He is described by christians, yes He should. I think it is very much a consequence of His inaction that others suffer, given the all knowing, all present, all powerful, all loving nature of His being. Which brings up the other issue about prayer and pleading - I specifically cited the cases of christian women raped because it’s fair to say these women would have called on God for help and to keep them safe. We are told, in several places in the Bible, to ask, and it wil be given, and we are also told that anyone who harms a child it would be better a millstone was tied around them and they were drowned. This implies an incredible love and protection of the child. And yet, the abuse is not stopped?!?

So to use your analogy, should a man take a child away because they have bad parents, sterilize women who will make bad mothers, run over and take a man’s cigarettes because they may cause him harm, outlaw alcohol because someone may drink and drive and kill and innocent passenger?

Well, youre not comparing like with like. There is no comparison between the limited actions of a human and the actions an all knowing, all seeing all present loving God can do. And in fact, I would have to say, humans generally are very loving and kind and go the extra mile to help their fellow man out. Children have actually been taken away from bad parents where they are deemed at risk - thats humans caring for the child - public health initiatives, bans on smoking just about everywhere, and assistance with quiting the drug habit are indeed available - that’s humans caring for humans, and just look at the drink awareness campaigns. I KNOW we have free choice and free will and I KNOW our actions impact on otheres, which helps determine the morality of them too.

I also know if I came across a child being abused or a woman being raped I would do anything I could to get them out of immediate danger - and I’m a tiny person - think what a larger more powerful person would and could do, then think what God could do. Yet it just doesnt happen does it where God is involved?

1984* by George Orwell would become a reality. The same is true with God. By preventing harm to others, and therefore limiting sin, He would be eliminating free will. So rather than loving us as humans, He would essentially be loving drones incapable of doing anything that isn’t His will.

This comes back to the question I raised earlier - so a significant amount of the population - generally the most weak and vulnerable - have to suffer just so God can love us and see how we act when we have free will and how we chose to act using that free will

None of that makes any sense to me what so every.

However, once God is removed from the equation, it makes perfect sense.

So to ‘‘turn the table’’ on this atheist, these are some of the questions that would need to be answered in a way that actually makes sense.

Sarah x

 

[Bobber90]

JDaniel, I will annotate your post to try to show as directly as possible how I think there is a distinction between reality and truth, and the implications of this for your example.

Bobber:

Think: we are speaking right now about what can, or will, be known and said about this present event, at some time in the future. That is the future perfect. It is not a portent. Current reality is true, is it not? (Reality is different from truth. Reality is not true, an accurate statement about reality is true.) Even if we color it through our perceptional inadequacies, the event is still factical and true. (It is real and a description of it will always be true because it is real) If, or when, we speak of this event, in the future, what we will be speaking of will have been, and therefore is an in-excludable part of the manifold we know to be the Past. The fact that it doesn’t exist any more, is irrelevant to its facticality. (Is irrelevant to its past reality - precisely) If you carve away pieces of the past’s sequential manifold, we shall be left with not sense, but non-sense. With any piece of the past removed, the present can never arrive, nor will the future arrive. Every single piece of the Past is essential for the ongoing-ness of reality.

But any statement about it will be, and any statement that I make today about such statement in the future, will be grounded in the factical of this event. It can be no other way.

No. Merely the statement doesn’t exist. The factical that was the real past event will always be true even when it is gone and forgotten. (No, the event will always have happened in reality, and a description of such will always be true, but truth is only a property of the description and does not have an independent reality) In the same way, the factical that is the referent for today’s truth, stated in the future, will always be true.

What on Earth does this mean? I have had many conversations with, for example, my brother. During many of these conversations we have recalled that while the past event was occurring, one of us said, that we will “never forget this .” Are we deluded? There are no “cosmic consequences?” Please think this through a little more. I’d hate to think that I don’t belong on the outside!

Does what I’ve said above help? If not, I’ll try to find a website that discusses this much more coherently for you. Let me know.

God bless,
jd

 

[Bobber90]

Bobber:

But it can be known. Consider: that on this planet we have about 4.5 billion “thinker-staters,” (the rest being kids). If truth was dependent upon a “thinker-stater” then what is it if I don’t think or state it? I can simply reject any and all of your statements that ‘you have thought (about) it (and stated it) and therefore it is true.’ And, I’d be perfectly within my rights to do so. Therefore, such dependency is actually on me alone. If I don’t think (about) it and state it, it cannot be true.

Here is the problem of thinking that truth and reality are one thing. If truth and reality are separate, then one can have a total absence of any true statements, and reality remains unaffected and just as real. It is a mistake to think that truth being dependent upon thinkers makes reality dependent upon thinkers also. You are free to reject all my statements, but if they correspond with reality, they are true anyway.

Now, if you are correct and truth is nothing more than a “correspondence statement” (between the contents of a thought and its referent) then how can we know that what we think about pre-history is true? There were no “thinker-staters” then. Pre-history and evolution are, therefore, pure fabrications.

Because there was a reality then, before history. Truth is the property of accurate correspondence between the content of a statement and the reality it refers to. History is an invention based on the idea that stories can be told about our shared past, which needs writing in order to be permanently recorded. History is not the reality of the past, and the independent reality of the past can be discussed through archaeology, biology, climatology, whatever.

 

[Bobber90]

Do you really want to have an intellectual war with me? Because that is exactly what we will have if you repeat this one more time.

Haha! I’ll point out that it is not tonyrey who that comment is directed at, as he was quoting from me. Apparently we disagree, and I wouldn’t say that was war. If you can’t resist, personal message me your arguments.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Atheistgirl,

You are certainly entitled to believe whatever you wish. But, I was not just speaking about belief - rather, just look at the historical pattern of how knowledge develops and all of what now are seen as false trails but were once seen as accurate. The limited ‘big picture’ only exists in retrospect - as one moves from dreams to hypothesis on a day-to-day basis, no one knows exactly what will unfold.

Still another consideration deals with just how well are we dealing with the technology that we have today. Our ability to fertilize human eggs and then implant them in surrogate mothers is something was not really even on the horizon 100 years ago. Our ability to abort hundreds of millions of babies all over the world is something that probably no one forsaw. ‘Oh, brave new world’, have we looked at the consequences - even on the natural order - for this type of technologically enhanced behavior? It does not look that way to me.

I submit that athiesm is a very lonesome position - with so much order and pattern around - to dismiss this as something that just happens must seem strange indeed - especially for those who have replaced God with science and science demands proof. Now, people can be very lonesome even surrounded by the people they love if the concern is that this athiestic position is really just a fig leaf.

God bless

Abiogenesis is a very exciting field and awash with some really exciting theories. I believe in the next 20 to 100 years or so, scientists will indeed be able to fully explain, and even replicate, organic cellular life emerging from inorganic material.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

What possible greater good is there in not preventing the rape of a woman, or the physical, emotional and sexual abuse of a little child

Imagine a big powerful man, on the scene of such a crime or abuse, who could easily stop it - but choses not to When questioned why, he says, well, who knows what greater good might come from that woman being raped, or that child being abused

In your description the big powerful man doesn’t know that a greater good will come from not acting, and he seems to think that the rape in and of its self is good. That is not my argument. My argument suggests that God does know of a greater good that will be undermined if he prevents all evil from occurring, and given that knowledge he therefore cannot act. Your rebuttal amounts to the presumption that there cannot be a good reason; but you have a limited knowledge and therefore you do not know all the angles. Thus you cannot presume yourself to have enough knowledge to judge the absence of Gods saving act in any particular circumstance; especially if you admit that there is some good in reality. If you acknowledge that rape and child molestation is truly evil, then you should have no problem believing in a transcendent intrinsically perfect moral law-giver.

For me its precisely because i see true evil in the world that i believe in the God of love; for evil cannot exist except as a privation of that which is ontologically good. To speak of the evils of raping a child is to acknowledge that the existence of a child or person is truly good, has objective moral value, and that those evil acts undermine the expression of that good.

This thread is about turning the table on atheists - answers that make sense would be a good starting point I think.

You rebuttals don’t make sense because they are all misrepresentations of what i said. You seem to think you have it all pretty much sown-up.

If you say so

If you say so

Sarah x

I ain’t telling you my real name!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bobber90,

This is really a very interesting point of view…

Here is the problem of thinking that truth and reality are one thing. If truth and reality are separate, then one can have a total absence of any true statements, and reality remains unaffected and just as real. It is a mistake to think that truth being dependent upon thinkers makes reality dependent upon thinkers also. You are free to reject all my statements, but if they correspond with reality, they are true anyway.

Reality exists independently of our ability to see it or acknowledge it or work with it. Science is constantly concerning with identifying all of the variables when conducting an experiment. Failing to do so sets them up for drawing an invalid conclusion. So, I totally agree - what is true is true under the conditions that one has established. As we learn more about truth, we refine those conditions. For example, while it is true that water boils at 212F - this is only true at sea level. When one goes into higher elevations, we must compensate for the variable of altitude.

So, let’s return to my previous topic that I do not think you have adequately addressed… Patterns exist throughout nature. The presence of patterns allows us to make generalizations and to form a basis for knowing reality. Not only are the objects - from the universe to the atom - real, but the patterns that they demonstrate are equally real. Yet, as I recall, you are not happy with the idea of a Master Pattern Maker. To the best of my knowledge, there simply is no evidence of anything just becoming more complex and continuing on to develop. Entropy is another reality. Now, if you happen to know of an example - please, share it with us … but, I really do not think anything like this exists.

And, in the words of one famous poster: You are free to reject all my statements, but if they correspond with reality, they are true anyway.

God bless

 

[ThinkingSapien]

…especially for those who have replaced God with science and science demands proof.

I think that “proof” should be “evidence.”

From “Misconceptions About Science”
Satoshi Kanazawa:

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory.

 

[Perplexity]

Bartender,

I’ll have a shot of whatever he’s drinking and pour him another one.



Sarah x

Bayes’ theorem: it’s the cheese to my macaroni.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

therefore the probability of anything at all given skeptical theism is inscrutable. So, there isn’t any evidence for anything. Super.

There Isn’t any evidence that God doesn’t have good reason for not preventing any particular evil or event in general. Why? Because we do not have the infinite knowledge or the nature of a God. Thus all the variables are not present so that we can make a justified inference. If we can think of just one possible circumstance in which finite humans are unable to act because they have knowledge of a greater good, there is no reason why we should not assign that possibility to God given his infinite knowledge.

Simple.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Atheistgirl,

Having answers that really go to the heart of the matter may not make initial sense - especially if one is simply pre-disposed to accept only answers from a certain category.

There really is no satisfying answer for evil and suffering and death when one eliminates God from the picture. Since God does not exist - then we cease to exist after our last breath. There is nothing else, since, as some say, all this we see is simply by random selection, luck and whatever else may have been a variable at the time. How this works on the day-to-day basis of existence without generate clinical depression is beyond me.

I believe God created everything - and, as I read in Genesis, what He created He declared good! One of God’s creatures was man - and God chose to give man a free will. It is the same free will that you and I both use - you to deny the existence of God and I to affirm His existence. Man freely chose to disobey God and to sin. While God made all of creation ‘good’ we now find that man placed his will against the Divine Will - and now we see where evil, and suffering and death have entered the Plan.

I also believe that God is far stronger than the Devil - the Father of Lies - and out of the most foul evil, God draws good from it. This in no way is an effort to encourage evil or sin in our lives - rather, it is our chance to acknowledge God’s soverignty and to work to bring about good by cooperating with His Grace. Make no mistake about it, rape and child abuse are real evils - and we should do all that we can to bring about good. The issue, however, is that evil does happen - whether big strong men are standing nearby or not. So, just how are we going to address this situaiton of evil? This is the issue before each of us. While I am not sure how atheists address this - I know how those who love God respond.

While the unaided human mind can know of the existence of Master Pattern Maker (God), there is no way to know that God is truly loving - in fact, God is Love. God had to tell us of His Love - and the Old Testament laid the foundation for God’s Son to enter the world and die for our sins as recorded in the New Testament. This requires faith.

We can not fully know the Mind of God and why a particular evil act has been done - or what are the short and long-run consequences of this evil. But, we can show our faith that God has total control over all of creation - and respond by returning good for evil. This is not easy, and certainly does not fall within the common human experience - but, it is there for us if we put our faith in God.

God bless

What possible greater good is there in not preventing the rape of a woman, or the physical, emotional and sexual abuse of a little child

Imagine a big powerful man, on the scene of such a crime or abuse, who could easily stop it - but choses not to When questioned why, he says, well, who knows what greater good might come from that woman being raped, or that child being abused

This thread is about turning the table on atheists - answers that make sense would be a good starting point I think.

If you say so



Sarah x

 

[Perplexity]

There Isn’t any evidence that God doesn’t have good reason for not preventing any particular evil or event in general. Why? Because we do not have the infinite knowledge or the nature of a God. Thus all the variables are not present so that we can make a justified inference. If we can think of just one possible circumstance in which finite humans are unable to act because they have knowledge of a greater good, there is no reason why we should not assign that possibility to God given his infinite knowledge.

Simple.

As my earlier post illustrated, skeptical theism is crazy. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

As my earlier post illustrated, skeptical theism is crazy. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

You haven’t demonstrated anything other than how to take things out of context and make them appear relevant in other contexts. My argument stands irrefutable.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

There really is no satisfying answer for evil and suffering and death when one eliminates God from the picture. Since God does not exist - then we cease to exist after our last breath.

In some respects I think a more coherent and consistent “picture” is available when one doesn’t include invasive supernatural beings* in explanations. Our experiences are partially the result of our own decisions and partially the result of others (both human and non-human) in our immediate and extended environments. Some of our experiences are influenced by what we may call chance, which is not the same as randomness.

I’m not sure what is meant by “satisfying” in your statement though since the word can be used to express both something that is gratifying/pleasing and something that is beyond doubt. An answer that is beyond doubt may not always be found as gratifying. And an answer that is gratifying may not necessarily be beyond doubt.

• • which can include those that believe there no gods, those that think there may have been one or more gods that no longer interact with the universe, some agnostics, and some other positions such as pandeist.

 

[Perplexity]

You haven’t demonstrated anything other than how to take things out of context and make them appear relevant in other contexts. My argument stands irrefutable.

Since you haven’t responded to my points about skeptical theism’s abject, bayesian failure, I’ll assume either you don’t understand the argument or don’t have a response to it.

As far as contexts…what context did I take what out of, and what context did I make what appear relevant to?

Also, even granting that I took…something out of some context and made it relevant to some other context, that doesn’t mean your argument is irrefutable, just not refuted.

 

[atheistgirl]

To speak of the evils of raping a child is to acknowledge that the existence of a child or person is truly good, has objective moral value, and that those evil acts undermine the expression of that good.

I agree with that - I just dont see the need to introduce an ‘‘objective’’ moral law giver. This is no better than divine command to me. I am good, because it expresses the love I feel for my family, friends, community and the society in which all that takes place. I am god because if Im bad, someone will get hurt on some level, and I know for the person, through empathy, for others around them etc this is harmful, which ultimately harms all of us. I do not need to read this in a book, or for a minister of a church to guide me. It’s totally consistent with the evolutionary view of how we mastered our environment and populated the planet, in the early days, surviving against all odds.

There’s been in the news recently, a man who developed pedophilic tendencies, and doctors have discovered it is entirely related to the growth of a tumor in his brain. Further research is happening but it does seem that a lot of our extreme behaviors, or total lack of empathy with each other, is in fact hard wired into the neurological circuitry of the brain.

ahealthymind.org/ans/library/right%20OFC%20pedophile.pdf

This, for me, and I stress again, I am speaking personally, and mean no offense to anyone who has a faith, is more evidence of the role of evolution in not only our human development but in our social/moral development also. Like I said, it’s only when the concept of a god or God is introduced that for me, the whole issue of right and wrong, good and bad, becomes very problematic.

You seem to think you have it all pretty much sown-up.

Oh Im sorry I gave that impression becuase I certainly dont. I never stop asking questions and seeking answers. But I do have a sense of the world that is logical and explainable to me, and it doesnt make the world or the life we have any less wonderous and glorious and magical and meaningful.

The issues for me start the moment concept of God is introduced into the equation. Why, when there is such a loving God, do so many innocent people suffer, why introduce a devil to tempt weak humans to evil then punish those same weak people in a lake of fire for eternity if they fail the criteria for heaven, why say everything was good then destroy it all and start again after a flood, why so many contradictions in an inspired text, why so many different cults and branches of the same church (excluding all the other religions) when everyone is inspired by the same Holy Spirit, why the endless bloodlust, rape murder and pillage of the old testement, why does the gold of the OT take on the character and characteristics of the barbaric ancient people whos god he was, why so many theological conundrums if its all just so simple, why no historical evidence of events in the bible like the tombs breaking open and the dead walking into the city or the resurrection of Lazarus or Jesus … sorry, I could go on and on and on …

But for me, when God is removed, its all prefectly understandable, reasonably predictable, and life no less interesting and challenging but fun and enjoyabel for all that.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Hi, Atheistgirl,

Having answers that really go to the heart of the matter may not make initial sense - especially if one is simply pre-disposed to accept only answers from a certain category.

Thank you for your reply, but in all honesty and with great respect, and I do mean with great respect, it all sounds just like an excuse to explain God’s inaction rather than an explanation. I can see how this would be a great problem, explaining why God seems to stand idly by and not stop horrific things happenign to people who worship and adore Him, live by his commandments and devote every waking minute of every day to serving Him. So appealing to our limited knowledge of the Mind of God and assuming there MUST be a good reason that we cant possibly know, is all thats left really. To my ears, its just an excuse.

Sarah x

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ThinkingSapien,

Well, of course, removing God would allow for a more coherent view of the world for the atheist. But, you have not achieved this postition through the quality of your arguments. I think you will need to go back to drawing board…

I do not recall how you have addressed my question on the universal existence of patterns in nature. The objective and quite readily observable existence of patterns points to a Master Pattern Maker (God). There is no example of things just developing into more complex states all by themselves. The ice in the glass of ice tea, under normal conditions, will melt at room temperature - unless you live in a freezer! So, let’s not throw out God just yet … !

Now, I know that there have been posts that have essentially just ducked the question by claiming the reason for createion is ‘it just happened’. But as a real 'Thinking’Sapien - you and I know this is a cop-out response, and does nothing to further any understanding. So, if you want to maintain your current position as an atheist, you will need to do much better than this. Go on, give it your best shot - I have confidence in you!

God bless

In some respects I think a more coherent and consistent “picture” is available when one doesn’t include invasive supernatural beings* in explanations. Our experiences are partially the result of our own decisions and partially the result of others (both human and non-human) in our immediate and extended environments. Some of our experiences are influenced by what we may call chance, which is not the same as randomness.

I’m not sure what is meant by “satisfying” in your statement though since the word can be used to express both something that is gratifying/pleasing and something that is beyond doubt. An answer that is beyond doubt may not always be found as gratifying. And an answer that is gratifying may not necessarily be beyond doubt.

• • which can include those that believe there no gods, those that think there may have been one or more gods that no longer interact with the universe, some agnostics, and some other positions such as pandeist.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Atheistgirl,

Hey, I enjoy getting, ‘…great respect…’ and if anyone else on the thread wants to join you in this activity - be my guest! Now on the serious work at hand…

Thank you for your reply, but in all honesty and with great respect, and I do mean with great respect, it all sounds just like an excuse to explain God’s inaction rather than an explanation. I can see how this would be a great problem, explaining why God seems to stand idly by and not stop horrific things happenign to people who worship and adore Him, live by his commandments and devote every waking minute of every day to serving Him. So appealing to our limited knowledge of the Mind of God and assuming there MUST be a good reason that we cant possibly know, is all thats left really. To my ears, its just an excuse.

Sarah x

As I told you previously, Atheistgirl, you are more than welcomed to believe anything that you have determined you will believe in. But, I think - just as a point of intellecutal honestly, to rely on the changes in science, as demonstrated from history, is risky at best.

If you wish to dig in your heels and claim that, ‘There is no God’ (usccb.org/bible/psalms/14 ) and ‘All of this (the universe) just happened’ there really is not much I can say. Honest. The issues of evil, sickness, pain and death are just so many elements in a world that was just thrown together. These elements have no real long term consequence because we have no long-term existence. I guess calling for a ‘stiff upper lip’ or like the atheistic poet William E.Henley you can quote the poem ‘Invictus’. Here is a link: pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_33.htm (Henley’s poem is at the end - but, I would recommend you look at this material. What is truly significant about Henley, in my opinion, is that he did not courageously act out his poetic thoughts, but simply killed himself.

Seriously, if there is no belief in God there is no sense in trying to talk about the various evils in the world and how to face them - such responses are dismissed…with great respect… as an excuse. I have honestly taken this as far as I can.

Best wishes on finding the real answer you seek.

God bless