Theodicy/Problem of Evil

[jinminn]

Continued…

Ask them WHY they do it and they’ll tell you, “Well, that’s just the way it is. They DO it!” That’s their ‘goddidtit.’ That’s their superman in the sky and you believe them without a second thought.

Fair enough. I’m okay with not knowing ‘why’ though. You need a superhuman to fill that void. We know that they do because we observe them. I’m fine with god being spirit and undetectable and all, but if he interacts with matter than we should be able to observe his interactions or the results of them. Right now we have evidence that something happened which led to our universe. Your obsession with ‘why’ is the basis for why humanity has been inventing gods for 25,000 years as an explanation for the unknown.

The modern world, particularly in the West has rejected God and now pursues hedonism with a vengance. And you want God to perform miracles for you? You want God to dance for you? In the days of the ancient Hebews, God was introducing Himself to the world.

Are you kidding? So it’s our fault and we have plenty of evidence? The Jews themselves and even Jesus refute this silly hypothesis. God needed to introduce himself, then let them constantly turn away and keep re-introducing himself so they’d remember that he was the real god… then he needed to really introduce himself in human form to really show them who he was? This doesn’t make a lick of sense.

Suffice it to say prayer is not asking with the expectation you will be answered.

Wouldn’t that be contradicting, oh, I don’t know, about everything written by the Church and most others about the nature of faith, including Jesus himself? Does the term expectant faith mean anything to you? This refutes the very idea of faith.

Lourdes is a destination for pilgrims, not a miracle factory.

You’re spitting on 67 miracles? If your heart were open to God, you’d rejoice at one. How many would you like? Sixty-seven thousand? I submit to you, if there were sixty-seven MILLION you would not be convinced.

• 67 out of millions over 150 years sounds just like chance and the same rate as in other faiths (miracles do occur in other faiths). The ‘fact’ is that unexplained recoveries have occurred. i leave it at that, you attribute it to your god. Those of other faiths do it for their god under the same circumstances.
• if 67 million miracles occurred at Lourdes, I would be far more convinced. Don’t make assumptions about my criteria.

Stop listening to Satan. That’s your first task. Reject HIM, not God. God does not let any demon affect us without our willing consent. Reject Satan diligently and he will go away. Then you can begin to pray.

So, basically, assume that any doubts are from Satan. Any non-doubts are from god. How does anyone win? This exposes you for the close-minded individual you are. Do you see that you will never accept my conclusions as grounded unless I agree with you?

This why religion, under the guise of seeking unity, ends up being the most divisive poisonous force in the world today:

• religion is revealed by god and thus cannot be wrong
• many have their own inspired holy books saying that the religions is true and thus it cannot be wrong
• followers of particular religions are all convinced that their religion is right and that they cannot be wrong
• anyone who disagrees with their religion is hard or heart, pig headed, blind, or possessed.

Fun world! Everyone ends up losing in someone’s eyes…

 

[jinminn]

Sorry but your hollow arguments just don’t hold a candle to either Ferde’s points nor to Mark Mallett’s writings.

Refute them or point out flaws. I have no idea what you’re referring to otherwise.

It seems as though you feel you have all the answers and yet you appear to be quite unsettled/discontented.

Incorrect. I know that I don’t have all the answers and the one answer I care about most is illusive and unprovable.

God’s love and mercy is there for everyone, and it is proven by the fact that He has not zapped you into oblivion yet – according to your way of thinking, God should step in when an injustice is done by a person who is doing evil to another. And you have done a great job of insulting God, so you should be grateful that He does not act in such a way.

He used to act in this way in the old testament. I would welcome it as at least I would know the answer. Instead he is obsessed with making the world appear as if he does not exist. In all other areas, when something appears as if it is not there… we conclude it reasonable to act as if it is, in fact, not there.

What if you are wrong? There are many words that you will want to eat when you find out you are - believe me, I know from personal experience!!

Same for you. All of your premises are based on the conclusion that you are right. Since you have no evidence, it is equally possible that you are, in fact, wrong.

 

[sannb]

don’t get the point of your post: do you accept evolution or not?

Okay, so the monkey evolves into an ape that evolves into man; so, what evolved into the monkey? And, what evolved into what evolved into the monkey? I do not recall ever having seen a chart of what evolved into the monkey. And I most certainly did not recall seeing any chart that traced man’s specific evolution back to a one-celled amoeba or any such thing. Yes, there are charts that had a fish with an arrow pointing to an amphibian and an arrow going from the amphibian to the reptile and one from the reptile to the mammal on one side and the bird on the other, but these were very general. So, what animal evolved into the monkey? Was it a dog? A cat? A badger? A raccoon? What was it? And, what animal evolved into an octopus? Into a cow? Into a pig? And, if monkeys evolved into man, why are there still monkeys, apes? Wouldn’t they have disappeared because they evolved into a better species? Otherwise what is the point of “evolving”?

Why have I not heard of species currently in existence that are in various stages of transition to another species?" I mean, if evolution is an ongoing process, which everyone says it is, then why do we not hear about the critter that’s currently walking around that seems to be the next evolutionary stage, or is in the process of developing into the next evolutionary stage, of some other critter that is currently walking around or in the past history when mankind has been able to record events that would be so profound as this evolutionary process of species morphing into another species? Has everything evolved to such perfection that it is not necessary to continue the process?

If species that reproduce sexually with two parent organisms - male and female - evolved from species that reproduce with just one parent organism, how exactly did that happen? What is the process by which tiny genetic aberrations could result in sexual reproduction involving a male and a female evolving from a process of reproduction that involved just one parent organism. I mean think about it. There had to be some sort of process where an organism that had reproduced asexually for millions of years, within one generation started reproduced bisexually (or with two parents vs.one parent). In other words, one line of mutations had to result in a female of the species and one line of mutations had to result in a male of the species and the mutations had to be such that the male parts fit perfectly into the female parts. What are the odds of that? In other words, if these mutations occurred, it seems they had to be directed, or pre-programmed, mutations.

How could the male of the species and the female of the species evolve independently of one other, and in a supposedly random manner, and yet have such perfect sexual and reproductive complementarity? The male of the species, and the female of the species, through thousands of supposedly random “mutations,” occurring over millions of years, evolve in such a way that they are perfectly complementary of one another sexually and reproductively? Thousands of mutations - random and accidental changes - in thousands of separate males and females of a species, occurring over millions of years, moving in perfectly complementary directions, at pretty much the same times over those millions of years. Does it require science or faith to believe that?

How can you add to genetic code? What we experience in our lives is not somehow imprinted on our genes so that our genetic code is then added to and made more complex. I don’t think it works that way. We inherit our genetic code from our parents, and it does not change. So, if what we experience in our environment does not add to our genetic code, how could the much simpler genetic code of an amoeba evolve billions of years later into the more complex genetic code of man? If evolution is true, how was the genetic code of the amoeba added to in order to eventually beget man?

 

[sannb]

originally posted by jinminn:
Same for you. All of your premises are based on the conclusion that you are right. Since you have no evidence, it is equally possible that you are, in fact, wrong.

If I am wrong, there are, apparently, no consequences, since there is no one to answer to, but if I am right, then there are definitely benefits, which would work in reverse for those who are in opposition.

 

[jinminn]

And, if monkeys evolved into man, why are there still monkeys, apes? Wouldn’t they have disappeared because they evolved into a better species? Otherwise what is the point of “evolving”?

Good questions and ones I once had as well, though they reveal a some misconceptions you might have. Consider evolution more like a branch that continues to diverge. If a ‘shoot’ sprouts from a branch, the original branch does not cease to be. In that sense, life forms ‘evolving’ have to do with genetic mutations from an original and both move forward together.

Until quite recently, there were actually man ‘man-types’ (members of the homo family) roaming the earth, some simultaneously.

Why have I not heard of species currently in existence that are in various stages of transition to another species?

Also a good question. I believe this would simply be due to 1) our extremely recent grasp of the concept and 2) the fact that evolution is extremely gradual and may not be witnessed anywhere close to our lifetime. The oldest modern human was found in Africa and was dated to about 195,000 years ago. A long time, right? But compared to the age of the earth, modern humans are still recent: we’re 0.00433% of the total earth’s age. Anyway… the point is that it’s slow and changes might not be recognized for quite some time. The fossil records show a definite progression however.

The other beautiful fact about evolution is that it can be disproved at any time. One evolutionary biologist, JBS Haldane, stated that if rabbit bones ever turned up in the precambrian era, evolution would be trashed instantly.

Thousands of mutations - random and accidental changes - in thousands of separate males and females of a species, occurring over millions of years, moving in perfectly complementary directions, at pretty much the same times over those millions of years. Does it require science or faith to believe that?

Well, for one, I’m not that knowledgeable to address your question on the progression from asexual to sexual reproduction. Secondly, we have fossil records which show a natural progression. This, then, is what is most important: it did happen. This gives me something to read up on, but the point is that we’re here and evolution is an incredibly accepted theory… except in religious communities. There truly is no better alternative hypothesis that explains things so well.

How can you add to genetic code? What we experience in our lives is not somehow imprinted on our genes so that our genetic code is then added to and made more complex. I don’t think it works that way. We inherit our genetic code from our parents, and it does not change.

Oh boy. It does change from parents to children. This is where all kinds of diseases and syndromes occur - duplicate chromosomes, missing chromosomes, faulty chromosomes. All kinds of oddities occur due to adding/subtracting material during the reproductive process. Check out the link HERE on the cause of albinism (albino children).

I think a lot of your questions would be answered by checking out some basic information and learning more about evolution. Though not identical, some of your questions are like Kirk Cameron suggesting that evolution is false because we’ve never seen a crocoduck (search youtube for that word and you’ll find some clips).

 

[redhen]

I’d like to see you continue that thought with your critique and your alternative.

I think free will is a good argument for the problem of **moral **evil. It’s natural evil that is more difficult to justify.

Neither the Catholic Church nor any Catholic assigns anyone to eternal (sic) punishment. God alone is our judge.

Yes, I know the Catholic teachings, that was a a facetious remark.

If the definition of ‘evil’ is any misfortune suffered by mankind, you’re right. I think we’re talking about theological evil. In that context, what’s your point?

I’m not talking about misfortune, dissatisfaction and I’m not talking about moral evil. My working definition of natural evil is gratuitous pain and suffering, not caused by moral agents.

ALL non-Catholic Christsian sects are derived from the Catholic Church beginning in the 16th Century. Luther, Calvin and Zwingli were all Catholics. Their revolt was clear heresy. The validity of the remainder is debatable.

Right, but it’s all a matter of interpretation. Even the Roman Catholic church has an evolving theology that involves changes and aggiornamento (updating).

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I think free will is a good argument for the problem of **moral **evil. It’s natural evil that is more difficult to justify.

I have a problem with the term ‘natural evil.’ To me evil impies a malevolent purpose and is, thus, intentional and specific. What you call ‘natural evil’ is arbitrary misfortune.

I’m not talking about misfortune, dissatisfaction and I’m not talking about moral evil. My working definition of natural evil is gratuitous pain and suffering, not caused by moral agents.

I think that fits my descrption above.

Right, but it’s all a matter of interpretation. Even the Roman Catholic church has an evolving theology that involves changes and aggiornamento (updating).

I will agree with ‘updating.’ In the Church’s terminology, ‘developing.’ There are always going to be revelations when applying ancient principles to modern circumstances. I don’t think there are any changes, as I understand the word.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Fine. Stale mate. I say ‘I don’t know’; you say ‘god’.

You say more than ‘I don’t know.’ You say you don’t know, but you know it’s not God. You may say it’s just you questioning, but I hear sometihng else.

• I don’t say ‘nothing’; I say that whatever it was, it doesn’t need to be a timeless, spaceless, disembodied mind of omnimax characteristics. I’m perfectly fine with ‘we don’t know yet’.

I think it does. “We don’t know yet” doesn’t even sound like it’s up to anything. It’s just a cop-out.

HERE is an article about the unmoved mover.

Typical athiest snobbery. Your writer posits nothing. All he does is try to disprove the propositions of others and he doesn’t do a very good job. His response to Aquinas creates its own oblique presumptions without addressing Aquinas’ thesis.

• In the end, the same conundrum exists for you about god. Namely, something exists… where did it come from? It couldn’t have existed forever… something must have created it! Why is god any different? All you’ve done is to define god such that he doesn’t require a previous cause, but by definition you don’t know of anything else that fits this criteria… which is why you have to invent god as the solution.

I have no conundrum about God. What you refuse to understand is, an uncreated God is the only answer possible. Otherwise you’re pushing rock rises from nothing of its own volition and begets rock. It’s a preposterous notion.

False. We draw different conclusions. Case in point: a friend of mine recently prayed with his wife to god on whether to buy a granite counter top on short funds. She prayed for god to deliver money via mail. Soon after, their state tax refund came. They concluded that this was god answering their prayer. Here are the ‘facts’:

• they prayed about counter tops
• they asked the answer to be in the form of money delivered by mail
• money came by mail
• it was the end of April, shortly after tax season
• tax refund money is theirs to begin with and no special gift

Those are their ‘facts’ of the case. They concluded that this was god’s answer. So, my conclusion, given the same ‘facts’ is that it is perfectly reasonable for a check to come at the end of April for tax refund purposes and that this is a coincidence. Don’t focus on whether you think their prayer was answered or not; just focus on the fact that with the same facts, they perceive on conclusion and I draw a different one.

Excuse me for saying so, but I don’t believe a word of that. You have friends who prayed for a countertop? Really? And you think God pays any attention to prayers like that? The milk bottle story makes more sense. Understand this; based on what you’ve written so far, you know NOTHING about prayer.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

‘Bill myself’? What, is that in my forum ID or something? Haven’t paid attention to that. I’ve been doubting for about 4.5 months now. I still go to Mass with my wife and pray to Jesus in how to find him, but I don’t receive and am not convinced of Christianity’s truth claims.

Yes. Your forum ID says you’re a Catholic. You’re not. You’re either an agnostic or an athiest. You are definitely NOT a Catholic. Catholics believe what the Church teaches. On that ground, there are a lot of protestants who go to Mass on Sunday. I applaud you for going to Mass and not receiving the Sacramant. I wish more unbelievers were as honest as you are.

Face it, you have the ‘proof’ you need or else you wouldn’t put ‘faith’ in the rest. Take your falling example. That supports your faith. If you had no ‘proof’ you would be believing blindly which would be completely illogical and have no foundation. It would be impossible to believe blindly as you wouldn’t even know about Christianity. Even to know about its existence requires you to have heard the story from someone or read it, which immediately leads your mind to decide if it seems plausible or not.

You have the ‘proof’ you need to believe; I do not.

Of course. May I suggest, you’re not going to find the truth hanging around athiest websites. You’re going to find an athiest argument, which seems to interest you more than an argument for God. You believe there is a ‘proof’ available to you and athiests talk in terms of proof. The difference is, they have no proof of what they allege. All they do is attack the ‘proofs’ of Christianity, which aren’t proofs at all, and pretend they’ve proven something.

A numbers game doesn’t win any battles. Though not billions, millions are convinced about golden plates delivered by an angel to Joseph Smith, 8 armed gods, and whatever else you want. Scientologists even believe they need alien souls to be purged from their bodies.

The difference is Mormons and Muslims have no witnesses to what they allege. Mormons want us to believe Smith just lost what must have been at least 600 pounds of gold.
Ever read the Koran? Impressive, isn’t it?

I’m not using a ‘numbers game.’ I’m using reason. Knowing the history of the Catholic Church, it is unreasonable to suppose the early believers would have offered their lives for something they weren’t CONVINCED was true; that the Church could have developed as quickly as it did by the efforts of a dozen uneducated, barefoot fishermen without two dimes to rub together; that it could have survived the persecutions it endured and have spread all over the world if it is a lie. The world doesn’t work like that. Stalin asked how many divisions the pope has. He has none, but Stalin is long gone and the Pope is still in his chair, the longest continuous seat of authority in the history of the world…

Also keep in mind that councils have decided the doctrine necessary to make everything work – it wasn’t until 325 that they figured out what Jesus was made of. Though objectively Christianity is either lie or not, I would not go so far as to say that they believe they are spreading lies.

I’m not convinced by number-of-believers anyway.

They were either lies or they were the truth regardless of whether they believed they were lies or not.

I don’t know what you mean by “to make averything work.” The Councils, guided by the Holy Spirit, developed the truths of the Catholic faith. They are still at it. Yes, it took several centuries to come to an understanding about the person of Jesus Christ. And? Did you have a point there?

I keep trying to explain to you, God isn’t a puppetmaster. “Knock and it shall be opened to you.” doesn’t mean tap on the door and all your questions will be answered. It means break the door down and you still may have to wait a few hundred of a few thousand years for your answer.

 

[aperture]

If I am wrong, there are, apparently, no consequences, since there is no one to answer to, but if I am right, then there are definitely benefits, which would work in reverse for those who are in opposition.

Not really. If a homosexual person adheres to Catholic dogma and spends their entire life without experiencing the love of a monogamous, sexual relationship (a la a traditional married couple) and then dies, all for a religion that wasn’t true…are you saying that isn’t consequential? This person basically consigned him/herself - in the only span of time in which they will exist, ever - to not experiencing one of life’s big, amazing experiences. So Pascal’s wager isn’t so clean, here.

 

[aperture]

You say more than ‘I don’t know.’ You say you don’t know, but you know it’s not God. You may say it’s just you questioning, but I hear sometihng else.

As far as I know, it’s plenty possible to argue simply for “I don’t know.” It’s possible to deny that the Christian God surely exists, and just conclude that, really, nothing can be concluded.

I think it does. “We don’t know yet” doesn’t even sound like it’s up to anything. It’s just a cop-out.

Yes, it’s clearly a cop-out for a human to say that he doesn’t know how existence began.

I have no conundrum about God. What you refuse to understand is, an uncreated God is the only answer possible. Otherwise you’re pushing rock rises from nothing of its own volition and begets rock. It’s a preposterous notion.

I really can’t see how. “An all-powerful, all-caring God came from nothing and made a rock” is less preposterous than “A rock came from nothing.”

Excuse me for saying so, but I don’t believe a word of that. You have friends who prayed for a countertop? Really? And you think God pays any attention to prayers like that? The milk bottle story makes more sense. Understand this; based on what you’ve written so far, you know NOTHING about prayer.

This, for all I know, is possible.

 

[redhen]

I have a problem with the term ‘natural evil.’ To me evil impies a malevolent purpose and is, thus, intentional and specific. What you call ‘natural evil’ is arbitrary misfortune.

‘natural evil’ implies gratuitous pain and suffering inflicted by non-human causes, i.e. carnivores, “nature red in tooth and claw”. Also other causes inherent in nature, things we would call "natural disasters.

So it’s not really arbitrary, it’s built-in to nature (creation). That’s a problem for an omnibenevolent god I would think.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Not really. If a homosexual person adheres to Catholic dogma and spends their entire life without experiencing the love of a monogamous, sexual relationship (a la a traditional married couple) and then dies, all for a religion that wasn’t true…are you saying that isn’t consequential? This person basically consigned him/herself - in the only span of time in which they will exist, ever - to not experiencing one of life’s big, amazing experiences. So Pascal’s wager isn’t so clean, here.

This makes no sense to me. You seem to be saying marriage is essential to salvation? Where does that come from? Most priests don’t experience what you call “one of life’s big, amazing experiences.” Are they all going to hell?

If a homosexual person, like an unmarried heterosexual person, remains chaste all his life, there is nothing to keep him from salvation, assuming his fidelity to the decalogue.

Which is your ‘religion that wasn’t true?’

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I really can’t see how. “An all-powerful, all-caring God came from nothing and made a rock” is less preposterous than “A rock came from nothing.”

We admit neither of us can account for a first cause. Since we know we, and the universe, exist, there must have been a first cause. Further, there has to be something before the rock to cause the rock to become a rock and it can’t be the rock. The notion of an omnipotent Being out of time is far more plausible. Far, FAR more plausible. Almost to the point of certainty.

 

[aperture]

This makes no sense to me. You seem to be saying marriage is essential to salvation? Where does that come from? Most priests don’t experience what you call “one of life’s big, amazing experiences.” Are they all going to hell?

If a homosexual person, like an unmarried heterosexual person, remains chaste all his life, there is nothing to keep him from salvation, assuming his fidelity to the decalogue.

Which is your ‘religion that wasn’t true?’

Perhaps I misunderstood your original quote, which was:

If I am wrong, there are, apparently, no consequences, since there is no one to answer to, but if I am right, then there are definitely benefits, which would work in reverse for those who are in opposition.

As I understand this, you are saying that if a person lives a devout Catholic life when in fact there is no God, then upon death they would simply die - no consequences. On the other hand, when an atheist dies, if he is right there are no consequences, but if he is wrong there are awful, awful consequences. Therefore, living a Catholic life is the safest, best choice.

My argument against this was if a gay person decides to live that Catholic life - to disallow themselves a loving, sexual relationship - all for nothing, then there are consequences. They lived a life that was much less than it could have been. I intended this as a reason against your claim that, essentially, living Catholic means a person has “nothing to lose.”

 

[aperture]

We admit neither of us can account for a first cause. Since we know we, and the universe, exist, there must have been a first cause. Further, there has to be something before the rock to cause the rock to become a rock and it can’t be the rock. The notion of an omnipotent Being out of time is far more plausible. Far, FAR more plausible. Almost to the point of certainty.

Alternatively:

…there has to be something before God to cause God to become God and it can’t be God. Proof!

I really don’t see how “it can’t be the rock” but it can be an omnipotent, divine being. One of these supposes that a clump of particles came from nothing, the other that a mysterious and beneficent force came from nothing and then made particles from nothing. Which of these explanations is simpler and more plausible?

 

[redhen]

I really can’t see how. “An all-powerful, all-caring God came from nothing and made a rock” is less preposterous than “A rock came from nothing.”

Why is there something, rather than nothing?

Because “Nothing is unstable”. - Frank Wilczek, MIT physicist and Nobel laureate.

tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/the-physics-of-nothing/

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Perhaps I misunderstood your original quote, which was:

You have me confused with sannb. It’s his quote.

As I understand this, you are saying that if a person lives a devout Catholic life when in fact there is no God, then upon death they would simply die - no consequences. On the other hand, when an atheist dies, if he is right there are no consequences, but if he is wrong there are awful, awful consequences. Therefore, living a Catholic life is the safest, best choice.

My argument against this was if a gay person decides to live that Catholic life - to disallow themselves a loving, sexual relationship - all for nothing, then there are consequences. They lived a life that was much less than it could have been. I intended this as a reason against your claim that, essentially, living Catholic means a person has “nothing to lose.”

I didn’t say it but, yes, your observation is correct and it applies to far more people than homosexuals who forego that life in hope of the kingdom. It applies to the many thousands of martyers who gave their lies for their faith, for the millions who have rejected a worldly life to serve their faith in the hope of whatever it is their religion promises them.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Alternatively: I really don’t see how “it can’t be the rock” but it can be an omnipotent, divine being. One of these supposes that a clump of particles came from nothing, the other that a mysterious and beneficent force came from nothing and then made particles from nothing. Which of these explanations is simpler and more plausible?

A rock is not a being. It is inanimate. God is spirit and a being. It is impossible for a rock to have created itself or to have replicated itself. Please consider the meaning of the word ‘impossible.’

We have two propositions. Both are unknown and unknowable. One is IMPOSSIBLE. Only one remains.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

‘natural evil’ implies gratuitous pain and suffering inflicted by non-human causes, i.e. carnivores, “nature red in tooth and claw”. Also other causes inherent in nature, things we would call "natural disasters.

So it’s not really arbitrary, it’s built-in to nature (creation). That’s a problem for an omnibenevolent god I would think.

I agree there is gratutious pain and suffering all over the world every hour of the day, but you are using the term ‘natural evil’ as a given and thus beg the question. If you believe the earthquake in Haiti was a ‘natural evil’ then you must believe there was a deliberate effort to harm the people of Haiti by some force you have not identified. As I’ve said, evil implies a malevolent intention.

Natural disasters are phenomina of nature. As such they are expected and predictable and, though they are harmful, there is no intention to harm.

An omnibenevolent god, as I understand God, is not bound by our standards. You are suggesting God created the world with disasters programmed into them, who is pushing disaster buttons gratuitously and therefore must be a malevolent god. That’s where I see you headed, anyway. God’s ways are not our ways. We can’t think like God, who is eternal.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, our world has rejected God. Many of the ‘evils’ you allude to are the product of man operating in opposition to the will of God. Mankind has the means to dispense with many of them, but they get worse as man continues to defy God. In that sense, if they are evils, they are man-made evils, which is entirely possible.

It’s a very broad subject and I have to make a sandwich now.