>Why should a benevolent deity wish to end human suffering? Suffering is
>part of the path which can generate new understanding. Without an
>occasional pain or torment, it is doubtful that humans would develop any
>sharper or greater intellect than bovines.
OK, substitute "wants to end human suffering" for benevolent.
>Premise #3 begs itself: end by destroying humans and thereby human
>suffering, or end by destroying suffering and stultify human development.
Well that wasn't the intent. Any syllogism will do, I just picked
what I thought was an amusing one. Here's a boring one:
1. G exists (proposition)
2. If G exists then not S (axiom/definition)
3. But S is true (empirical statement)
4. Therefore G doesn't exist.
The reason 4 holds true is we *can't imagine* (incredulity argument) how
1-3 can be simultaneously true because they lead to a logical contradiction.
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/