Speaking in 'tongues'

[Gordon]

I note Vlad's latest lie is in his latest name change.

I have clarified by adding a Dawkinsian question mark.

Then your answer is 'no'.

[jeremyp]

Sorry - what I mean is: strictly speaking nothing should exist, because matter does not create itself.

What is your evidence for this assertion?

[jeremyp]

I note Vlad's latest lie is in his latest name change.

If that's how he feels, I wonder why he doesn't go away and start his own forum run by and for Vlad.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdy Straw Boy,

He's done it again.......... tried to blur the boundaries between Philosophical and methodological naturalism.

“He” has done no such thing. I can only explain things to you so many times – if you insist nonetheless on giving them meanings of your own so as to fit your thesis well, that’s a matter for you I guess.

Oddly – and here’s something I never thought I’d say – conceptually at least you are right about something, albeit fractionally and irrelevantly. Presumably in absence of another term it would be possible for a philosophical naturalist also to think that the natural is all there is or ever could be, though how he’d ever address the burden of proof problem is anyone’s guess. It’s a bit like Alien’s schtick with “atheism” – he jemmies into its meaning of "not believing in gods” a very different meaning of “there are no gods” – which again would run slap bang into the burden of proof problem. 

The latter is independent of the former. You do not have to have the former to use the latter.

Oh dear. You do know that there are numerous websites you can consult, books you could read etc that would put you right on this don’t you?

Don’t you?

Secondly…

Any chance of a “firstly” first?

…Hillside usually extrapolates the methodology, gussies it up, to become the philosophy. Now he is saying it goes the other way. Again the philosophical naturalism is not necessary for the methodology which is arrived by compartmentalising the material and the non material.

Needles to say, “Hillside” does no thing. Hillside merely points out that philosophical naturalism does not and cannot entail the refutation of the (supposedly) supernatural, and methodological naturalism just works with the only tools available to it.

This really isn’t that hard Vlad. Really, you could very quickly get it right if you were honest enough to do so.

lastly I have no beef with the methodology as Hillside is trying to paint. It does what it says on the tin.....unless you have a tin where the label has been replaced for one saying 'Philosophical naturalism';...........

You really are that clueless aren’t you. Tell you what, answer the question I asked you then: where are you on the “babies come from mummies’ tummies vs a big stork who just makes it look that way” debate?

Presumably you have a view one way or another don’t you?

How come? Naturally you won’t want to rely on your idiosyncratic version of philosophical naturalism for support, and I’ve already told you that I’ve “intuited” that Stan the Stork does it.

What’s the problem then – it’s Stan right? Naturally if you go with the tummy hypothesis instead you’ll be willing to share your workings out, tell which SI units of probability you employ etc won’t you.

Won’t you?

There....like shooting fish in a barrel.

Bit harsh. I see you more as a rabbit in the headlights than a fish in a barrel, but if you insist…

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Things which do not owe there existence to being material e.g. beauty, wonder.......as Cox is always banging on the universe is wonderful.......are you saying he shouldn't.....or that the universe isn't wonderful.

In what possible way do these things not "owe their existence to being material"? Beauty etc are just interpretations our material selves place on the phenomena we observe - for all you know a three-headed gargle monster from Alpha Centauri would find a sunset to be hideous, and with no-one - human or alien - to interpret them, beauty, wonder etc cease to exist in any case. 

0/10 See me

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Things which do not owe there existence to being material e.g. beauty, wonder.......as Cox is always banging on the universe is wonderful.......are you saying he shouldn't.....or that the universe isn't wonderful.

In what possible way do these things not "owe their existence to being material"?   

0/10 See me

Exactly, How beautiful are they?.....SI units please.

How beautiful is the mathematical equation for something that does not exist in the physical world eg. The equations for states in a simulated universe?
 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Exactly, How beautiful are they?.....SI units please.

How beautiful is the mathematical equation for something that does not exist in the physical world eg. The equations for states in a simulated universe?

You are drunk aren’t you.

Aren’t you?

Go on, you can tell us – just a quick tipple over the cornflakes maybe? A snifter or three in your morning coffee perhaps?

You presumably find some things to be more beautiful than others, your presumably find some things to be more wondrous than others, you presumably think it more likely that babies come from tummies rather than from a stork.

You also presumably do these things without recourse to absolute values of beauty, to calibrated scales of wonder, to SI units of childbirth probability. It’s enough just to decide that, on balance, you think a sunset is more beautiful than a car crash, and that tummies are more probably where babies come from than storks.

How so? Because there are arguments and judgments and reasons we can point to to reach these positions without ever once needing to appeal to absolutes.

And that’s the switcheroo you’re attempting. By redefining “philosophical naturalism” to suit your purpose, by then mis-applying the term to those who find your assertions of fact to be less likely to be true than facts obtained by a method, and by going all quiet when the same “argument” is presented back to you – about babies for example – you hope that no-one notices that you’re all over the floor here.

In other words, if you seriously think that you can just “intuit” an objective fact for me about a god, then you have no choice but to accept that I too can just intuit an objective fact for you about Stan the Stork. 

Cheers!

[Hope]

In what possible way do these things not "owe their existence to being material"? Beauty etc are just interpretations our material selves place on the phenomena we observe ...

independently of each other - beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that jazz.

...and with no-one - human or alien - to interpret them, beauty, wonder etc cease to exist in any case. 

The fact that beauty is individualistic (see above) suggests that it may exist outside of human existence.

[Shaker]

The fact that beauty is individualistic (see above) suggests that it may exist outside of human existence.

Are you going to try to explain what you think is the "logic" behind that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

independently of each other - beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that jazz.

No, not "independently of each other" at all. What would "beauty" even mean with no-one to call it that?

The fact that beauty is individualistic (see above) suggests that it may exist outside of human existence.

It "suggests" no such thing. What it does suggest though is that different people often find different things to be beautiful, largely for cultural reasons. None of that implies that beauty or any other aesthetic judgement is just hanging around out there independent of people to decide that something is beautiful.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Exactly, How beautiful are they?.....SI units please.

How beautiful is the mathematical equation for something that does not exist in the physical world eg. The equations for states in a simulated universe?

You are drunk aren’t you.

No You are stuck aren't you.

You say the beauty of things owes that to the fact that these things exist physically or materially.
Beauty should therefore be measurable since you are arguing it is a property.
Secondly Why are so many finding the mathematics of the multiverse beautiful when these universes apparently have no existence in this universe and whose existence is not provable?

Instead of shouting and cussing like a maniac......try and find solutions........or admit you are wrong.

[Gordon]

You say the beauty of things owes that to the fact that these things exist physically or materially.

Things, in themselves, aren't beautiful in that beauty isn't an attribute of anything: it is a value judgment made by people about things.
 

Beauty should therefore be measurable since you are arguing it is a property.

Who is arguing it is a property? I don't think anyone is arguing that, so this looks like one of your straw men

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdy Straw Boy,

No You are stuck aren't you.

Hic!

You say the beauty of things owes that to the fact that these things exist physically or materially.

I'll give you this, you're multi-skilled in your deep obtuseness and stupidity. Making men of straw and clutching at them at the same time. Wow!

"These things" don't independently "exist physically or materially", but people do. And it's people who apply judgments to the phenomena we observe, and sometimes some people find some things cause them to describe those things as "beautiful".

Good grief! 

Beauty should therefore be measurable since you are arguing it is a property.

Stop digging FFS! You cannot reach a "therefore" when your premise is so fundamentally wrongheaded.

You (presumably) describe some things as "beautiful". How so without a book of look up tables or some such according to your latest wreckage of a thought on the subject?

Secondly...

Am I right in assuming that you're never actually going to trouble us with a firstly? Ah well.

Why are so many finding the mathematics of the multiverse beautiful when these universes apparently have no existence in this universe and whose existence is not provable?

Groan. False premise, failure to understand "multiverse" and the reification fallacy all in one sentence. Full house!

Why on earth wouldn't some people find some mathematical formulae to be beautiful regardless of what they concern?

Instead of shouting and cussing like a maniac......

You seem to forget that the only person "shouting and cussing like a maniac" here is you. That's why you're the one the mods have make tone down the abuse remember?

try and find solutions.......

I have - many times. That I've explained them to you endlessly only for you variously to ignore them, misrepresent them, throw abuse at them or me, respond with logical fallacies or just flat out lie is the behaviour of a disordered mind entirely unwilling or unable to offer arguments of any kind of his own. 

...or admit you are wrong.

Readily, the moment you finally attempt a counter-argument of your own - preferably one that's coherent, rational and unanswerable.

Here, I'll show you again. Your hopeless schtick of, "OK, I'm guessing but so are you and here's my misdescription of philosophical naturalism that I'll mis-apply to you all the while completely ignoring the problem of my "just-popped-into-my-head-ism" offering no method of any kind probabilistically to sort the true from not true" is easily shown to be the crock it is when I turn it back on you and you go all quiet. So here it is for the fourth time now:

Do you think that babies more probably come from tummies or from a stork who just makes it look that way?   

How do you pick whichever you choose without recourse to (you're misunderstanding of) philosophical naturalism?

What units of probability do you use? Show your workings out.

Oh, and it just popped into my head (or, as you would have it, "intuited") that Stan the Stork does it - so that's an objective truth for you then.

Here's your choice - finally attempt an answer, or retire bruised and battered and never darken our door with you "philosophical naturalism" eructation again.   

[Alien]

OK. We are like the ordinary soldiers. God is like the general (but omniscient). God knows the whole picture and therefore what he does may not be what we would do. We have our tasks (with our incomplete knowledge), but God has complete knowledge so may see that the success of our intended actions may not lead to the best result.

Do you believe that if it's good to stop Mohammed raping a 9 year old, then god would stop him?

Still patiently waiting for an answer...

It would be right for us to try to stop Mohammed doing it (all other things being equal, e.g. him not causing two other 9 year-olds to be raped if we tried to stop him raping one 9 year-old). Would it be morally right for God to allow it? Only someone hugely more knowledgeable than we are, e.g. God himself, would now all the ramifications and be able to decide.

So how do you judge if something is right or wrong.

Bible, common sense, working it through with others.

You say its too complex so how do you know that God is not evil?

No, that is not what I said. I said it would be right for us to try to stop it (all other things being equal). Whether God should stop it, I don't know.

How do I know that that God is evil? As in know, 100% certain? I can't be. We might be in The Truman Show.

How do you know that it is evil?

[Alien]

OK. We are like the ordinary soldiers. God is like the general (but omniscient). God knows the whole picture and therefore what he does may not be what we would do. We have our tasks (with our incomplete knowledge), but God has complete knowledge so may see that the success of our intended actions may not lead to the best result.

Do you believe that if it's good to stop Mohammed raping a 9 year old, then god would stop him?

Still patiently waiting for an answer...

It would be right for us to try to stop Mohammed doing it (all other things being equal, e.g. him not causing two other 9 year-olds to be raped if we tried to stop him raping one 9 year-old). Would it be morally right for God to allow it? Only someone hugely more knowledgeable than we are, e.g. God himself, would now all the ramifications and be able to decide.

Are you a politician? Still waiting for an answer to a straightforward question. You managed it with the first question...

I did answer. The answer I gave is that I do not know if it is right that God should stop it. Please read the post that you quoted.

[Alien]

Given your previous reliance on TACTDJFF as an example of something that could never be morally acceptable, and I agree with you on that, I'm amazed that you so easily excuse your God from acting to prevent something that is on a par with  the awfullness of TACTDJFF in moral terms.

Just as a heads up, but Alan has previously agreed to drop the "just" from this scenario.

I'd be happy to drop the "to death" as well.

[Alien]

I thought that it might be worthwhile pointing out that there does not seem to be any hard evidence to back up the 9 yo 'rape' claim.

Those who manipulate her story to justify the abuse of young girls, and those who manipulate it in order to depict Islam as a religion that legitimises such abuse have more in common than they think. Both demonstrate a disregard for what we know about the times in which Muhammad lived, and for the affirmation of female autonomy which her story illustrates.

full text;
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth

As far as I am aware the claim that Mohammed consummated his marriage with Aisha when she was 9 years old is orthodox Muslim belief, both for Sunni and Shia. It is there in the hadith (at the place the commentator quotes in the Guardian article). Some liberal Muslims may claim it to be incorrect in what it states. Fair enough, but that does not make their claim part of orthodox Muslim belief. If we reject this Hadith, should we disregard the rest of them? If so, on what grounds? Try arguing for that in your local mosque.

[Andy]

OK. We are like the ordinary soldiers. God is like the general (but omniscient). God knows the whole picture and therefore what he does may not be what we would do. We have our tasks (with our incomplete knowledge), but God has complete knowledge so may see that the success of our intended actions may not lead to the best result.

Do you believe that if it's good to stop Mohammed raping a 9 year old, then god would stop him?

Still patiently waiting for an answer...

It would be right for us to try to stop Mohammed doing it (all other things being equal, e.g. him not causing two other 9 year-olds to be raped if we tried to stop him raping one 9 year-old). Would it be morally right for God to allow it? Only someone hugely more knowledgeable than we are, e.g. God himself, would now all the ramifications and be able to decide.

Are you a politician? Still waiting for an answer to a straightforward question. You managed it with the first question...

I did answer. The answer I gave is that I do not know if it is right that God should stop it. Please read the post that you quoted.

I asked what you believed.

[Alien]

Excellent. You have agreed that there exists something which is an example of objective morality. Great. To be discussed further at some point, I hope.

Nope - I'm simply stating my opinion, as I've often done in previous threads, that TACTDFF is always morally wrong since I can see no circumstances of there being a different human consensus that implies otherwise - but you already know that.

Are you sure you meant to say that. You seem to be arguing that TACTDJFF depends on human consensus. Stuff human consensus.

So what is actually wrong with my argument? Is there a logical inconsistency? Something else? Please be specific.

You have argued that the rape of a 9 year-old child is immoral, and you have also cited this as something that in your view reduces Islam to being of a lesser status compared to Christianity. You also noted that you would see yourself intervening to prevent the rape happening, so I'm assuming that you regard raping 9 year old girls as being of a similar moral status to TACTDFF.

No. I have said that Mohammed, effectively, raping Aisha when she was 9 was immoral and suggests he is not to be trusted as the bearer of the final revelation from God (as Muslims claim). There are plenty of other reasons not to trust him as well.

It would be right for us to try to stop Mohammed doing it (all other things being equal, e.g. him not causing two other 9 year-olds to be raped if we tried to stop him raping one 9 year-old). Would it be morally right for God to allow it? Only someone hugely more knowledgeable than we are, e.g. God himself, would now all the ramifications and be able to decide.

So, you leave open the prospect that your omniscient God that presumably knows the predicament of the girl, and has the omnipotence to act to prevent the rape, and by failing to prevent this it does not mean that it has acted immorally.

This seems like double standards since, as I recall, you see your God as the source of the objective morality that you claim is the basis of TCTDFF always being wrong, and being wrong even if nobody thought otherwise - but here you now suggest that there may be a situation where God permits this rape (and presumably TACTFF too) for some 'greater good' (or similar sentiment) and I'm struggling to see how your source of moral good can really be so perverse and that you still defend it.

In situations such as this the so-called 'problem of evil' argument exposes the weakness of those who claim the God of the 'omni's', so that God gets given a 'get out of jail free card' to be played whenever there are awkward questions to answer. The very idea that the rape of 9-year old girls might have some 'benefits' in some divine 'big picture' scenario is truly reprehensible no matter how you try to spin it.     

Having seen Andy's recent post I've edited this to remove the 'J's' - so now reads TCTDFF.

That is not joined up thinking. That someone does something morally wrong does not thereby mean that someone else, even omnipotent and omniscient, is morally obliged to stop it. I've used the example of an ordinary soldier and a general in the recent past so shall not repeat that. However, please tell me what God should do in the following situation.

Mr X is about to rape a 9 year old / kill a 3 year old / torture child (in each case for his fun). If Mr X doesn't get to do that he will tomorrow do it to two such children.

Do we say, God should kill Mr X? What if Mr Y will not stand for parliament if Mr X dies at this point? What if Mr Y is the only politician who will not push the nuclear button. Does God kill Mr X and allow nuclear war?

Yes, of course it is contrived, but my point has been that you and I and everyone else on this board do not know the bigger picture. The claim is that God does and acts for the overall best (whatever that is). No, this does not demonstrate that God exists or that God is good, but it does show that the existence of evil, even horrible evil, contradicts the idea of an all-powerful, all-loving, etc. God. That is the point I am trying to make. The existence of evil does not demonstrate that a good God cannot have a morally sufficient reason for allowing such evil.

Emotionally we may react against the idea, but let's stick to the logic of the argument, eh?

[Alien]

I thought that it might be worthwhile pointing out that there does not seem to be any hard evidence to back up the 9 yo 'rape' claim.



Those who manipulate her story to justify the abuse of young girls, and those who manipulate it in order to depict Islam as a religion that legitimises such abuse have more in common than they think. Both demonstrate a disregard for what we know about the times in which Muhammad lived, and for the affirmation of female autonomy which her story illustrates.

full text;
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth

Doesn't matter. Just pick an instance where child rape has happened.

Well it kind of does in the context of Alien using it as a primary reason to reject Islam where the topic was first raised.

But in the more general context I agree with you.

Agreed. Let me clarify though. This action of Mohammed was just an example. There are plenty of other reasons to not trust him as the messenger of God bringing God's final revelation to us (even assuming the existence of God in the first place).

[jakswan]

OK. We are like the ordinary soldiers. God is like the general (but omniscient). God knows the whole picture and therefore what he does may not be what we would do. We have our tasks (with our incomplete knowledge), but God has complete knowledge so may see that the success of our intended actions may not lead to the best result.

Do you believe that if it's good to stop Mohammed raping a 9 year old, then god would stop him?

Still patiently waiting for an answer...

It would be right for us to try to stop Mohammed doing it (all other things being equal, e.g. him not causing two other 9 year-olds to be raped if we tried to stop him raping one 9 year-old). Would it be morally right for God to allow it? Only someone hugely more knowledgeable than we are, e.g. God himself, would now all the ramifications and be able to decide.

So why should we try to stop Mo, if your god knows the rape of a 9 year old is morally right why go against gods will?

[jeremyp]

However, please tell me what God should do in the following situation.

Mr X is about to rape a 9 year old / kill a 3 year old / torture child (in each case for his fun). If Mr X doesn't get to do that he will tomorrow do it to two such children.

If I were God, I'd make sure that Mr X would fail. Perhaps a phone call to the police would do it. In the worst case scenario I would have no qualms about depriving Mr X of some of his free will. I might install a phobia of killing and torturing, for instance.

Do we say, God should kill Mr X? What if Mr Y will not stand for parliament if Mr X dies at this point? What if Mr Y is the only politician who will not push the nuclear button. Does God kill Mr X and allow nuclear war?

If I were God, the nuclear button would mysteriously develop a fault that prevents it from working.

my point has been that you and I and everyone else on this board do not know the bigger picture.

Hitler was responsible for the deaths of maybe 20 million people. How big do you want the picture to be?

Given that we humans are the ones who have to put up with all the murder and torture, don't you think we have a right to know why God keeps throwing us under the bus?

If a doctor came up to you and said "I'm just going to cut your leg off" wouldn't you want to know why? If he said "it's part of my secret plan, trust me" would you trust him? If he said "it's gangrenous" wouldn't you be a bit more accepting?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alien,

Are you sure you meant to say that. You seem to be arguing that TACTDJFF depends on human consensus. Stuff human consensus.

Why? All morality is what we decide and intuit it to be, and when we need collective morality as societies then the consensus carries the day (at least it does in democracies).

What else would it "depend on" - a slab of granite with all the rules written on it somewhere on Alpha Centauri maybe?

No. I have said that Mohammed, effectively, raping Aisha when she was 9 was immoral and suggests he is not to be trusted as the bearer of the final revelation from God (as Muslims claim).

Again, first you have no idea what morality applied in that society and at that time - whether or not the story (and it is a story) is true says nothing to contemporary moral standards, so anachronistically applying 21st century mores to a 14th century event is bad reasoning. Who's to say what moral behaviour of your own someone 700 years hence wouldn't find to be disgusting too?

Second, a murderer saying "murder is wrong" doesn't mean he's wrong about that. Your ad hominem fails - what possible relationship do you think there to be between his (supposed) behaviour in one area of his life and his reliability or otherwise as a "witness"? What if records emerged that show Jesus as a kid to have nicked some sweets from the Bethlehem branch of Woolworth's - would that mean that you'd automatically discount anything else he had to say later on too? 

There are plenty of other reasons not to trust him as well.

There may be "plenty of other reasons", but the "as well" fails a priori.

That is not joined up thinking. That someone does something morally wrong does not thereby mean that someone else, even omnipotent and omniscient, is morally obliged to stop it.

It does if that "someone" is a god of all three omnis. How could an omnibenevolent god who knows about it and can prevent it not intervene? That's why you need your get out of jail free card of "it's a mystery" to square the circle.

I've used the example of an ordinary soldier and a general in the recent past so shall not repeat that. However, please tell me what God should do in the following situation.

Mr X is about to rape a 9 year old / kill a 3 year old / torture child (in each case for his fun). If Mr X doesn't get to do that he will tomorrow do it to two such children.

Do we say, God should kill Mr X? What if Mr Y will not stand for parliament if Mr X dies at this point? What if Mr Y is the only politician who will not push the nuclear button. Does God kill Mr X and allow nuclear war?

And there it comes now....what if, what if, what if...

It's simple enough - a god of the omnis wouldn't be constrained not to prevent the rape because he'd then be forced to stand idly by while the rest of the events you describe played out. He'd just fix the whole thing whichever way he wanted so that no-one got hurt.

Yes, of course it is contrived, but my point has been that you and I and everyone else on this board do not know the bigger picture. The claim is that God does and acts for the overall best (whatever that is). No, this does not demonstrate that God exists or that God is good, but it does show that the existence of evil, even horrible evil, contradicts the idea of an all-powerful, all-loving, etc. God. That is the point I am trying to make. The existence of evil does not demonstrate that a good God cannot have a morally sufficient reason for allowing such evil.

Emotionally we may react against the idea, but let's stick to the logic of the argument, eh?

Logic? Seriously? Logic!!!???

You have no logic. You assert into existence a god of the omnis, and when the problem of bad things happening to good people is raised you throw your hands up with a "maybe it's all for the best in the bigger picture" special pleading. Holocaust? Not a problem - maybe god could only save six million and one jews from being killed by allowing "just" six million of them to be killed instead eh?

The problem here is that you can permit anything you like that contradicts your god of the omnis notion this way - and that's not joined up thinking at all; it's cheating.

[Gordon]

Are you sure you meant to say that. You seem to be arguing that TACTDJFF depends on human consensus. Stuff human consensus.

That sounds like an emotional response, Alan, and an odd one too since I'd imagine that you'd be in agreement with the consensus that TACTJFF was wrong.

That someone does something morally wrong does not thereby mean that someone else, even omnipotent and omniscient, is morally obliged to stop it.

It does if they are capable of doing so but fail to act.

I've used the example of an ordinary soldier and a general in the recent past so shall not repeat that. However, please tell me what God should do in the following situation.

Mr X is about to rape a 9 year old / kill a 3 year old / torture child (in each case for his fun). If Mr X doesn't get to do that he will tomorrow do it to two such children.

Do we say, God should kill Mr X? What if Mr Y will not stand for parliament if Mr X dies at this point? What if Mr Y is the only politician who will not push the nuclear button. Does God kill Mr X and allow nuclear war?

Simple - if God can see all of this then it should act to prevent all the morally bad elements and in doing so resolve all the potential conflicts along the way. You have been very quick in the past tell to say to people like me, when we say that resurrection of the dead is impossible, that it is naturally impossible - but, apparently, not for God!

You now seem to be saying that your God can't save both one girl from rape and the other two or find a way to ensure that Mr Y gets elected without either killing Mr X or risking nuclear war (btw your ott analogy here fits nicely with Stephen Laws 'Going Nuclear' article).

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/going-nuclear.html

Yes, of course it is contrived, but my point has been that you and I and everyone else on this board do not know the bigger picture.

Here you are simply assuming there is a bigger picture: you could be wrong.

The existence of evil does not demonstrate that a good God cannot have a morally sufficient reason for allowing such evil.

It does if the degree of evil is disproportionate to any claimed resulting good where there is no reasonable basis to demonstrate the balance between the two: there isn't, so when you say your God has 'a morally sufficient reason for allowing such evil' this is just special pleading pure and simple - the get out of jail card for your God. 

Emotionally we may react against the idea, but let's stick to the logic of the argument, eh?

Agreed - so give it a try.

[OH MY WORLD!]

So floo, you think Vlad has nothing better to do? How about Brother Doli? What about him?