The Problem of Evil - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

The Problem of Evil

Description:

The Problem of Evil – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:145
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 50
Provided by: UVMA7
Learn more at: https://www.uvm.edu
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: The Problem of Evil


1
The Problem of Evil
2
Our Question
  • Our question is Does God Exist?
  • Theism God exists.
  • Atheism God does not exist.
  • Agnosticism I dont know.
  • Weak I happen not to know. Maybe someone else
    does.
  • Strong No one knows (despite what they might
    think).
  • Super-Strong It is impossible for anyone to know.

3
We Need Ground Rules
  • To clarify the question What sort of thing is
    God supposed to be?
  • Another way of putting it
  • What would the world have to be like in order to
    contain God?
  • (Compare What would the world have to be like
    in order to contain Pegasus?)
  • This is suppose to help lay ground rules for the
    debate we should try to give an answer that
    both atheists and theists can agree on.

4
What Sort of Thing is God?
  • God is supposed to be
  • Powerful (Omnipotent, Almighty) God can do
    anything that can be done
  • Knowledgeable (Omniscient) God can know
    anything that can be known and
  • Good (Omnibenevolent) God loves and cares about
    all his creatures.
  • Set aside Whether, additionally, if God exists,
    he can do things that cannot be done or whether
    God can know things that cannot be known. (Even
    Theists break their heads on how God could be
    this powerful or knowledgeable.)
  • So Theists only assert the existence of a being
    able to do anything that can be done. (Similarly
    for knowledge.)

5
God is a Person
  • Conclusion from our reflections If God exists,
    he can do things, he knows things, and there are
    things that he cares about.
  • We call individuals who are agents, knowers, and
    carers persons.
  • So, both atheists and theists agree if God
    exists, he is a person.

6
Mere Monotheism
  • Some other stuff commonly attributed to God the
    creator of the world, the creator of humankind,
    the inspiration and/or source for certain
    religious texts, the source of the moral law, the
    judge of human beings, etc.
  • Most of this other stuff is not shared commonly
    among the monotheistic religions, so we will
    ignore it.
  • We are asking about what you might call
  • mere monotheism the existence of a person who
    is almighty, all-knowing, and all-good.
  • This approach attempts to find a lowest common
    denominator among different monotheistic
    religious traditions.
  • Our approach neglects the very real differences
    among different monotheistic religious
    traditions. If you want to understand those, you
    should take a course from someone who knows
    something about them.

7
Remarks on What Needs to be Shown
  • This notion of God is not entirely bloodless.
  • Not just anything will count as God theists
    need to show that a certain kind of person
    exists.
  • Trivially, perhaps, showing that there is a
    paperweight will not suffice.
  • Less trivially, showing that there was a Big Bang
    does not show that God exists the Big Bang is
    not a person. (In particular, the Big Bang does
    not know things or have concerns.)
  • Showing that a certain idea exists does not show
    that God exists. An idea is not a person. (The
    atheist knows very well that religious people
    have an idea of God. What the atheist denies is
    that corresponding to this idea is a perfect
    person.)

8
The Problem of Evil is an Atheistic Argument
  • We are now going to look at one atheistic
    argument an argument that God does not exist.
  • The argument is often called the problem of evil.
  • The argument is that this is only a problem for
    theism you can avoid the problem by becoming an
    atheist.

9
There is Evil in this world (or at least bad)
  • The problem of evil revolves around the claim
    that there is evil in this world.
  • This seems a truism there is cruelty, jealousy,
    pain, depression, torture, injustice, disease,
    natural calamity of all sorts, etc., etc., ad
    nauseum.
  • Note many think that the word evil is endowed
    with supernatural connotations.
  • For instance, some think that calling something
    evil requires the existence of some malevolent
    intelligence (i.e. the devil) whose purposes it
    abets.
  • (Note you can believe that God exists without
    believing that the devil exists.)
  • Even if you think this is true, and you deny the
    existence of the devil, you can still get a
    problem going for theism if you are willing to
    allow that those things in the list above are
    bad.
  • The problem of bad has its drawbacks as a label
    for this unit, so Ill just keep using the old
    terminology.

10
Deep BackgroundTwo Kinds of Evil
  • Some of the bad things in the world come about as
    the result of human actions.
  • Some of the bad things in the world are the
    result of natural forces.
  • dist




Natural Evil
Artificial Evil
What is it?
Evil not caused by human actions
Evil caused by human actions
  • cutting in line (injustice)
  • Making fun of your aunt for her weird dye-job
    (cruelty)
  • stealing a nickel from your Mom for candy (theft)
  • hurricanes
  • epidemics
  • tsunamis
  • earthquakes

Examples
11
Complicating the Distinction INatural Evil and
Human Action
  • It is not obvious how bright a line can be drawn
    between natural and artificial evil.
  • Note If there are no human beings (and perhaps
    other animals) involved, then natural disasters
    may not be evil at all.
  • Examples
  • paleozoic volcanic eruptions
  • that huge storm on Jupiter

12
Complicating the Distinction INatural Evil and
Human Action (cont.)
  • Apparent Lesson There is no natural evil that
    doesnt result in some sort of suffering for
    someone.
  • Homework Is this true? Come up with a case of
    natural evil that involves no suffering for
    anyone.
  • An upshot some natural evils are made worse by
    human action.
  • Examples
  • building a city below the level of an adjoining
    lake
  • living at the base of a volcano
  • raising chickens or other livestock in great
    numbers
  • So there is often a component of human error,
    wrong, willfulness, pride, etc., in natural
    evils.

13
Complicating the Distinction IIArtificial Evil
and Nature
  • Artificial evil almost always requires the
    cooperation of nature.
  • (Possible purely artificial evils include,
    perhaps, murder in your heart morally bad
    thoughts or feelings that do not get expressed in
    bodily action. But ordinary, run-of-the-mill
    artificial evil requires cooperation from
    nature.)
  • Examples
  • Hotel Rwanda
  • the villains gun
  • The effectiveness of ordinary human action
    typically requires that the natural causal laws
    operate in the right (or wrong!) way.
  • Bad actions are no different.

14
Summary of the complications
  • Some natural evils are bad (or made worse)
    because of human action.
  • Almost any artificial evil is bad because of the
    operation of natural laws.
  • Some cases are hard to classify. Examples
  • global warming
  • the Dust Bowl
  • using bioweapons

15
Existence of God, Existence of Evil
  • Many have held that the existence of evil poses a
    problem for theism.
  • Incompatibilism If God exists, then bad things
    do not happen.
  • Now, there are two questions on the table
  • Is there evil? and
  • Does God exist?
  • This gives us (technically) four positions






Do bad things happen?
Does God exist?
Compatibilist Theism
Yes
Yes
X
Implausible!
Yes
No
These are the only positions we will be
considering
Polyanna Theism
Incompatibilist Atheism
X
Yes
No
Implausible!
Polyanna Atheism
X
X
No
No
16
The Significance of Incompatibilism
  • Heres something that it is very implausible to
    deny bad things happen.
  • (Just because it is implausible to deny this,
    doesnt mean that no one ever has. Some
    philosophers (plausibly, Augustine) have claimed
    that evil is not fully real.)
  • For the purposes of this discussion, I am just
    going to take for granted that there is evil.
  • This assumption implies
  • If Incompatibilism is true, then there is no God.
  • The Problem of Evil How can bad things happen,
    if there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and
    all-loving person?

17
The Atheist Argument from Evil
We can generate an argument for atheism, if we
can establish Incompatibilism
  1. Incompatibilism If God exists, then bad things
    do not happen.
  2. Our Assumption Bad things happen

(C) Atheism God does not exist.
But why think Incompatibilism is true?
18
The Antidote Argument for Incompatibilism
God is the antidote to evil
  • The Antidote Principle If God exists, then
  • He knows when bad things are going to happen
  • He is powerful enough to prevent bad things from
    happening and
  • He wants bad things not to happen.
  • The Bystander Limitations If a person P does
    not prevent something from happening, then
    either
  • She didnt know it would happen
  • She wasnt powerful enough to prevent it or
  • She didnt want it not to happen.

There are limits on what youll fail to prevent.
(C) Incompatibilism If God exists, then bad
things do not happen.
19
Why think the Antidote Principle is true?
  • The antidote principle seems to follow from our
    specification of what God is supposed to be like.
  • Omniscience God, if He exists, knows everything
    that can be known so (if He exists) He knows
    when bad things are going to happen.
  • Omnipotence God, if He exists, can do anything
    that can be done so (if He exists) He can
    prevent bad things from happening.
  • Goodness God, if He exists, loves all of His
    creatures so (if He exists) He wants bad things
    not to happen to them.
  • The Antidote Principle is supposed to summarize
    these three points.

20
The Antidote Argument for Incompatibilism
  • The Antidote Principle If God exists, then
  • He knows when bad things are going to happen
  • He is powerful enough to prevent bad things from
    happening and
  • He wants bad things not to happen.
  • The Bystander Limitations If a person P does
    not prevent something from happening, then
    either
  • She didnt know it would happen
  • She wasnt powerful enough to prevent it or
  • She didnt want it not to happen.

Omniscient
Omnipotent
All-loving
(C) Incompatibilism If God exists, then bad
things do not happen.
21
Why Think the Bystander Limitations are true?
  • The bystander limitations are motivated by a
    consideration of cases in which someone allows
    something to happen.
  • The Bystander Limitations admit only three
    excuses ignorance, helplessness, and
    indifference.
  • Ignorant bystanders
  • Sleeping through a burglary
  • Encyclopedia Brown
  • Helpless bystanders
  • Cannonballs
  • Coyote
  • Indifferent bystanders
  • You let your mother give your child a cookie
  • Convenient deafness in a teacher

How could you fail to prevent that from happening?
I didnt know
I couldnt do anything
I didnt care
22
The Antidote Argument for Incompatibilism
  • The Antidote Principle If God exists, then
  • He knows when bad things are going to happen
  • He is powerful enough to prevent bad things from
    happening and
  • He wants bad things not to happen.
  • The Bystander Limitations If a person P fails
    to prevent something from happening, then either
  • She didnt know it would happen
  • She wasnt powerful enough to prevent it or
  • She didnt want it not to happen.

Ignorance
Impotence
Indifference
(C) Incompatibilism If God exists, then bad
things do not happen.
23
Leibniz
  • Gottfried Leibniz
  • (1646 1716)
  • Leibniz was a mathematician, physicist, and
    philosopher.
  • Leibniz is a compatibilist theist.

24
This is the best of all possible worlds
Leibniz argues this world is the best of all
possible worlds.
  • Whoever does not choose the best among several
    possible alternatives is lacking in power, in
    knowledge, or in goodness.
  • God is not lacking in power, knowledge or
    goodness.
  • God chose to create this world out of all of the
    possible worlds he could have created.

(C) This world is the best out of all possible
worlds.
25
Leibnizs Argument seems a lot like the Antidote
Argument
Reminds me of
  • Whoever does not choose the best among several
    possible alternatives is lacking in power, in
    knowledge, or in goodness.
  • God is not lacking in power, knowledge or
    goodness.
  • God chose to create this world out of all of the
    possible worlds he could have created.

the Bystander Limitations
the Antidote Principle
(C) This world is the best out of all possible
worlds.
26
Leibniz is not (quite) a Pollyanna
  • Leibnizs argument looks a lot like the Antidote
    Argument for Incompatibilism.
  • But Leibniz is not an incompatibilist. Hes a
    compatibilist.
  • Leibniz is not a Pollyanna who denies that bad
    things happen.
  • He sounds like one sometimes. (Voltaires
    Candide is an extended satire of Leibnizs
    Pollyanna-ish tendencies.)
  • Its really hard to believe that this world is
    the best that God could have done.
  • Leibniz nevertheless admits that bad things do
    happen.

27
Leibniz Bad Things Happen
The best plan is not always that which seeks
to avoid evil, since it may happen that the evil
is accompanied by a greater good. For example, a
general of an army will prefer a great victory
with a slight wound to a condition without wound
and without victory. (p. 92, col. 1)
  • Leibniz claims I may allow something bad to
    happen if I think that it is necessary to secure
    a greater good.
  • I will tolerate necessary evils.
  • Examples
  • the wound is necessary for the victory
  • flu shots
  • high criminal burden of proof
  • Leibnizs Thesis Each bad thing that happens in
    this world is necessary to secure a greater good.

28
How does this help with the Antidote Argument?
  • Leibniz is a compatibilist, so he must think
    there is some flaw in the Antidote Argument for
    Incompatibilism.
  • How does the idea of a necessary evil help with
    the Antidote Argument?
  • Leibniz obviously agrees with the Antidote
    Principle God does have the knowledge, power,
    and desire to prevent evil.
  • Notice that, in all of our cases of a necessary
    evil, we seem to have a counter-example to the
    Bystander Limitations
  • The general allows the wound to happen, even
    though he knows it will happen, he could prevent
    it, and wants it not to happen.
  • I allow the prick to happen, even though, etc.
  • We allow the guilty to go free, even though, etc.

29
Bystander Limitations is False
  • The Bystander Limitations If a person P does
    not prevent something from happening, then
    either
  • She didnt know it would happen
  • She wasnt powerful enough to prevent it or
  • She didnt want it not to happen OR
  • Allowing it is necessary for her to secure some
    greater good.
  • Leibniz holds that Bystander Limitations is
    simply false.
  • There is a missing condition we need to allow
    for necessary evils.
  • Once you add this condition, Incompatibilism no
    longer follows.

Greater than what? Greater than the badness of
the evil avoided.
30
The New Antidote Argument
  • The Antidote Principle If God exists, then
  • He knows when bad things are going to happen
  • He is powerful enough to prevent bad things from
    happening and
  • He wants bad things not to happen.
  • The Bystander Limitations If a person P does
    not prevent something from happening, then
    either
  • She didnt know it would happen
  • She wasnt powerful enough to prevent it or
  • She didnt want it not to happen.
  • Allowing it is necessary for her to secure some
    greater good.

Heres the old Antidote Argument
Heres the new Bystander Limitations
The new argument gets a new conclusion
(C) Incompatibilism If God exists, then bad
things do not happen.
(C) Necessary Evil Compatibilism If God
exists, then bad things do not happen, unless
allowing them to happen is required in order to
secure a greater good.
31
Leibnizs Thesis, Amplified
  • Leibnizs Thesis Each bad thing that happens in
    this world is necessary to secure a greater good.
  • Notice that this commits Leibniz to idea that
    every single instance of evil is justified
    because it has wonderful effects.
  • Theodicy (literally justification of God) a
    theodicy is an argument that the existence of
    evil is justified.
  • Leibnizs claim suggests a strategy for theodicy
    for any given evil, show that it is necessary to
    achieve a greater good.
  • HOMEWORK Unnecessary Evil Describe an actual
    situation in which
  • something bad happens but
  • that bad event is NOT necessary to achieve a
    greater good.

32
How could evil be required to secure a greater
good?
  • Ideas?
  • The Free Will Theodicy a world in which some
    crabbiness, cruelty, etc., is allowed, but in
    which some people choose goodness, kindness,
    sweetness and light is better than any world
    without crabbiness, cruelty, etc., but in which
    God forces his creatures to goodness, kindness,
    sweetness, and light.
  • The Appreciation Theodicy a world in which some
    misery is allowed, but in which people appreciate
    what contentment they may find is better than any
    world full of spoiled but contented ingrates.
  • Others? (A student once suggested Test of
    Faith)

33
Compatibilism, Weak and Strong
  • Notice that a theist has to establish the
    compatibility of Gods existence with the
    occurrence of all the bad things that actually
    happen.
  • This is more difficult than just showing that
    Gods existence is compatible with the occurrence
    bad things in general.
  • Weak Compatibilism Gods existence is
    compatible in principle with the occurrence of
    some bad things.
  • Strong Compatibilism Gods existence is
    compatible with the occurrence of all the bad
    things that there actually are.
  • The Strong Compatibilist must show, e.g., that
    Gods existence is compatible with the breeding
    habits of Ichneumonidae wasps.

"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and
omnipotent God would have designedly created the
Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their
feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars,
or that a cat should play with mice." (Charles
Darwin, Letter to American botanist Asa Gray,
source wikipedia entry for Ichneumon)
source http//iris.biosci.ohio-state.edu/catalogs
/ichneumonids/
34
Objections from Actual Evil
  • What I am going to do now is offer three
    objections to Leibnizs theodicies.
  • Each of these three objections accepts weak
    compatibilism the existence of God is
    consistent in principle with some bad things
    happening.
  • But these objections start from the idea that
    there are particular instances of evil that seem
    hard for a theist to handle.
  • In effect, each objection poses a challenge to
    the theist account for this kind of evil.
  • Our three objections are objections to different
    parts of Leibnizs claim.

35
Each and every bad thing?
Leibnizs Thesis Each bad thing that happens in
this world is necessary to secure a greater good.
  • Leibnizs theodicies require that every actual
    instance of evil secures some greater good.
  • The problem is that there are some bad things
    that happen that seem to result in no greater
    good theyre totally pointless.
  • We need to make sure that none of the good
    effects required by our theodicies applies.
  • Free will cannot be involved so we appeal to
    natural evil.
  • Appreciation cannot be involved so we appeal to
    evils that no one ever learned anything from.
  • Examples
  • certain birth defects
  • 100 fatal prehistoric natural disasters
  • You might call this the problem of pointless
    suffering.

36
Each and every bad thing?
Leibnizs Thesis Each bad thing that happens in
this world is necessary to secure a greater good.
  • The theodicy must justify
  • The existence of the suffering and
  • The extent of the suffering.
  • So, there are really two related objections here
  • The suffering is pointless the existence of
    these evils are not justified by good
    consequences and
  • God seems to be laying it on a bit thick The
    extent of these evils does not seem required to
    secure the benefits. There seems to be no need
    for the suffering to have lasted so long, and
    been so severe.

37
Is all that evil really necessary?
Leibnizs Thesis Each bad thing that happens in
this world is necessary to secure a greater good.
  • Who makes the rules around here, anyway?
  • It seems that the laws which require trading an
    evil for a greater good are laws that God can
    contravene (if He exists).
  • For example
  • The general cant secure a victory without a
    wound, but God can
  • I cant give someone an immunity to the flu
    without some discomfort, but God can.
  • Why cant God secure the benefits without the
    pain?
  • Lets see how this goes for both of the
    theodicies we are exploring.

38
Is all that evil really necessary? (vs. the Free
Will Theodicy)
Leibnizs Thesis Each bad thing that happens in
this world is necessary to secure a greater good.
  • Free Will
  • the benefits of free will are secured by the
    time the agent executes her decision.
  • the misery has yet to be caused that requires
    cooperation from nature.
  • a minor miracle could save the benefits and
    prevent the evil.

Cause
Misery
Action
  • A convenient misfire would have come in handy
  • Or a good, stiff cross-breeze.

39
Is all that evil really necessary? (vs. the
Appreciation Theodicy)
Leibnizs Thesis Each bad thing that happens in
this world is necessary to secure a greater good.
Gee Willikers, am I a lucky ducky!
  • Appreciation Theodicy
  • If God exists, it seems to be within his power to
    make us appreciate how good we have it without
    seeing (or experiencing) misery.
  • How about movies, or other fake misery, instead
    of real misery?

Misery
Causes
Appreciation
40
For the greater good? Whose good?
Leibnizs Thesis Each bad thing that happens in
this world is necessary to secure a greater good.
  • The idea here is some people bear the costs of
    the evil, and others get to reap the benefits.
  • Free Will Theodicy The perpetrator (the
    decider) enjoys the benefits of free will, but
    the victim bears the costs.
  • Appreciation Theodicy The sufferer bears the
    costs of, well, suffering, but us lucky folks get
    the benefits of appreciating our luck.
  • But this just seems to be unfair its not the
    sort of thing you do to those you love.

41
On Adams
  • Adams does not endorse Necessary Evil
    Compatibilism.
  • Necessary Evil Compatibilism If God exists,
    then bad things do not happen, unless allowing
    them to happen is required in order to secure a
    greater good.
  • Adams This world is NOT the best of all possible
    worlds.
  • Since he rejects NE Compatibilism, Adams must
    identify some flaw in the NEW Antidote Argument
    given by Leibniz.

42
The New Antidote Argument
  • The Antidote Principle If God exists, then
  • He knows when bad things are going to happen
  • He is powerful enough to prevent bad things from
    happening and
  • He wants bad things not to happen.
  • The Bystander Limitations If a person P does
    not prevent something from happening, then
    either
  • She didnt know it would happen
  • She wasnt powerful enough to prevent it or
  • She didnt want it not to happen.
  • Allowing it is necessary for her to secure some
    greater good.

(C) Necessary Evil Compatibilism If God
exists, then bad things do not happen, unless
allowing them to happen is required in order to
secure a greater good.
43
Adams vs. the Antidote Principle
  • Adams seems to reject the Antidote Principle, the
    first premise of the argument.
  • Adams God does not generally mind if bad things
    happen.
  • Whats left of the claim that God is perfectly
    good?
  • Gods goodness, according to Adams, requires only
    that
  • he never be unkind to any of His creatures,
  • never wrong one of his creatures, and
  • never act in a way that reveals a flaw in His
    character.
  • Being good (for us as well as for God) does not
    require that you prevent every bad thing you
    could prevent, even when its not a necessary
    evil.
  • Challenge Can you think of a situation in which
    someone reveals a flaw in her character without
    acting wrongly?

44
The Happiness Principle
  • People suffer. We are not as happy as we might
    otherwise have been. Does it follow that there
    is no God? The Happiness Principle says, yes!
  • The Happiness Principle God would be unkind, act
    wrongly, or reveal a flaw in his character if he
    created something that is less happy that it
    otherwise might have been.
  • Terminology
  • Someone is maximally happy she is as happy as
    it is possible for her to be.
  • An act A is ungodly performing A is unkind,
    wrong, or reveals a flaw in ones character.
  • The Happiness Principle 2.0 It would be ungodly
    of God to create someone who is not maximally
    happy.
  • Adams rejects the Happiness Principle.
  • What reasons can there be for doing so?

45
The Anti-Max Argument
Warning This is a simpler argument that the one
Adams actually gives!
  1. Anti-Max If it is not ungodly to create any
    creature at all, then it is not ungodly to create
    a creature who is not maximally happy.
  2. Creation is not ungodly it is not ungodly to
    create a creature.

(C) It is not ungodly to create a creature who is
not maximally happy.
There is also a direct argument for this
conclusion from cases. I, for instance, am not as
happy as its possible for me to be, but I
certainly dont think it would be ungodly for
someone to have created me.
This is just the negation of the Happiness
Principle
46
Why believe that creation is not ungodly?
  • Why believe the second premise of the Anti-Max
    Argument?
  • George Baileys Principle No creature is so
    miserable that it would have been better for that
    creature if it had never existed.
  • An upshot creating a creature is doing that
    creature a favor.
  • Notice doing someone a favor does not wrong
    them, is not unkind, and does not reveal a flaw
    in your character.

47
Why Think Anti-Max is True?
Anti-Max If it is not ungodly to create any
creature at all, then it is not ungodly to create
a creature who is not maximally happy.
  • Suppose that potential happiness knows no
    bounds.
  • This means no matter how happy some creature
    is, it is possible that the creature have been
    even happier.
  • Compare Could God create a creature who is
    maximally tall (i.e. as tall as it possibly
    could be)?
  • If potential happiness knows no bounds, God could
    not create a creature at all without creating a
    creature that is not maximally happy.
  • Anti-Max follows.

48
More on George Baileys Principle
George Baileys Principle No creature is so
miserable that it would have been better for that
creature if it had never existed.
  • Note George Baileys Principle is independent
    of the anti-euthanasia claim we might call
  • Terry Schiavos Principle No creatures life
    becomes so miserable that it would have been
    better for that creature if its life had been
    shorter.
  • (I have no opinion about whether Terry Schiavo
    would have endorsed Terry Schiavos Principle.)
  • How is George Baileys Principle motivated?
  • No Creature, No Goodness for that creature if
    the creature had never existed, then there would
    have been no such thing as how good it was for
    that creature.
  • Hence, it would be false to say that it would
    have been better for the creature never to have
    existed.

49
Adamss Optimistic View
  • Adamss idea is this
  • Each of us endures some measure of suffering.
  • But its worth it our lives, on a whole, are
    worth living, even with the suffering.
  • In being given our lives, we have been given
    something that is, on balance, a blessing.
  • If God has done wrong in giving us lives like
    this, then whom has he wronged? Not any of us,
    who are lucky to have been created.
  • If God has been unkind to anyone, then to whom
    was he unkind? Not any of us, to whom he has
    given something that is, on the whole, valuable.
  • And where, exactly, has God revealed a flaw in
    His character?
  • Compare your parents give you 300, even though
    they know that this may cause you some stress.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com