Problem? of evil?

I imagine skeptics wouldn't assert such things like this if they had a coherent grasp of logic in the first place. the following:

The UPD faces the obvious objection that if you have no idea what reason God has for allowing evil, then for all you know there is no justifiable reason at all for an all-good God to permit it. And even if the FWD and SMT were successful, they would still leave much apparently gratuitious evil unexplained. As William Rowe points out, when a fawn burns to death in a forest fire and no human being ever knows about it, this apparently unnecessary evil neither preserves human free will nor builds the character of human beings.

I mean really?

The UPD faces the obvious objection that if you have no idea what reason God has for allowing evil, then for all you know there is no justifiable reason at all for an all-good God to permit it

For all you know there is no justifiable reason at all? is that really a logical rebuttal? I mean really? the same logic can apply in reverse. If you have no idea what reason God has for allowing evil, then for all you know there is a justifiable reason for an all good God to permit it. Logically there is no difference between one or the other, what can be applied to one can be applied to the other, just because one has no idea, it does not follow that there is not a justifiable reason. I am sure a 2 year old cannot comprehend a justifiable reason why his mother puts him down for a nap everyday, I guess it follows there is no justifiable reason for the father to permit it? just because someone at the lower level has no idea why someone at a level higher permits X, it does not prove nor suggest that the person at the higher level has no justifiable reason to permit X anymore than it proves or suggests that person has justifiable reasons to permit X, why is this? the atheist answers his own question, because no one has any idea, round and round we go.


And even if the FWD and SMT were successful, they would still leave much apparently gratuitious evil unexplained.

How much evil does it take for it to be gratuitous? and how does the skeptic even know? where is the line between gratuitous and un gratuitous evil?


As William Rowe points out, when a fawn burns to death in a forest fire and no human being ever knows about it, this apparently unnecessary evil neither preserves human free will nor builds the character of human beings.

This is based upon pure assumption. How on earth would someone know when a fawn burns to death in a forest fire and no human being ever knows about it? that sentence alone is silly. How do they know it is apparently unnecessary, perhaps the fawn was going to run out in front of a car? perhaps the fawn burned to death in order to occupy a predator that might've otherwise killed a hunter or camper, and even if it was unnecessary, how do they know it disproves God? as the bible is rife with examples of not only God existing alongside evil, but tolerating certain levels of it as well.

Genesis 6:5-6

5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain

God did not destroy humanity until their wickedness became a certain level.


Genesis 15:16

16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure."

Here it talks about a full measure of sin. These 2 verses not only prove that God exists along side evil, but He tolerates a certain level of evil, so even if one were to concede that there is 'unnecessary evil'(I am not conceding this however) it still does not create a problem.

IGN confirms my suspicions, other review sites however....

They seem to think G.I. Joe was a good movie.

If any film this year has suffered the one-two punch of bad buzz and worse marketing, it's G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. Those who've spent even a small amount of time reading online sites and movie mags have likely caught wind of problems in the editing room, problems with the script, problems with the director, Stephen Sommers, and, most importantly, problems with the movie itself – rumors which were hardly dispelled by the film's downright unimpressive trailers. That, coupled with the hesitancy of the die-hard Joe fans to support any adaptation – as well as the fact that today's kids simply weren't raised on the classic toys and cartoons – virtually paved the way for a film that appeared as if it'd make Transformers 2 look like Twelfth Night in comparison.

Count us surprised then that G.I. Joe doesn't disappoint. In fact, taken in the proper spirit, it delivers a relatively action-packed and – dare we say – fun bit of mindless entertainment in a fashion that's been missing from movie screens this summer. In these days of more serious-minded (and wildly successful) adaptations, it is unexpectedly refreshing for a film to be so wildly "popcorn" without falling into the realm of the unengaging and inane. Let's make no mistake here, however. This is a B-level action movie with relatively well-drawn characters, a few minor subplots and smartly staged, near-constant action. Shakespeare, it ain't. For better or worse, it feels very much like Sommers' The Mummy, chock-a-block with massive set pieces and broad, dramatic beats without ever taking itself too seriously.

The first paragraph seems to confirm my suspicions of why I thought the movie was going to suck. The next paragraph however is an odd one, as they states it doesn't disappoint, but then turn right around and call it a B-level action movie with relatively well-drawn characters. Other review sites however state the movie is going to be good. I still maintain that the movie will suck, but I must admit, the hype is getting to me, as I am looking forward to see if it is going to suck or not.