"I must be out of my mind because I believe allowing babies to burn to death when you have the power to stop it is unloving. It's my tricky emotions."
So can you demonstrate that it is logically impossible for a "being" with perfect knowledge to have a morally sufficient reason for allowing suffering, whether it be the suffering of a baby in a burning house or my pain after my teeth were pulled or the pain of Christ on the Cross? Or can't you? Which is it?
And you may or may not be out of your mind, but that's not a logical argument, it's an emotional one. That doesn't discount it, but you can't give an emotional answer to a logical question and expect me to take it as an airtight syllogism. That's not how things work.
For goodness' sake, man, at least answer one of my questions.
"The next time a baby gets caught in a natural disaster I will say God must have a sufficient reason for this and refuse to do anything."
Oh, that's invalid on so many different levels. From the fact that God has a morally sufficient reason to allow something, it does not follow that we ought to be impotent observers to the evils of the world. That's a stupid statement, Cole. You can do better than that.
"To be fair, I don't think that the emotional problem is irrelevant. It is distinct, though, and has a completely different answer than the logical or the probabilistic problem of evil."
I agree.
"Yeah, and since there are two different problems at play here, I would ask you to stop thinking that your answer to one of them is an answer to all of them."
"From the fact that God has a morally sufficient reason to allow something, it does not follow that we ought to be impotent observers to the evils of the world"
"The next time a baby gets caught in a natural disaster I will say God must have a sufficient reason for this and refuse to do anything."
This kinda misses the point. If God exists, and if He allows such a scenario, how on earth do you decide "God probably wants the child to die, therefore I will do nothing." This is just as bad as when some fundamentalists claim that natural disasters are due to sin.
""If God exists, and if He allows such a scenario, how on earth do you decide "God probably wants the child to die, therefore I will do nothing""
Because you don't know how to act, therefore you don't act? How on earth does that follow?
And answer the question, Cole: Do you have a logical argument that there exists no morally sufficient reason for a being with perfect knowledge to allow any type of suffering? If you shirk the question again, I'll assume this as a tacit acknowledgement that you don't and move on from there.
I don't have an argument for any type of suffering. But when a natural disaster strikes and you have the ability to perform miracles you should keep a baby from burning a slow death. It's a bit of common sense. And it is for someone who has love in their hearts for babies. Has anybody proven with airtight logic that moral truths exist?
"I don't have an argument for any type of suffering."
So no. Thanks for the answer.
"But when a natural disaster strikes and you have the ability to perform miracles you should keep a baby from burning a slow death. It's a bit of common sense. And it is for someone who has love in their hearts for babies."
By way of answer: was Harry Truman, whom I assume had love for babies in his heart, a lunatic for ordering Little Boy dropped on Hiroshima?
"Has anybody proven with airtight logic that moral truths exist?"
This is no longer a logical problem, as per your admission. This is an emotional, or at best an intuitive, problem. And intuition is no help. Our intuition has access, so to speak, to experience of moral truths. It has no such access to the experience of omniscience. Thus, the analogy is fallacious on at least one ground.
I guess we have different hearts. I don't think it's okay to let a baby suffer a slow burning death in a natural disaster. If I could perform miracles I wouldn't let any baby's burn in natural disasters. I think this tells us more about our hearts than being able to prove something with logic. They can't prove the physical world exists yet we know it does.
"If I could perform miracles I wouldn't let any baby's burn in natural disasters."
So, basically, if you were God you would have done it better.
Again, was Harry Truman a lunatic for ordering Little Boy dropped on Hiroshima? Babies burned to death there, and many more were born disfigured. Was he a lunatic? A monster? Evil?
"They can't prove the physical world exists yet we know it does."
I'm talking about natural disasters that were supposedly designed by your God. Not bombs being dropped. Moreover, If I was omnipresent and could perform miracles yes I wouldn't let people suffer in natural disasters at all. I would create a new heaven and earth right now. I would have done it long ago. But like I say I guess we have different hearts.
And really, all that you're saying boils down to this: if God were really loving, He'd be like me. Doesn't that strike you as a little bit arrogant and unknowable?
I like reasons of the heart. I think it was Blaise Pascal who said the heart has reasons that reason can never know. And yes I can know that. I simply would create a new heaven and earth right now. In fact I would have done it right the first time. I have a different heart than your God and you. Your God pours out His wrath on people destroying women and children with cruel destruction. If I could perform miracles I would never do that to people. I would create a perfect world free from sin and not create the desire for sin in peoples hearts. Without the desire for sin and only the desire for love in the hearts of people this would guarentee that there would never be any sinful deeds. For without any desire to sin whatsoever and only the desire to love in a perfect universe people would always want to love each other. They would be free but not in the libertarian sense. For it would be impossible for them to sin just as it is impossible for God to sin. They would be unable to go contrary to their own natures. But everyone would still be free to choose what they want - love, peace, and happiness forever and ever. Instead we have what we have today.
I think it is safe to say that we have overall concluded that science will not rule out the possibility of God.
This seems impossible based on the metaphysical assumptions that must be made to declare such a thing, and the fact that science is inductive so it will always be limited.
Of course this whole line of argument is moot if you believe God is not a moral agent in the first place & given His nature can't coherently be concieved as one.
I can just look around and see that things just arent perfect. I would never design things to where babies suffer in natural disasters. Or anybody for that matter. Especially if I could perform miracles. The Bible is filled with a wrathful God. It's not just wrath but cruel and unusual to me. But like it was said before I just have a different heart than you people do. My Higher Power is one of love, compassion, and justice. It doesn't tear people to shreds.
Again, was Harry Truman a lunatic for ordering Little Boy dropped on Hiroshima? Babies burned to death there, and many more were born disfigured. Was he a lunatic? A monster? Evil?
That may be something of a poor example since many feel that the specific targeting of noncombatants in that instance *was* immoral.
Cole, you wrote, "I can just look around and see that things just arent perfect. I would never design things to where babies suffer in natural disasters. Or anybody for that matter. Especially if I could perform miracles. The Bible is filled with a wrathful God. It's not just wrath but cruel and unusual to me. But like it was said before I just have a different heart than you people do. My Higher Power is one of love, compassion, and justice. It doesn't tear people to shreds."
So...purposeful ignorance then? If you were God would you also square a circle?
Take a look at the book. Omnipotence does not mean being able to do everything, it means doing everything possible.
In the book Dinesh argues that this world is the only possible resulting world based on the anthropic principle. I'm not saying he fully achieves his goal, I have to put more thought into it. But it may be worth a look rather than just saying, "I see things the way I see them and that is that."
I can just see that you do not break babies arms and legs in natural disasters. You do not treat children that way. You can jump through all the hoops you want. It's perfectly clear to me. I know what love is and what I see in the universe at times just isn't it. There's something really wrong.
Look man, I spend most of my days in a hospital as a chaplain. I also work for orphans in Honduras and am on board of an adoption agency which tries to help facilitate adoptions.
Some of these orphans were raped at the age of 3, living in a garbage dump, and this ministry rescued them to help them. I've been to the places where this has happened. It is truly emotional and really daunting.
Every day I am taking time with people who find out they have cancer, who are dying of some other disease, etc etc.
However, to go off the emotional argument, I have to ask myself why I think all of this is so wrong. If there is not a God and a source of real good, then these things just "are." They are not actually right or wrong, we are left with nihilism. Yet, I observe that such things seem "off" and that things "ought" to be another way. From a purely emotional and existential stand point I have to ask myself why I have such strong feelings about this. Where do they come from? From evolution alone? If that is the case then my feelings are worthless and do not really represent the real state of things.
If we want to get emotional, you have to ask yourself if your emotions are valid in a non-theistic view. Or, perhaps your feelings are a prompt to do something about it yourself.
He looks to fulfill things through his followers - he dwells fully in his body. Right now, in Honduras (the place I go to help) it is the Christians that take in the Orphans and try to help them. It is the Christians trying to feed the starving. In Haiti, Christians are still going in droves to help out from the natural disaster.
Your emotions are not contrary to Christianity, they are in line with it. Now go something about it and ask your higher power for help while you are at it.
This is purely in response to the emotional, not the logical.
"I can just see that you do not break babies arms and legs in natural disasters. You do not treat children that way. You can jump through all the hoops you want. It's perfectly clear to me. I know what love is and what I see in the universe at times just isn't it. There's something really wrong."
Once again, the book attempts to answer this. Take a look for yourself. :)
By the way, I have found emotional fulfilling answers to such questions when I have gone to help people going through these things.
Every day of mine is spent in these types of situations and I try to find other opportunities to help. Either that feeling is worthless in a nihilistic universe or it means something. If it means something then theism becomes much more plausible and pertinent.
So, go do something. Jesus never promised that there wouldn't be hungry people, he said that those who went to help such were also doing it unto him! You are not going to get an answer to the emotional aspect unless you actually give an emotional investment. Sitting back theorizing about it is not going to do anything.
Just realize the logical solution is not daunted because there are emotional problems.
You are technically correct but the argument is salvaged if one takes any field commander that orders a bombing of a vital military target that might result in civilian collateral damage.
If you want to continue trying to prove and justify the insanity we see at times in the world then go ahead. I think I'm going to stick with love. That may make you upset because love is partly emotional but you're going to have to accept that. The way I see it there is no justifying the abuse of people. Especially when you can perform miracles.
Since I believe God is metaphysically & ontologically good but not a moral agent I find I can no longer coherently blame God for allowing the evil in my life(i.e. Father of three autistic kids) & I can be grateful to Him for the good he has given me.
I know God owes me nothing but I know He loves me because He created me.
my book recommendation.
THE REALITY OF GOD AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL by Brian Davies.
You are technically correct but the argument is salvaged if one takes any field commander that orders a bombing of a vital military target that might result in civilian collateral damage.
Not trying to start a rabbit trail away from the current running topic, but there is a considerable difference in accidental collateral damage and the specific targeting of civilian noncombatants in an attempt to demoralize the enemy.
I think Syllabus might want to use a less controversial analogy.
"If you want to continue trying to prove and justify the insanity we see at times in the world then go ahead. I think I'm going to stick with love. That may make you upset because love is partly emotional but you're going to have to accept that. The way I see it there is no justifying the abuse of people. Especially when you can perform miracles."
Wow Cole, did you read what I wrote? I experience this stuff on a daily basis. Your not saying anything that is surprising to me.
I just told you an emotional side, you've now ignored that and the logical side.
By the way, the importance of the logical side is that emotional experiences can offset each other. I know people who ended up thankful for their cancer because of how it influenced a change of thinking and drew them closer to God. They found meaning because of what they went through.
I know cases that had the opposite effect. See, emotional offset. Should God have saved each cancer patient when there could be the greatest potential of meaning and good to come out of it? Or only certain ones where such meaning was impossible?
That's why we have the logical argument, is the existence of evil devastating to the existence of a good God? You haven't said anything here to demonstrate such in a logical way.
>Not trying to start a rabbit trail away from the current running topic, but there is a considerable difference in accidental collateral damage and the specific targeting of civilian noncombatants in an attempt to demoralize the enemy.
Of course which is why my suggestion solves that problem.
BTW FYI I am not saying the dropping the A-bomb on Japan fits the generic example I gave. IMHO it does not.
I am merely saying a Commander in the field may morally licitly bomb a vital military target even if he knows innocent civilians will die from his actions.
Just as I may morally give a drug to a Pregnant woman that will cure her fatal illness even if I know it will miscarry her child.
I would not be guilty of the sin of abortion in that case.
The Problem of Evil fades if you no longer conceive of God as a human father who croons lullabies to one child while neglecting another child next to who is suffering horribly from disease or starvation. I know my deistic POV will not sit well with Christian audiences, but I believe that part of the emotional rejection of Christian theism is caused by the Christian depiction of a personal and anthropopathic deity who is perceived as a human writ large.
>The Problem of Evil fades if you no longer conceive of God as a human father who croons lullabies to one child while neglecting another child next to who is suffering horribly from disease or starvation.
Rather God cannot be concieved of as morally obligated like a human Father or a human moral agent to do so.
>I know my deistic POV will not sit well with Christian audiences,
Rather modern post enlightenment ones with no knowledge of Classic Theism. the Fathers, the Rabbis, the Mystics and Contemplatives etc...
>but I believe that part of the emotional rejection of Christian theism is caused by the Christian depiction of a personal and anthropopathic deity who is perceived as a human writ large.
God must be seen as The Mystery and the Ultimate Source of the good we find in our loving earthly fathers and mothers.
We must become adults and put away childish things & eat spiritual meat over mere milk.
Mr. C: The king has no clothes. Mr. D: You fool, of course he has clothes. Mr. C: But I can see him. He's butt naked. Mr. D: You just don't see him in the proper perspective like I do. He's wearing a purple robe. Mr. C: You're wearing glasses with a robe painted on them. Mr. D: Am not. Mr. F: Purple robe! Anyone can see he's wearing a yellow polo shirt. Fools. Mr. C: Your glasses have a yellow shirt on them. Mr. F: I pity your ignorance. My glasses are the only ones that make sense, and you can't possibly refute that, because I won't accept it. Mr. G: What a bunch of morons. The king has no body at all. He is pure light. I can see him in all his splendor. Mr. C: But your glasses are painted white. Mr. G: How many times must I go over this? The glasses give me the power to see the truth. Mr. C: But you can't see anything. Mr. G: I see only what is true. Mr. C: The king still isn't wearing any clothes.
That's not it at all. This God of yours is suppose to be a miracle working all-powerful, all-loving being. When children get their faces melted off as their eyeballs pop out of their sockets I do not see love there. Especially when God can perform miracles. If you think that's love then more power to ya.
No emotional argument you make will move me in the face of logic and philosophy. That is just the way it is my friend.
>That's not it at all. This God of yours is suppose to be a miracle working all-powerful, all-loving being.
God is not a being He is Being Itself(that is not the same thing) so that is your first mistake.
>When children get their faces melted off as their eyeballs pop out of their sockets I do not see love there. Especially when God can perform miracles. If you think that's love then more power to ya.
Cole I see my poor wife age Ten years every day of her life worrying about our kids. But we see love in the world so we see God.
Anyway take some time read some of the books recommended to you & the Higher Power be with you.
Okay, I'll use the word God instead of being. Since your all-loving, miracle working, all-powerful God allows children to have the flesh ripped off their bodies through natural disasters and you consider that love then more power to you.
"That may be something of a poor example since many feel that the specific targeting of noncombatants in that instance *was* immoral."
"Not trying to start a rabbit trail away from the current running topic, but there is a considerable difference in accidental collateral damage and the specific targeting of civilian noncombatants in an attempt to demoralize the enemy."
I agree, the example might be somewhat controversial, but here's the point I'm trying to make with it:
The reason, so far as I've been able to gather, that Truman ordered the attacks upon Japan was that his generals and analysts projected somewhere in the ballpark of 1.5 million casualties, both civilian and military, if the invasion of Japan were to proceed perforce. Thus, the nuclear strikes. That is, Truman actualized a possibility that contained a good deal of nasty stuff, but only in order to avoid an even worse one. Whether or not the decision was moral or immoral wasn't really the point I was trying to make here - only that the action undertaken, though unquestionably bad, was taken to avoid a worse or less desirable. This strikes me as an analogous situation to the one in which God creates a possible world that contains the possibility for evil. Sure, He actualizes a state of affairs that contains less-than-optimal features, but they are the best ones available. Again, the distinction between logically possible and logically feasible worlds comes to mind.
Now, of course this isn't a perfect analogy, as Walter pointed out very correctly. The situations are dis-analogous in some very obvious ways. However, I was never presenting the end of the Pacific Theatre of WWII as a perfect analogy to the situation WRT God and evil and suffering. If I had gotten an answer right away, I would have made the point that I made above sooner. Of course, there's probably a better analogy out there - PC design, perhaps.
"Since your all-loving, miracle working, all-powerful God allows children to have the flesh ripped off their bodies through natural disasters and you consider that love then more power to you."
I think Ben is right - Love, in the Divine sense is willing the good of the other. Pain, in many cases, can demonstrably lead to the good of the other. So I see no logical problem with allowing suffering and pain in order to lead to the ultimate good of the other.
And please, spare me the emotionally charged language. To echo DA, that stuff carries very little weight on the written page when you've actually seen it with your eyes. I was in Honduras this year, translating for a team of doctors up in the mountains. You wouldn't believe some of the crap that goes on down there. I've seen all that you're talking about. And I know that 90% of it is going on because lazy bastards like me don't do enough for these people, not because God doesn't work some bloody miracle.
I guess we just see things differently. I like to give reasons from my heart and you like to try to prove things with rational logic. I'm not sure I will never see things such as the allowance of someone raping and murdering a child as being love. Especially if you are an all-powerful, all-loving, miracle working God. It seems to me that the more power and love you have to more you would want to stop such things as they progress more and more towards the evil deed. Perhaps create some law enforcement angels to restrain the rapist and take him to jail. I don't see how an all-loving, all-powerful, miracle working God would value the rapists/murderers free will over the life of a child.
"It seems to me that the more power and love you have to more you would want to stop such things as they progress more and more towards the evil deed."
And I very much believe that God wants to stop it. That's not the point. a "I don't see how an all-loving, all-powerful, miracle working God would value the rapists/murderers free will over the life of a child."
I can think of two or three ways off the top of my head, but I suspect you'll just say much the same thing as you have before. Yours is the question of Ivan Karamazov. And, now that you're not trying to make emotional arguments sound like logical ones, I won't go after you about them, if you don't want. You've admitted what your reasons are openly and honestly, and I respect that.
I would, however, make one final comment. If Christianity is true, then God isn't just sitting up in some cloud, above all the rape and torture and greed and pride of the human race, untouched by it all. If Christianity is true, then God experienced the the pain and anguish of the raped child, the pain and grief and anger of the mother and father who find their child like that, the starvation of the children, the depravity and guilt of the rapist, all these things that people brought upon people, and all of these to the greatest possible degree that is possible. He took all the pain and death and sin of the a world broken by its purported caretakers and experienced it, so that it all might be redeemed and made perfect, and will see that all injustice, pride, cowardice, greed, gluttony and arrogance receives its due reward. Does that sound like an abusive, lunatic God? Does that sound like the capricious God that you've been railing against this whole time?
Actually I was taught that the Father was taking His wrath out on Christ through the actions of evil men. Christ took what we deserved and gave us what we don't deserve - grace. Any other view was considered heresy. As I think about that and watch the movie "The Passion" and watch Christ get beat I ask myself "Do I really deserve to get beat like that"? More to the point, "Do I really deserve to suffer like that forever under God's wrath and judgment"? The answer is clearly no. I don't think anybody deserves to suffer like that. Especially forever.
"Actually I was taught that the Father was taking His wrath out on Christ through the actions of evil men. Christ took what we deserved and gave us what we don't deserve - grace. Any other view was considered heresy."
Yeah, penal substitution. It's a deficient view in a lot of respects. let me just say that it's a relatively new view, dating back only to to the Protestant Reformation in general and Calvin in particular. As far as anything else being heresy, well, you'd have to believe that Christianity was apostate for the first 1500 years of its history to believe that. For the first millennium or so, a view called the ransom or Christus Victor view was the dominant view. In it, the death of Christ was a sort of ransom to set us free from death and sin and evil. It wasn't until roughly the 12th century that Anselm - who has a lot to answer for in a lot of other respects - tauught the view that Christ was paying the "debt" to the Father exclusively was formulated; this became known as the satisfaction view. In it, Christ paid to the Father the debt of honour that our sin had incurred, and that we, being imperfect, were unable to pay. In the 16th century, Calvin came along and started teaching, basically as a corollary to the rest of Calvinism, the view that you're familiar with - penal substitution. It's got many problems, and it hasn't been the dominant view of the Church throughout history. I'm not sure whether the Catholics have come down on this issue in a decisive, final way - not being a Catholic, and all - but I do know that the view you were taught is outright condemned by the Eastern Orthodox. And I would more or less second them. It's a very deficient view, and has some very nasty consequences.
"As I think about that and watch the movie "The Passion" and watch Christ get beat I ask myself "Do I really deserve to get beat like that"?"
More interestingly, a point that I think Gibson made there in a very subtle way was that, in a way, we were the ones who beat Jesus up like that.
"More to the point, "Do I really deserve to suffer like that forever under God's wrath and judgment"? The answer is clearly no. I don't think anybody deserves to suffer like that. Especially forever."
Again, I think you're misconstruing the nature of Hell based upon the things that you were taught as a Christian - and I have to say, you sound like you were a dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist when you were. Hell isn't some place where God tosses you in and rakes you over the hot coals forever. Hell is the consequence of choosing the heroin needle over rehab all our lives. It's the result of choosing to disregard the warnings of family and friends that continuing to see that girlfriend on the side will destroy your marriage. It's not a punishment, it's a consequence. Hell is locked from the inside. Read Lewis's The Great Divorce for an allegorical description of what I mean.
As far as the whole "wrath" thing, I think one of the smartest things Luther ever wrote was something that went to this effect: "The wrath of God is only the Love of God experienced by a soul that stands in opposition to Him." Whatever my disagreements on Luther may be on other issues, I think that's a fairly good depiction of the Biblical motif of God's wrath.
>If Truman was omnipotent, then yes, he was a lunatic.
The analogy presupposes Truman is not omnipotent. That is analigous to the idea is that omnipotence does not mean God can do the impossible and the idea is that there is some good God preforms which must allow for some evil.
Of course I reject Theodicy on principle since a Classic Theistic conception of God needs a Theodicy like a fish needs a bicycle.
Never the less.
But you can't prove there is no morally sufficient reason for a being with perfect knowledge & omnipotent power to allow any type of suffering.
That just doesn't seem right to me. I've never beat anyone up. Especially like that. That's not something I really think is even possible. Moreover, I don't see how I recieve healing by beating the hell out of an innocent man. That's not something that would give me joy like a river down in my soul. I guess there are some theories of treatment where people do that to get out all the anger but that's not my style and not the way I've went about having the spiritual experiences of love, peace, and joy.
Ben "Rather God cannot be concieved of as morally obligated like a human Father or a human moral agent to do so.
But that is precisely how the catholic church operates, as if a family, the family of god, and god as father. The church characterises and consolidates that relationship. Why else would the tradition of priests being called 'father,' and 'brother', nuns as 'mothers' and 'sisters', and the pope, Il Papa:
"The pope (from Latin: papa; from Greek: πάππας (pappas), a child's word for father is the Bishop of Rome and the leader of the worldwide Catholic Church." (All References Library)
Tradition has it that the catholic church was purposely built around the concept of family, with god as the father, no matter how one wishes to water down the relationship today. And Cole has a very strong and legitimate case arguing why it is that a father would allow a child be burned and do nothing. It simply beggars belief to rationalise away the claimed omnipotence of god not doing something to help that child. To suggest we are not privy to god's mind for his purposes of allowing the child to be roasted just does not gel with the history of apologetics and theology that has never been short in telling us about the mind of god. Indeed christian theism is all about telling us what god wants us to do, to think, to practice, to pray, to worship him, to sing his praises on high, to proselytize. These are all god's wishes. I take as an example a comment from Syllabus who seems to know a lot about god: "From the fact that God has a morally sufficient reason to allow something, ....." And Syllabus knows this *fact* ..... how?
And you yourself, Ben, say, "Of course this whole line of argument is moot if you believe God is not a moral agent in the first place & given His nature can't coherently be concieved as one." Two questions for you, why do you use the 'conditional' -if- you believe god is not a moral agent [and if you are absolutely convinced god is not a moral agent, how do you *know* that in the first instance, and unless god has divinely revealed that to you personally what is your evidence? Or is it that you intuitively feel that is so because others who have written about it have provided the evidence from god. And if that is the case, what is their evidence that god is not a moral agent?] and secondly, *How* do you 'know' god's nature, and *how* do you 'know' His nature can't be conceived as one? Are you making a claim of fact that you know god's nature in this instance.
How does one reconcile god having a 'morally sufficient reason' on the one hand and god not 'being a moral agent' on the other? The logic is lost on me.
Syllabus "Ben: "Of course I reject Theodicy on principle since a Classic Theistic conception of God needs a Theodicy like a fish needs a bicycle."
Syllabus: Once people understand the reasoning behind it, sure. But not many do. Thus, the discussion."
And after two thousand years, what do you suppose the problem is? And how does you perspective respond to the growth of Islam? It seems to be functioning very well without the conception of Classical Theism. Could it be that Islam needs Classical Theism as a fish needs a bicycle? Just asking.
Daniel Anderson "It's called Godforsaken by Dinesh D'Souza. It actually discusses the reason for natural disasters using the anthropic principle.
Take a look - Godforsaken"
I haven't read the book but I'm not sure D'souza is a recognised specialist on either the anthropic principle or natural disasters. Has his reasons for natural disasters been picked up by any of the emergency service agencies worldwide that might be used to mitigate the tragedy of these events or is his book largely an exercise in offering a different interpretation of a theodicy that explains why god is not responsible for these disasters? I suspect, correct me if I'm wrong, it seems the need for writing the book is largely one focused on calming believers that natural disasters are not the work of god and there is a perfectly good reason why they are not. And in that respect he has my respect. There is a perfectly good naturalistic reason why god is not responsible. Of course the Pat Robertson and Billy Graham etc followers, together with innumerable catholics, know differently. Even priests within the catholic church are known to hold such views:
"Gerhard Maria Wagner, briefly an auxiliary bishop of Linz, attributed Hurricane Katrina to God's ire caused by the town's reputation for lax sexual behavior, claiming that the hurricane destroyed brothels, nightclubs and abortion clinics: "It's no coincidence that in New Orleans all five abortion clinics as well as night clubs were destroyed.".[10] James Gill, columnist for the New Orleans Times-Picayune, satirically called for the Pope next to elevate Wagner as Archbishop of New Orleans after protests from Roman Catholics in three New Orleans congregations over the merging of their churches by aging Archbishop Alfred Clifton Hughes.[11] The churches had been depopulated in part by out-migration resulting from Hurricane Katrina. Elevated by Pope Benedict XVI on January 31, 2009, Wagner resigned on February 15, 2009 amidst criticism, in part over his views of Hurricane Katrina." [Wiki] Other catholics jumped on him from a great height but, where there is smoke ....... :o) Just sayin'.
"That just doesn't seem right to me. I've never beat anyone up. Especially like that."
I was speaking symbolically. I hope you realize that. When I say that "we did that", what I mean is that we're ultimately the reason for Christ dying that way. That is, the crucifixion was undertake in order that we can be free.
"That's not something I really think is even possible. Moreover, I don't see how I recieve healing by beating the hell out of an innocent man. That's not something that would give me joy like a river down in my soul."
It's not strictly speaking the beating that heals. It's the entire project of the death.
"I guess there are some theories of treatment where people do that to get out all the anger but that's not my style"
What on Earth do you mean by that?
"and not the way I've went about having the spiritual experiences of love, peace, and joy."
OK, that's totally your prerogative. I'm just explaining that the view you're arguing against is not a majority view, and that there are perfectly reasonable alternatives to it. What you choose to do with that is up to you.
Well I might as well smack Paps around for some fun & giggles.
>But that is precisely how the catholic church operates, as if a family, the family of god, and god as father. The church characterizes and consolidates that relationship. Why else would the tradition of priests being called 'father,' and 'brother', nuns as 'mothers' and 'sisters', and the pope, Il Papa:
So in violation of the teaching of Aquinas and the Church Fathers you are making an unequivocal comparison between God and His creatures instead of an analogous one?
How many times have I told you Paps God is not compared to creatures unequivocally or wholly equivocally but analogously? How many sources have I pointed too over the years? How many links? Did you read any of them? Evidently not.
An honest and intelligent Atheist like dguller(who sharply told you off on Feser's blog for your asinine antics)wouldn't be caught dead making this argument.
He knows how to challenge Thomism from position of knowledge. You OTOH are a joke & an unfunny one.
>And Cole has a very strong and legitimate case arguing why it is that a father would allow a child be burned and do nothing.
Not really, Cole presupposes God is unequivocally compared to his creatures & not by way of analogy. Cole like you has an overly anthropomorphic A-historical view of the Christian God. Thus his argument is a category mistake. You have to argue against the God your opponent believes in not the one you wish he believed in because it hurts your little head to do the extra-homework.
Really Paps you come over to Feser's blog, announce you have no intention of reading TLS or AQUINAS and expect to be taken seriously?
You continue to argue from ignorance and still expect the same?
Don't you care about your Atheism? Don't you want to make the strongest most informed intelligent argument possible? Or do you just like scoring cheap rhetorical points because it's less work?
I still can't believe you where ever a school teacher.
>Two questions for you, why do you use the 'conditional' -if- you believe god is not a moral agent.
So why can't I ask rhetorical questions when making a theoretical philosophical argument? Why is that not obvious to you that is how I was speaking? Is it because you are an Ex-Fundamentalist & you still read things hyper-literally in spite of your move to non-belief?
I think so at this point.
> *How* do you 'know' god's nature, and *how* do you 'know' His nature can't be conceived as one? Are you making a claim of fact that you know god's nature in this instance.
This is like asking Stephen Hawking to explain what a Harte/Hawking State is in comparison to a Hawking/Penrose Singularity while stating you refuse to read any books on theoretical physics or even pick up a copy of A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME!
Paps what is it about learning basic philosophy that makes you feel so threatened? You must have some higher learning to be a school teacher so why is this so hard? If you did the reading since we first encountered each other you'd be at least at dguller's level by now.
What a waste.
>How does one reconcile god having a 'morally sufficient reason' on the one hand and god not 'being a moral agent' on the other? The logic is lost on me.
One doesn't but just because I reject the Theistic Personalist God presupposed by the "morally sufficient reason" camp doesn't mean I think the argument against that camp is any good.
I've leveled criticism against bad arguments against Young Earth Creationism made by Atheists.
Doesn't mean I'm a YEC by a long shot.
Don't you care at all about making a good argument for Atheism?
>And after two thousand years, what do you suppose the problem is? And how does you perspective respond to the growth of Islam? It seems to be functioning very well without the conception of Classical Theism. Could it be that Islam needs Classical Theism as a fish needs a bicycle? Just asking.
Wow! All I can say is Wow! Paps Classic Theism refers to Natural Theology not Revealed Theology.
Muslims are Classic Theists. You didn't know that(of course because you refuse to read Feser or Davies)
They use many of the same Platonic and Aristotlian philosophical arguments to argue for the existence of God & to draw conclusions about his nature in the area of natural theology as Christians and Jews do. They may come to a few variant conclusions but they believe in the Divine Simplicity like Jews and Christians. They believe God has no obligations etc....
Of course they may have tendencies towards Fatalism and moral volunteerism that a Thomist would reject but there is more agreement then disagreement.
Wow Paps you really can't think beyond your former Bible Only Fundamentalist Protestantism even in your present Atheism?
"It's not strictly speaking the beating that heals. It's the entire project of the death."
I don't see how the death of Christ heals. I've never experienced healing by reading about or watching a movie on the death and resurrection. It took years of reading, A.A./N.A. meetings, therapy, and medication to get where I'm at today. I'm not saying I'm perfect either. I have bad days. But there have been times when I have felt the love, serenity, and joy really strong. The presence at times is overwhelming. My mind clears the the love and joy just flows through me to others. It's like being in a state of wonder.
Papalinton, I really don't know if I should even slightly give your response any respect with an answer.
First, it would be quite the fallacy to discount Dinesh's work simply because he is not a scientist.
He is an amazing researcher and debater. Ever seen his debates? Loftus certainly didn't look very well against him. What does that say for him? Even Hitchens called Dinesh a formidable opponent.
The book is complete with cites from philosophers, theologians, physicists, etc etc. He puts together his arguments using thinkers of the past and the present and he is not afraid to take on the current thoughts of the times.
Take a read and tell me what you think. It is actually really good and thought provoking.
"I don't see how the death of Christ heals. I've never experienced healing by reading about or watching a movie on the death and resurrection. It took years of reading, A.A./N.A. meetings, therapy, and medication to get where I'm at today. I'm not saying I'm perfect either. I have bad days. But there have been times when I have felt the love, serenity, and joy really strong. The presence at times is overwhelming. My mind clears the the love and joy just flows through me to others. It's like being in a state of wonder."
OK, that's not exactly what I meant...
But, however you are able to do that, I salute you. I had/have similar issues of my own, and so I know more or less what you mean.
In any case, I think we're don for now. Call it a night?
The Cross heals the spiritual damage done to your soul from sin after you repent.
>But there have been times when I have felt the love, serenity, and joy really strong. The presence at times is overwhelming. My mind clears the the love and joy just flows through me to others. It's like being in a state of wonder.
I would say that comes from the Cross, From the Crucified and Risen Christ.
Of course as a Catholic I am bias. I admit that.:-)
"So in violation of the teaching of Aquinas and the Church Fathers you are making an unequivocal comparison between God and His creatures instead of an analogous one?"
Ben, are you familiar with:
Our father which art in heaven Hallowed be thy name ...etc.?
How does one reconcile an immaterial, omni-max, non-moral agent of Classical Theism with the very deep and personal sentiments expressed in the Lord's Prayer? There is no analogy here. Calling god in such a personal manner more than suggests that it is not an unequivocal comparison but that of a direct relationship. And if calling Il Papa [father], brothers, fathers, sisters and mothers of the church are not an expression of that relationship with god, then what other reason could there be?
Ben "Muslims are Classic Theists. You didn't know that(of course because you refuse to read Feser or Davies)
They use many of the same Platonic and Aristotlian philosophical arguments to argue for the existence of God & to draw conclusions about his nature in the area of natural theology as Christians and Jews do. They may come to a few variant conclusions but they believe in the Divine Simplicity like Jews and Christians. They believe God has no obligations etc...."
" Yes I understand that, Ben. In fact, "classical theism is, historically, the mainstream view between philosophers and is associated with the tradition of writers like Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, St. Anselm, Maimonides, Averroes and Thomas Aquinas." From Wiki.
But, "in opposition to this tradition, there are, today, philosophers like Alvin Plantinga (who rejects divine simplicity), Richard Swinburne (who rejects divine timelessness) and William Lane Craig (who reject both divine simplicity and timelessness), who can be viewed as theistic personalists."
I have no interest in any debate about the pros and cons of what classical theism, as it is generally an irrelevant and inconsequential one from the perspective of atheism. And yes I do understand that Islam would have appropriated the same thoughts of a pagan philosopher as has catholicism. After all the three Abrahamic faiths are simply variations of an older religious theme, which by the way, through Judaism, had undergone the transition from polytheism to monotheism, and onto which christianity modelled itself; then followed by another version of the old Jewish stories held in common by Muslims in the 7thC.
That is not the issue. And perhaps I could have rephrased my comment about classical theism and Islam a little better. But Ben, you yourself alluded to what I was getting to. How can the few variants of classical theism that you allude to result in such fundamentally and radically different and conflictual perceptions and conceptions of god's relationship to his followers? Mindful of the christian/muslim terror happening in Africa, and the detestation of all things christian in the West by Muslims, and the contesting rhetoric of catholic clergy and laity, ably endorsed and assisted by their evangelical and fundamentalist christian compadres in the US about Islam, does not present a good or welcoming face in the public square.
Incidentally, what does Feser say about what should be done to embrace Islam seeing catholicism and Islam are brothers-in-arms singing from the same Aristotelian hymn sheet? It seems you are advocating Islam as being little different, if not almost the same as catholicism, apart from a few minor variations, because both are founded on Classical Theism. I like your ecumenism. But I'm not sure Muslims are hearing you.
I don't have a dog in this fight but the following is an interesting christian-on-christian review of the catholic/muslim relationship. These christian are Here. Just interesting, that's all.
>How does one reconcile an immaterial, omni-max, non-moral agent of Classical Theism with the very deep and personal sentiments expressed in the Lord's Prayer?
I've explained this & you still don't pay attention.
Paps my late Cat of happy memory related to me and likely "perceived" me(if I may use that term in a lose fashion) as just another animal. Of course as a human I am an order of magnitude above a mere animal.
Why is it remarkable to you when God relates to us we in our limited capacity would perceive Him as a person like us even thought He is Infinity beyond that?
It's not hard.
I'll answer your other brain dead disingenuous shit later.
That is not likelty. If you understood you wouldn't have set the concept of Classic Theism against Islam (which historically is a Classic Theistic religion).
>And perhaps I could have rephrased my comment about classical theism and Islam a little better.
But the problem is you are not trying and thus have nothing interesting to say.
>I have no interest in any debate about the pros and cons of what classical theism, as it is generally an irrelevant and inconsequential one from the perspective of atheism.
Then by definition you have no means to give any rational arguments as to why Classic Theism is false and Atheism is true.
You are at best doomed to only be able to polemic the low brow popular superstitions of peasants
I have never met a so called "teacher" so allergic to mere learning.
dguller knows Classic Theism from Theistic Personalism. Why can't you be more like him?
You save me the ajadah you cause me with your stupidity.
Ben ">How does one reconcile an immaterial, omni-max, non-moral agent of Classical Theism with the very deep and personal sentiments expressed in the Lord's Prayer?
I've explained this & you still don't pay attention."
But you haven't. You have not explained how a catholic reconciles an immaterial, omni-max, non-moral agent of Classical Theism with the very deep and personal sentiments expressed in the Lord's Prayer. Your case has been very poorly prosecuted and has mounted to little more than personal slur and invective. Tell me, do you go into church and pray for a personal relationship with god, or do you personally pray to an impersonal, immaterial, omni-max entity. And if it is an impersonal, omni-max entity, that is not a moral agent, one that knows everything because of its omniscience, then why bother praying at all? It already knows everything. Just does not make sense. The act of praying to such a god who knows everything even before, and as it happens, and even after it happens, one that knows what you are thinking, feeling and doing, seems to be a somewhat useless and senseless thing to do. Why? Because the exercise seems completely redundant. Ben, there is no ordinary logic at play here, it is theo-logic. The act of praying to God only makes sense if you are seeking to establish a personal relationship with Him; but a 'relationship' by its very definition requires reciprocity, it's a two-way thing. If its not two-way it is not a relationship.
How do you convince Walter that he is wrong, knowing full well he too, as I understand him to be, believes in god just as fervently as you do but utterly rejects the concept of a catholic god.
I cannot envisage your perception of the world as anything but a small narrow-focussed perspective that embraces only 1/7th of the global population with the remaining 6/7th of peoples sitting outside the catholic tribe, and that those 6 billion other people are only considered of worth as 'potential' catholics ripe for proselytizing. This is not a view that is consistent with the [apparent] universality of catholicism that catholics love to claim for themselves. Your arguments are unconvincing not only to me, to Walter, but to increasingly more people around the world.
Ben you cannot keep your head in the sand. The world is speaking and the world is changing.
Finally, "Why is it remarkable to you when God relates to us we in our limited capacity would perceive Him as a person like us even thought He is Infinity beyond that?" What does this even mean in plain language? I have been told to understand that god is not 'infinity beyond' but an essence.
>You have not explained how a catholic reconciles an immaterial, omni-max, non-moral agent of Classical Theism with the very deep and personal sentiments expressed in the Lord's Prayer.
Translation: I am going to ignore what BenYachov just said to meQUOTE"Why is it remarkable to you when God relates to us we in our limited capacity would perceive Him as a person like us even thought He is Infinity beyond that?END QUOTE and repeat the same lame shit without interacting with it.
Useless thy name is Paps.
>Tell me, do you go into church and pray for a personal relationship with god, or do you personally pray to an impersonal, immaterial, omni-max entity.
Paps in the past I've told you I hold a third alternative. I don't believe in either the anthropomorphic unequivocal human mind vs The Force.
I believe in the Transcendent Intelligence/Will who is Purely Actual.
Why is this fucking hard? Oh that's right because you are too lazy to do your homework "teacher".
Ben " I believe in the Transcendent Intelligence/Will who is Purely Actual.
But it doesn't explain anything let alone mean anything. Are these Feser's words?
"Transcendence (religion), the concept of being entirely beyond the universe (Not a living being)" [the definition from The All References Library], seems to be at odds with something that is 'actual' [actual |ˈak ch oōəl| adjective; existing in fact; typically as contrasted with what was intended, expected, or believed] All References Library. How is something that is not a living being be actual? There is no sense to the concept.
You're wasting your time on a sad, lonely old man. Your time's better spent elsewhere.
I mean, seriously, especially now. Aren't you a gamer? Borderlands 2, Torchlight 2, Guild Wars 2... rather a lot to dive into rather than arguing with the "teacher".
Well crap. Cole actually made an attempt September 23, 2012 7:21 PM, so now I have to come back... may as well get back to JB, too.
Cole,
None of that "disproves" the God of the Bible and you are confused over what constitutes a "proof" in science. At best, what you mentioned "disproves" that a literalist, YEC interpretation of Scripture is partially at odds with the current scientific consensus. Scientific consensus changes often, so, you haven't shown that science "disproved" the God of the Bible. Do you have an real evidence for your claim?
JB,
Since this whole discussion is thread drift anyways, I just want to let you know I probably won't be back to reply to you after this. I'm only replying now because you took the time to reply to me, and I want to return in kind. I'd love to chat more about it, if you feel the same way then let's continue it at my blog, or your blog, or email, or whatever.
"Many/most, I think, would have to answer with “I have no idea.”"
Not I. I feel like I have a very good idea. Although it's hard to articulate in a one-line blog comment, if I had only one line to try, I'd say it's because one cannot reject that which they've neither understood nor experienced. It's not my fault that Cole or any other atheist can't think of an answer to the question, but, the fact that they can't should not be taken as any evidence or "objection" against God.
"If you (or others) simply weren’t interested in answering (some of) his questions/objections, that’s your prerogative."
No, I'm interested, it's just that I was trying to keep him focused on the initial claims he made. If you give people a long enough rope they'll take off running. You have to pin them down.
"God is said to be only capable of acting according to His own nature (“Goodness” itself), and so cannot choose evil, yet we would still consider God to be “free”, yes?"
My current opinion is that God does not have morally significant free will. So, my answer would be "no," provided that you really mean "morally significant free will" when you say "free will."
"There are always rules in this world, so we really can never be “free”. I cannot choose to reverse the laws of thermodynamics; that option is not available to me."
That you cannot reverse the laws of thermodynamics does not entail that you don't have morally significant free will. It entails that you are not omnipotent. I don't define "free" as the ability to do absolutely anything. So for me, the discussion changes accordingly.
"In any case, as I said before, *IF* someone holds that God can instantiate a reality where people can freely choose *only* good things, then this makes theodicy more difficult, IMHO."
Well, yeah, but IMHO God CANNOT instantiate a reality where people can freely choose *only* good things. That's precisely the paradox under criticism.
"None of that "disproves" the God of the Bible and you are confused over what constitutes a "proof" in science. At best, what you mentioned "disproves" that a literalist, YEC interpretation of Scripture is partially at odds with the current scientific consensus. Scientific consensus changes often, so, you haven't shown that science "disproved" the God of the Bible. Do you have an real evidence for your claim?"
I had really hoped that he had a better argument than that - say, Quentin Smith's argument against creatio ex nihilo, or a cyclical universe model that shoots the beginning back into infinity. Granted, those still fail, but they're at least competent and well thought out. The whole YEC trope, on the other hand, is just old and worn out.
For all internet Gnus and even some Atheists of good will, YEC is Christianity and they can't conceive of another.
Like I said the lot of them merely have the mundane skills to refute the superstitions of peasants.
This is of course Richard Dawkins fault. He once made some asinine remark that non-Fundamentalist Christians don't take the Bible "seriously" like he & the religious fundamentalists do.
Amazing a whole generation of Atheists condemned to stupid.
The cruel irony is if there really is no God then they are still condemned to stupid.
Life is a comedy and like all comedy it has a tragedy beneath it.
Thanks, but... next time please spare me from having to wade through 300+ comments with a direct link, if it's not too inconvenient for you. :)
On another note, I wish I would have resisted the temptation to ask, because now I just wasted another 45 minutes of my life on something related to somebody who doesn't give a rat's ass about truth or cogency. Sure, it gratified the flesh a little to laugh at the beatdown Paps received at the hands of a fellow atheist whom I respect, but, what did it really profit me?
I don't know about anyone else here, but for quite a a while now, I've been getting some real convictions about time spent indulging such commentary lately. It is so, so easy to be duped into thinking we're doing "good" by battling stubborn atheists, but, where is the biblical precedent for this? Jesus told the disciples to "shake the dust" and move to the next town when the stubborn rejected the message. Paul warned us against "vain philosophy" and "quarrels over meaningless words," because they have "no profit" to those who listen and tend to create more dissension.
Now, there is a fine line, and I'm not suggesting we refrain from reaching out to those who genuinely seek answers to questions, but, look at Paps, Cole, BI, etc. Do they strike anybody else as here to learn?
I suggest we all take it to the Lord with specific questions.
Thanks, but... next time please spare me from having to wade through 300+ comments with a direct link, if it's not too inconvenient for you. :)
Sorry man. I didn't know of any way to direct link a comment. I figured you'd just ctrl-f and look for the name in question.
Now, there is a fine line, and I'm not suggesting we refrain from reaching out to those who genuinely seek answers to questions, but, look at Paps, Cole, BI, etc. Do they strike anybody else as here to learn?
Nope, and I agree with you. Honestly, I generally know when I'm engaging in a potentially productive conversation, and just mocking someone. I flat out ignore Linton 95% of the time, same for the rest.
There's better ways to spend time. I think most people here are in 'shoot the shit' mode, not 'serious discussion' or 'get something accomplished' mode.
I did ctrl+F, it still took a while, as there were over 35+ instances of "Papalinton" on just the front page alone.
Dates serve as permalinks on many blogging platforms (I used to wish Vic would enable that here, as it makes things so much easier). If you want to link to a particular comment on Feser's blog, click the date link and copy the URL.
It sounded like you weren’t interested in continuing this conversation, and that is fair enough. Nevertheless, there were a few things you mentioned that merited a response. So…
It's not my fault that Cole or any other atheist can't think of an answer to the question, but, the fact that they can't should not be taken as any evidence or "objection" against God.
Well, I agree that it’s not evidence against God’s existence. That much is obvious. What is at issue is the omni-attributes of God. Furthermore, I stated it was a “serious objection”. By that I simply meant that I think that these are not frivolous, dismissive, hand-waves against theistic concepts of God. IMHO, they deserve a response. (And Cole certainly has gotten his fair share!)
My current opinion is that God does not have morally significant free will.
But God has non-moral “free will”? I’m not sure what this distinction accomplishes. Are God’s choices determined, or are they of His own volition?
I don't define "free" as the ability to do absolutely anything.
That’s fair. I guess my follow-up here would be how one demonstrates or defines “morally significant” free-will, and/or how one would disprove it. No offense, but it seems a nebulous concept. It seems to concede that one’s will may not be “significantly” free in other areas. And that was my point: our choices are clearly constrained and influenced. Yet, we would still affirm that we are “free”.
Well, yeah, but IMHO God CANNOT instantiate a reality where people can freely choose *only* good things.
OK, I would assume this is because you’ve defined “free will” as being able to choose between good and evil (e.g. “morally significant”)? If you define “free” as the ability to choose evil, then sure. But this isn’t “free” as it is commonly understood. In such a scenario as I described (freely choosing only good), we may not be “morally free”, but then neither (according to you) is God, and – presumably – neither are those in Heaven.
Maybe you wouldn’t affirm that we are “free” in Heaven, I don’t know. But most do. Yet, most also agree that evil is not possible in Heaven. So, there is a largely agreed-upon reality where people freely choose only Good. Someone commented that Heaven is contingent upon this world, and while that may be true, it does not follow that this is necessary. This does present a serious problem to be grappled with.
If however his scenario is completely accurate to the future state of things by seeing the actual choices before they happen (rather than just representations of the choices that could probabilistically occur), then I feel the entity will metaphysically exist.
If you believe that God has foreknowledge of our choices, then on this view you believe that you “metaphysically” existed prior to yourself?
He is then choosing not to give being to something that he already "created" because of the choices the being will make.
There is no “creation”. Perhaps the troublesome part here is my use of the term “simulation”. It seems to me that if you believe God had any other possible universes He could have created (where sentient beings arise), but did not, then He has violated free will. Yet, presumably, wouldn’t want to affirm this is the only possible universe with sentient beings – otherwise we really aren’t “free”, are we?
So, unless you want to affirm that this is the only possible universe (and I don’t think you do – because then are we really “free”?), I would argue that you probably already believe something similar to what I’ve postulated, although perhaps expressed differently.
Unless an act of creating something with intrinsic value is something "good." If such was the case then it would be quite difficult to make a moral comparison between "exist" and "not to exist." This might be a good objection, if you can somehow demonstrate that there is such a thing as “intrinsic” value. Seems to me that value is assigned from something else. Even granting that there is “intrinsic” value in creating something (anything?), I’m not sure how anyone could know whether such a value was offset by the pain and suffering caused/endured by so many. Seems to me that while we may be adding some “good”, we are nevertheless allowing “bad” again, despite the fact that it can be avoided. I guess it comes down to which is better (assuming both are possible): ONLY GOOD or MOST GOOD + EVIL/PAIN/SUFFERING. I don’t even know how we would answer that, but my point still remains that there at least seems to be a way for God to have created a free world without evil.
I think in principle, existing is greater than the things that could happen during that existence, the average person attests to it.
That people value their own existence does not demonstrate “intrinsic” value. Nor does it demonstrate superiority of existence over non-existence. How many people in a concentration camp do you think wished they had never been born? That Hitler had never been born (despite his intrinsic value)?
Also, we are pretty much back around to one of my original responses - that perhaps a greater good can come from permitting evil. Obviously the Christian story centers around several such events and one of which is of particular importance.
I acknowledge that “greater good” can conceivably come from allowing evil. What I don’t think anyone can know is whether the allowance of evil is offset by this “greater good”. Therefore, a possible scenario where there is no evil/pain/suffering becomes problematic for the “greater good” theodicy. Why is “greater good” to be valued more highly than “less bad”? What’s “better” – a larger gemstone with more inclusions, or a smaller, perfect gemstone? … And, yes, I do realize it’s problematic to compare people with things ;)
While the theoretical aspects are interesting and fun to discuss, it really doesn't mean much in relation to Christianity.
It doesn’t mean much in relation to God’s existence; but I think God’s “goodness” is crucial to Christianity. Otherwise, how do we know we can trust God? Isn’t the “gospel” basically that God has a plan – and that it is “good news”? Why should anyone trust that, if God cannot be shown to be “good”?
Thanks for responding! Good points, again. I think I misunderstood your scenario argument. I will get back to you sometime later this week. In the meantime, have a good one!
303 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 303 of 303"I must be out of my mind because I believe allowing babies to burn to death when you have the power to stop it is unloving. It's my tricky emotions."
So can you demonstrate that it is logically impossible for a "being" with perfect knowledge to have a morally sufficient reason for allowing suffering, whether it be the suffering of a baby in a burning house or my pain after my teeth were pulled or the pain of Christ on the Cross? Or can't you? Which is it?
And you may or may not be out of your mind, but that's not a logical argument, it's an emotional one. That doesn't discount it, but you can't give an emotional answer to a logical question and expect me to take it as an airtight syllogism. That's not how things work.
For goodness' sake, man, at least answer one of my questions.
"The next time a baby gets caught in a natural disaster I will say God must have a sufficient reason for this and refuse to do anything."
Oh, that's invalid on so many different levels. From the fact that God has a morally sufficient reason to allow something, it does not follow that we ought to be impotent observers to the evils of the world. That's a stupid statement, Cole. You can do better than that.
Syllabus,
"To be fair, I don't think that the emotional problem is irrelevant. It is distinct, though, and has a completely different answer than the logical or the probabilistic problem of evil."
I agree.
"Yeah, and since there are two different problems at play here, I would ask you to stop thinking that your answer to one of them is an answer to all of them."
Was this to me or to Cole? I'm confused.
"Was this to me or to Cole? I'm confused."
To Cole. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
I thought so. However, I had something going with JB so I was not sure. Sorry for the confusion.
"From the fact that God has a morally sufficient reason to allow something, it does not follow that we ought to be impotent observers to the evils of the world"
Prove it. Airtight.
"The next time a baby gets caught in a natural disaster I will say God must have a sufficient reason for this and refuse to do anything."
This kinda misses the point. If God exists, and if He allows such a scenario, how on earth do you decide "God probably wants the child to die, therefore I will do nothing." This is just as bad as when some fundamentalists claim that natural disasters are due to sin.
"If God exists, and if He allows such a scenario, how on earth do you decide "God probably wants the child to die, therefore I will do nothing"
That's the point. You don't know. The will is paralyzed.
""If God exists, and if He allows such a scenario, how on earth do you decide "God probably wants the child to die, therefore I will do nothing""
Because you don't know how to act, therefore you don't act? How on earth does that follow?
And answer the question, Cole: Do you have a logical argument that there exists no morally sufficient reason for a being with perfect knowledge to allow any type of suffering? If you shirk the question again, I'll assume this as a tacit acknowledgement that you don't and move on from there.
I don't have an argument for any type of suffering. But when a natural disaster strikes and you have the ability to perform miracles you should keep a baby from burning a slow death. It's a bit of common sense. And it is for someone who has love in their hearts for babies. Has anybody proven with airtight logic that moral truths exist?
"I don't have an argument for any type of suffering."
So no. Thanks for the answer.
"But when a natural disaster strikes and you have the ability to perform miracles you should keep a baby from burning a slow death. It's a bit of common sense. And it is for someone who has love in their hearts for babies."
By way of answer: was Harry Truman, whom I assume had love for babies in his heart, a lunatic for ordering Little Boy dropped on Hiroshima?
"Has anybody proven with airtight logic that moral truths exist?"
This is no longer a logical problem, as per your admission. This is an emotional, or at best an intuitive, problem. And intuition is no help. Our intuition has access, so to speak, to experience of moral truths. It has no such access to the experience of omniscience. Thus, the analogy is fallacious on at least one ground.
I guess we have different hearts. I don't think it's okay to let a baby suffer a slow burning death in a natural disaster. If I could perform miracles I wouldn't let any baby's burn in natural disasters. I think this tells us more about our hearts than being able to prove something with logic. They can't prove the physical world exists yet we know it does.
"If I could perform miracles I wouldn't let any baby's burn in natural disasters."
So, basically, if you were God you would have done it better.
Again, was Harry Truman a lunatic for ordering Little Boy dropped on Hiroshima? Babies burned to death there, and many more were born disfigured. Was he a lunatic? A monster? Evil?
"They can't prove the physical world exists yet we know it does."
Again, false analogy.
I'm talking about natural disasters that were supposedly designed by your God. Not bombs being dropped. Moreover, If I was omnipresent and could perform miracles yes I wouldn't let people suffer in natural disasters at all. I would create a new heaven and earth right now. I would have done it long ago. But like I say I guess we have different hearts.
"I'm talking about natural disasters that were supposedly designed by your God."
Buuuuuuuullshit. And you should know that, if you were a Christian once.
"Moreover, If I was omnipresent and could perform miracles yes I wouldn't let people suffer in natural disasters at all."
There's no way that you can know that, being that you don't know all the variables.
"I would create a new heaven and earth right now. I would have done it long ago."
Again, variables, epistemic limitations, and all that.
"But like I say I guess we have different hearts."
Maybe. But I think that the most significant difference is that I don't confuse emotional reasons for logical ones.
And really, all that you're saying boils down to this: if God were really loving, He'd be like me. Doesn't that strike you as a little bit arrogant and unknowable?
I like reasons of the heart. I think it was Blaise Pascal who said the heart has reasons that reason can never know. And yes I can know that. I simply would create a new heaven and earth right now. In fact I would have done it right the first time. I have a different heart than your God and you. Your God pours out His wrath on people destroying women and children with cruel destruction. If I could perform miracles I would never do that to people. I would create a perfect world free from sin and not create the desire for sin in peoples hearts. Without the desire for sin and only the desire for love in the hearts of people this would guarentee that there would never be any sinful deeds. For without any desire to sin whatsoever and only the desire to love in a perfect universe people would always want to love each other. They would be free but not in the libertarian sense. For it would be impossible for them to sin just as it is impossible for God to sin. They would be unable to go contrary to their own natures. But everyone would still be free to choose what they want - love, peace, and happiness forever and ever. Instead we have what we have today.
Cole,
I've tried to recommend this book to you several times.
It's called Godforsaken by Dinesh D'Souza. It actually discusses the reason for natural disasters using the anthropic principle.
Take a look - Godforsaken
Cole,
You by definition don't know what it is like to be God.
Thus I must agree with Syllabus you are giving emotional arguments not logical ones.
No emotional answer to a logical question is valid.
But I don't hold it against you.
Peace.
BTW Cole God has already created such a world you describe.
It's called Heaven.
I think it is safe to say that we have overall concluded that science will not rule out the possibility of God.
This seems impossible based on the metaphysical assumptions that must be made to declare such a thing, and the fact that science is inductive so it will always be limited.
Of course this whole line of argument is moot if you believe God is not a moral agent in the first place & given His nature can't coherently be concieved as one.
Daniel,
I can just look around and see that things just arent perfect. I would never design things to where babies suffer in natural disasters. Or anybody for that matter. Especially if I could perform miracles. The Bible is filled with a wrathful God. It's not just wrath but cruel and unusual to me. But like it was said before I just have a different heart than you people do. My Higher Power is one of love, compassion, and justice. It doesn't tear people to shreds.
Again, was Harry Truman a lunatic for ordering Little Boy dropped on Hiroshima? Babies burned to death there, and many more were born disfigured. Was he a lunatic? A monster? Evil?
That may be something of a poor example since many feel that the specific targeting of noncombatants in that instance *was* immoral.
Cole, you wrote, "I can just look around and see that things just arent perfect. I would never design things to where babies suffer in natural disasters. Or anybody for that matter. Especially if I could perform miracles. The Bible is filled with a wrathful God. It's not just wrath but cruel and unusual to me. But like it was said before I just have a different heart than you people do. My Higher Power is one of love, compassion, and justice. It doesn't tear people to shreds."
So...purposeful ignorance then? If you were God would you also square a circle?
Take a look at the book. Omnipotence does not mean being able to do everything, it means doing everything possible.
In the book Dinesh argues that this world is the only possible resulting world based on the anthropic principle. I'm not saying he fully achieves his goal, I have to put more thought into it. But it may be worth a look rather than just saying, "I see things the way I see them and that is that."
Daniel,
I can just see that you do not break babies arms and legs in natural disasters. You do not treat children that way. You can jump through all the hoops you want. It's perfectly clear to me. I know what love is and what I see in the universe at times just isn't it. There's something really wrong.
Look man, I spend most of my days in a hospital as a chaplain. I also work for orphans in Honduras and am on board of an adoption agency which tries to help facilitate adoptions.
Some of these orphans were raped at the age of 3, living in a garbage dump, and this ministry rescued them to help them. I've been to the places where this has happened. It is truly emotional and really daunting.
Every day I am taking time with people who find out they have cancer, who are dying of some other disease, etc etc.
However, to go off the emotional argument, I have to ask myself why I think all of this is so wrong. If there is not a God and a source of real good, then these things just "are." They are not actually right or wrong, we are left with nihilism. Yet, I observe that such things seem "off" and that things "ought" to be another way. From a purely emotional and existential stand point I have to ask myself why I have such strong feelings about this. Where do they come from? From evolution alone? If that is the case then my feelings are worthless and do not really represent the real state of things.
If we want to get emotional, you have to ask yourself if your emotions are valid in a non-theistic view. Or, perhaps your feelings are a prompt to do something about it yourself.
He looks to fulfill things through his followers - he dwells fully in his body. Right now, in Honduras (the place I go to help) it is the Christians that take in the Orphans and try to help them. It is the Christians trying to feed the starving. In Haiti, Christians are still going in droves to help out from the natural disaster.
Your emotions are not contrary to Christianity, they are in line with it. Now go something about it and ask your higher power for help while you are at it.
This is purely in response to the emotional, not the logical.
"I can just see that you do not break babies arms and legs in natural disasters. You do not treat children that way. You can jump through all the hoops you want. It's perfectly clear to me. I know what love is and what I see in the universe at times just isn't it. There's something really wrong."
Once again, the book attempts to answer this. Take a look for yourself. :)
By the way, I have found emotional fulfilling answers to such questions when I have gone to help people going through these things.
Every day of mine is spent in these types of situations and I try to find other opportunities to help. Either that feeling is worthless in a nihilistic universe or it means something. If it means something then theism becomes much more plausible and pertinent.
So, go do something. Jesus never promised that there wouldn't be hungry people, he said that those who went to help such were also doing it unto him! You are not going to get an answer to the emotional aspect unless you actually give an emotional investment. Sitting back theorizing about it is not going to do anything.
Just realize the logical solution is not daunted because there are emotional problems.
@Walter
You are technically correct but the argument is salvaged if one takes any field commander that orders a bombing of a vital military target that might result in civilian collateral damage.
Daniel,
If you want to continue trying to prove and justify the insanity we see at times in the world then go ahead. I think I'm going to stick with love. That may make you upset because love is partly emotional but you're going to have to accept that. The way I see it there is no justifying the abuse of people. Especially when you can perform miracles.
Since I believe God is metaphysically & ontologically good but not a moral agent I find I can no longer coherently blame God for allowing the evil in my life(i.e. Father of three autistic kids) & I can be grateful to Him for the good he has given me.
I know God owes me nothing but I know He loves me because He created me.
my book recommendation.
THE REALITY OF GOD AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL by Brian Davies.
OoOoOooO, a Brian Davies one. I had never heard of this. Consider it added to the wishlist!
>That may make you upset because love is partly emotional but you're going to have to accept that.
That is not correct. Love is to will the good for someone or something.
Emotions need not be involved.
You are technically correct but the argument is salvaged if one takes any field commander that orders a bombing of a vital military target that might result in civilian collateral damage.
Not trying to start a rabbit trail away from the current running topic, but there is a considerable difference in accidental collateral damage and the specific targeting of civilian noncombatants in an attempt to demoralize the enemy.
I think Syllabus might want to use a less controversial analogy.
Cole,
"If you want to continue trying to prove and justify the insanity we see at times in the world then go ahead. I think I'm going to stick with love. That may make you upset because love is partly emotional but you're going to have to accept that. The way I see it there is no justifying the abuse of people. Especially when you can perform miracles."
Wow Cole, did you read what I wrote? I experience this stuff on a daily basis. Your not saying anything that is surprising to me.
I just told you an emotional side, you've now ignored that and the logical side.
By the way, the importance of the logical side is that emotional experiences can offset each other. I know people who ended up thankful for their cancer because of how it influenced a change of thinking and drew them closer to God. They found meaning because of what they went through.
I know cases that had the opposite effect. See, emotional offset. Should God have saved each cancer patient when there could be the greatest potential of meaning and good to come out of it? Or only certain ones where such meaning was impossible?
That's why we have the logical argument, is the existence of evil devastating to the existence of a good God? You haven't said anything here to demonstrate such in a logical way.
>Not trying to start a rabbit trail away from the current running topic, but there is a considerable difference in accidental collateral damage and the specific targeting of civilian noncombatants in an attempt to demoralize the enemy.
Of course which is why my suggestion solves that problem.
BTW FYI I am not saying the dropping the A-bomb on Japan fits the generic example I gave. IMHO it does not.
I am merely saying a Commander in the field may morally licitly bomb a vital military target even if he knows innocent civilians will die from his actions.
Just as I may morally give a drug to a Pregnant woman that will cure her fatal illness even if I know it will miscarry her child.
I would not be guilty of the sin of abortion in that case.
Double effect.
Daniel Anderson,
Take it easy on Cole he is struggling with mental health issues.
(BTW that is not a personal attack on Cole merely a plea to treat him well and not upselt him in light of his condition).
My answer to Cole would be this:
The Problem of Evil fades if you no longer conceive of God as a human father who croons lullabies to one child while neglecting another child next to who is suffering horribly from disease or starvation. I know my deistic POV will not sit well with Christian audiences, but I believe that part of the emotional rejection of Christian theism is caused by the Christian depiction of a personal and anthropopathic deity who is perceived as a human writ large.
>The Problem of Evil fades if you no longer conceive of God as a human father who croons lullabies to one child while neglecting another child next to who is suffering horribly from disease or starvation.
Rather God cannot be concieved of as morally obligated like a human Father or a human moral agent to do so.
>I know my deistic POV will not sit well with Christian audiences,
Rather modern post enlightenment ones with no knowledge of Classic Theism. the Fathers, the Rabbis, the Mystics and Contemplatives etc...
>but I believe that part of the emotional rejection of Christian theism is caused by the Christian depiction of a personal and anthropopathic deity who is perceived as a human writ large.
God must be seen as The Mystery and the Ultimate Source of the good we find in our loving earthly fathers and mothers.
We must become adults and put away childish things & eat spiritual meat over mere milk.
In short we must stop thinking of God as a giant human person only more Uber.
He is Trans-personal or Super-Personal in that He has Intellect and Will but He is not a human person.
Thank God!!!
Mr. C: The king has no clothes.
Mr. D: You fool, of course he has clothes.
Mr. C: But I can see him. He's butt naked.
Mr. D: You just don't see him in the proper perspective like I do. He's wearing a purple robe.
Mr. C: You're wearing glasses with a robe painted on them.
Mr. D: Am not.
Mr. F: Purple robe! Anyone can see he's wearing a yellow polo shirt. Fools.
Mr. C: Your glasses have a yellow shirt on them.
Mr. F: I pity your ignorance. My glasses are the only ones that make sense, and you can't possibly refute that, because I won't accept it.
Mr. G: What a bunch of morons. The king has no body at all. He is pure light. I can see him in all his splendor.
Mr. C: But your glasses are painted white.
Mr. G: How many times must I go over this? The glasses give me the power to see the truth.
Mr. C: But you can't see anything.
Mr. G: I see only what is true.
Mr. C: The king still isn't wearing any clothes.
Ben,
That's not it at all. This God of yours is suppose to be a miracle working all-powerful, all-loving being. When children get their faces melted off as their eyeballs pop out of their sockets I do not see love there. Especially when God can perform miracles. If you think that's love then more power to ya.
I see im-skeptical is giving us the Couriers Reply....literally.
Dude this is a lame response worthy of Paps or BI.
Come on you are better then that.
@Cole
No emotional argument you make will move me in the face of logic and philosophy. That is just the way it is my friend.
>That's not it at all. This God of yours is suppose to be a miracle working all-powerful, all-loving being.
God is not a being He is Being Itself(that is not the same thing) so that is your first mistake.
>When children get their faces melted off as their eyeballs pop out of their sockets I do not see love there. Especially when God can perform miracles. If you think that's love then more power to ya.
Cole I see my poor wife age Ten years every day of her life worrying about our kids.
But we see love in the world so we see God.
Anyway take some time read some of the books recommended to you & the Higher Power
be with you.
I'm still pulling for ya.
Cheers my friend.
Ben,
Okay, I'll use the word God instead of being. Since your all-loving, miracle working, all-powerful God allows children to have the flesh ripped off their bodies through natural disasters and you consider that love then more power to you.
>I'll use the word God instead of being.
Then we can't have a rational discussion since I don't philosophically define God the way you do.
Nor do I conceive of God in the hyper-literal unequivocally anthropomorphic way you do.
Like I said I only respond to logic and philosophy not emotion.
But I wish you well.
PS Maybe later I can point out why your claim science refutes the Bible is way off. Or maybe not since something else might grab my interest.
Cheers.
Also Ben,
Thanks for the kindness and support you have been showing me. It's really appreciated.
It's my honor Cole.
Peace be with you.
Ben,
Thats great. Maybe one day I will learn logic as well as you and come to the same conclusions about love. Take care.
Cole,
Learn Thomism & read Brian Davies book on Aquinas and that might be a start.
Plus Feser's THE LAST SUPERSTITION & his other book AQUINAS(maybe PHILOSOPHY OF MIND too).
It changed my whole outlook on God and Theism.
Classic Theism is so much better than Theistic Personalism.
So much better....
Cheers.
"That may be something of a poor example since many feel that the specific targeting of noncombatants in that instance *was* immoral."
"Not trying to start a rabbit trail away from the current running topic, but there is a considerable difference in accidental collateral damage and the specific targeting of civilian noncombatants in an attempt to demoralize the enemy."
I agree, the example might be somewhat controversial, but here's the point I'm trying to make with it:
The reason, so far as I've been able to gather, that Truman ordered the attacks upon Japan was that his generals and analysts projected somewhere in the ballpark of 1.5 million casualties, both civilian and military, if the invasion of Japan were to proceed perforce. Thus, the nuclear strikes. That is, Truman actualized a possibility that contained a good deal of nasty stuff, but only in order to avoid an even worse one. Whether or not the decision was moral or immoral wasn't really the point I was trying to make here - only that the action undertaken, though unquestionably bad, was taken to avoid a worse or less desirable. This strikes me as an analogous situation to the one in which God creates a possible world that contains the possibility for evil. Sure, He actualizes a state of affairs that contains less-than-optimal features, but they are the best ones available. Again, the distinction between logically possible and logically feasible worlds comes to mind.
Now, of course this isn't a perfect analogy, as Walter pointed out very correctly. The situations are dis-analogous in some very obvious ways. However, I was never presenting the end of the Pacific Theatre of WWII as a perfect analogy to the situation WRT God and evil and suffering. If I had gotten an answer right away, I would have made the point that I made above sooner. Of course, there's probably a better analogy out there - PC design, perhaps.
"Since your all-loving, miracle working, all-powerful God allows children to have the flesh ripped off their bodies through natural disasters and you consider that love then more power to you."
I think Ben is right - Love, in the Divine sense is willing the good of the other. Pain, in many cases, can demonstrably lead to the good of the other. So I see no logical problem with allowing suffering and pain in order to lead to the ultimate good of the other.
And please, spare me the emotionally charged language. To echo DA, that stuff carries very little weight on the written page when you've actually seen it with your eyes. I was in Honduras this year, translating for a team of doctors up in the mountains. You wouldn't believe some of the crap that goes on down there. I've seen all that you're talking about. And I know that 90% of it is going on because lazy bastards like me don't do enough for these people, not because God doesn't work some bloody miracle.
Thank God, so to speak, that these so-called atheists and agnostics and deists and assorted other God-deniers are more moral than Morality Himself is!
=====
And, damn that J.R.R.Tolkien for creating a world in which innocent children, to say nothing of Hobbits, suffer and die!
Syllabus,
I guess we just see things differently. I like to give reasons from my heart and you like to try to prove things with rational logic. I'm not sure I will never see things such as the allowance of someone raping and murdering a child as being love. Especially if you are an all-powerful, all-loving, miracle working God. It seems to me that the more power and love you have to more you would want to stop such things as they progress more and more towards the evil deed. Perhaps create some law enforcement angels to restrain the rapist and take him to jail. I don't see how an all-loving, all-powerful, miracle working God would value the rapists/murderers free will over the life of a child.
"It seems to me that the more power and love you have to more you would want to stop such things as they progress more and more towards the evil deed."
And I very much believe that God wants to stop it. That's not the point.
a
"I don't see how an all-loving, all-powerful, miracle working God would value the rapists/murderers free will over the life of a child."
I can think of two or three ways off the top of my head, but I suspect you'll just say much the same thing as you have before. Yours is the question of Ivan Karamazov. And, now that you're not trying to make emotional arguments sound like logical ones, I won't go after you about them, if you don't want. You've admitted what your reasons are openly and honestly, and I respect that.
I would, however, make one final comment. If Christianity is true, then God isn't just sitting up in some cloud, above all the rape and torture and greed and pride of the human race, untouched by it all. If Christianity is true, then God experienced the the pain and anguish of the raped child, the pain and grief and anger of the mother and father who find their child like that, the starvation of the children, the depravity and guilt of the rapist, all these things that people brought upon people, and all of these to the greatest possible degree that is possible. He took all the pain and death and sin of the a world broken by its purported caretakers and experienced it, so that it all might be redeemed and made perfect, and will see that all injustice, pride, cowardice, greed, gluttony and arrogance receives its due reward. Does that sound like an abusive, lunatic God? Does that sound like the capricious God that you've been railing against this whole time?
Hey Syllabus,
Actually I was taught that the Father was taking His wrath out on Christ through the actions of evil men. Christ took what we deserved and gave us what we don't deserve - grace. Any other view was considered heresy. As I think about that and watch the movie "The Passion" and watch Christ get beat I ask myself "Do I really deserve to get beat like that"? More to the point, "Do I really deserve to suffer like that forever under God's wrath and judgment"? The answer is clearly no. I don't think anybody deserves to suffer like that. Especially forever.
"was Harry Truman a lunatic for ordering Little Boy dropped on Hiroshima?"
If Truman was omnipotent, then yes, he was a lunatic.
"Actually I was taught that the Father was taking His wrath out on Christ through the actions of evil men. Christ took what we deserved and gave us what we don't deserve - grace. Any other view was considered heresy."
Yeah, penal substitution. It's a deficient view in a lot of respects. let me just say that it's a relatively new view, dating back only to to the Protestant Reformation in general and Calvin in particular. As far as anything else being heresy, well, you'd have to believe that Christianity was apostate for the first 1500 years of its history to believe that. For the first millennium or so, a view called the ransom or Christus Victor view was the dominant view. In it, the death of Christ was a sort of ransom to set us free from death and sin and evil. It wasn't until roughly the 12th century that Anselm - who has a lot to answer for in a lot of other respects - tauught the view that Christ was paying the "debt" to the Father exclusively was formulated; this became known as the satisfaction view. In it, Christ paid to the Father the debt of honour that our sin had incurred, and that we, being imperfect, were unable to pay. In the 16th century, Calvin came along and started teaching, basically as a corollary to the rest of Calvinism, the view that you're familiar with - penal substitution. It's got many problems, and it hasn't been the dominant view of the Church throughout history. I'm not sure whether the Catholics have come down on this issue in a decisive, final way - not being a Catholic, and all - but I do know that the view you were taught is outright condemned by the Eastern Orthodox. And I would more or less second them. It's a very deficient view, and has some very nasty consequences.
"As I think about that and watch the movie "The Passion" and watch Christ get beat I ask myself "Do I really deserve to get beat like that"?"
More interestingly, a point that I think Gibson made there in a very subtle way was that, in a way, we were the ones who beat Jesus up like that.
"More to the point, "Do I really deserve to suffer like that forever under God's wrath and judgment"? The answer is clearly no. I don't think anybody deserves to suffer like that. Especially forever."
Again, I think you're misconstruing the nature of Hell based upon the things that you were taught as a Christian - and I have to say, you sound like you were a dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist when you were. Hell isn't some place where God tosses you in and rakes you over the hot coals forever. Hell is the consequence of choosing the heroin needle over rehab all our lives. It's the result of choosing to disregard the warnings of family and friends that continuing to see that girlfriend on the side will destroy your marriage. It's not a punishment, it's a consequence. Hell is locked from the inside. Read Lewis's The Great Divorce for an allegorical description of what I mean.
As far as the whole "wrath" thing, I think one of the smartest things Luther ever wrote was something that went to this effect: "The wrath of God is only the Love of God experienced by a soul that stands in opposition to Him." Whatever my disagreements on Luther may be on other issues, I think that's a fairly good depiction of the Biblical motif of God's wrath.
BI unlike Cole you have no excuses.
>If Truman was omnipotent, then yes, he was a lunatic.
The analogy presupposes Truman is not omnipotent. That is analigous to the idea is that omnipotence does not mean God can do the impossible and the idea is that there is some good God preforms which must allow for some evil.
Of course I reject Theodicy on principle since a Classic Theistic conception of God needs a Theodicy like a fish needs a bicycle.
Never the less.
But you can't prove there is no morally sufficient reason for a being with perfect knowledge & omnipotent power to allow any type of suffering.
"Of course I reject Theodicy on principle since a Classic Theistic conception of God needs a Theodicy like a fish needs a bicycle."
Once people understand the reasoning behind it, sure. But not many do. Thus, the discussion.
"we were the ones who beat Jesus up like that."
That just doesn't seem right to me. I've never beat anyone up. Especially like that. That's not something I really think is even possible. Moreover, I don't see how I recieve healing by beating the hell out of an innocent man. That's not something that would give me joy like a river down in my soul. I guess there are some theories of treatment where people do that to get out all the anger but that's not my style and not the way I've went about having the spiritual experiences of love, peace, and joy.
Ben
"Rather God cannot be concieved of as morally obligated like a human Father or a human moral agent to do so.
But that is precisely how the catholic church operates, as if a family, the family of god, and god as father. The church characterises and consolidates that relationship. Why else would the tradition of priests being called 'father,' and 'brother', nuns as 'mothers' and 'sisters', and the pope, Il Papa:
"The pope (from Latin: papa; from Greek: πάππας (pappas), a child's word for father is the Bishop of Rome and the leader of the worldwide Catholic Church." (All References Library)
Tradition has it that the catholic church was purposely built around the concept of family, with god as the father, no matter how one wishes to water down the relationship today. And Cole has a very strong and legitimate case arguing why it is that a father would allow a child be burned and do nothing. It simply beggars belief to rationalise away the claimed omnipotence of god not doing something to help that child. To suggest we are not privy to god's mind for his purposes of allowing the child to be roasted just does not gel with the history of apologetics and theology that has never been short in telling us about the mind of god. Indeed christian theism is all about telling us what god wants us to do, to think, to practice, to pray, to worship him, to sing his praises on high, to proselytize. These are all god's wishes. I take as an example a comment from Syllabus who seems to know a lot about god: "From the fact that God has a morally sufficient reason to allow something, ....." And Syllabus knows this *fact* ..... how?
And you yourself, Ben, say, "Of course this whole line of argument is moot if you believe God is not a moral agent in the first place & given His nature can't coherently be concieved as one." Two questions for you, why do you use the 'conditional' -if- you believe god is not a moral agent [and if you are absolutely convinced god is not a moral agent, how do you *know* that in the first instance, and unless god has divinely revealed that to you personally what is your evidence? Or is it that you intuitively feel that is so because others who have written about it have provided the evidence from god. And if that is the case, what is their evidence that god is not a moral agent?] and secondly, *How* do you 'know' god's nature, and *how* do you 'know' His nature can't be conceived as one? Are you making a claim of fact that you know god's nature in this instance.
How does one reconcile god having a 'morally sufficient reason' on the one hand and god not 'being a moral agent' on the other? The logic is lost on me.
Syllabus
"Ben: "Of course I reject Theodicy on principle since a Classic Theistic conception of God needs a Theodicy like a fish needs a bicycle."
Syllabus: Once people understand the reasoning behind it, sure. But not many do. Thus, the discussion."
And after two thousand years, what do you suppose the problem is? And how does you perspective respond to the growth of Islam? It seems to be functioning very well without the conception of Classical Theism. Could it be that Islam needs Classical Theism as a fish needs a bicycle? Just asking.
Daniel Anderson
"It's called Godforsaken by Dinesh D'Souza. It actually discusses the reason for natural disasters using the anthropic principle.
Take a look - Godforsaken"
I haven't read the book but I'm not sure D'souza is a recognised specialist on either the anthropic principle or natural disasters. Has his reasons for natural disasters been picked up by any of the emergency service agencies worldwide that might be used to mitigate the tragedy of these events or is his book largely an exercise in offering a different interpretation of a theodicy that explains why god is not responsible for these disasters? I suspect, correct me if I'm wrong, it seems the need for writing the book is largely one focused on calming believers that natural disasters are not the work of god and there is a perfectly good reason why they are not. And in that respect he has my respect. There is a perfectly good naturalistic reason why god is not responsible. Of course the Pat Robertson and Billy Graham etc followers, together with innumerable catholics, know differently. Even priests within the catholic church are known to hold such views:
"Gerhard Maria Wagner, briefly an auxiliary bishop of Linz, attributed Hurricane Katrina to God's ire caused by the town's reputation for lax sexual behavior, claiming that the hurricane destroyed brothels, nightclubs and abortion clinics: "It's no coincidence that in New Orleans all five abortion clinics as well as night clubs were destroyed.".[10] James Gill, columnist for the New Orleans Times-Picayune, satirically called for the Pope next to elevate Wagner as Archbishop of New Orleans after protests from Roman Catholics in three New Orleans congregations over the merging of their churches by aging Archbishop Alfred Clifton Hughes.[11] The churches had been depopulated in part by out-migration resulting from Hurricane Katrina. Elevated by Pope Benedict XVI on January 31, 2009, Wagner resigned on February 15, 2009 amidst criticism, in part over his views of Hurricane Katrina." [Wiki] Other catholics jumped on him from a great height but, where there is smoke ....... :o) Just sayin'.
"But you can't prove there is no morally sufficient reason for a being with perfect knowledge & omnipotent power to allow any type of suffering."
Ah yes, the retreat to mere possibility. So feeble.
BRB reading Yujin Nagasawa's "MaximalGod and the Problem of Evil."
"That just doesn't seem right to me. I've never beat anyone up. Especially like that."
I was speaking symbolically. I hope you realize that. When I say that "we did that", what I mean is that we're ultimately the reason for Christ dying that way. That is, the crucifixion was undertake in order that we can be free.
"That's not something I really think is even possible. Moreover, I don't see how I recieve healing by beating the hell out of an innocent man. That's not something that would give me joy like a river down in my soul."
It's not strictly speaking the beating that heals. It's the entire project of the death.
"I guess there are some theories of treatment where people do that to get out all the anger but that's not my style"
What on Earth do you mean by that?
"and not the way I've went about having the spiritual experiences of love, peace, and joy."
OK, that's totally your prerogative. I'm just explaining that the view you're arguing against is not a majority view, and that there are perfectly reasonable alternatives to it. What you choose to do with that is up to you.
Well I might as well smack Paps around for some fun & giggles.
>But that is precisely how the catholic church operates, as if a family, the family of god, and god as father. The church characterizes and consolidates that relationship. Why else would the tradition of priests being called 'father,' and 'brother', nuns as 'mothers' and 'sisters', and the pope, Il Papa:
So in violation of the teaching of Aquinas and the Church Fathers you are making an unequivocal comparison between God and His creatures instead of an analogous one?
How many times have I told you Paps God is not compared to creatures unequivocally or wholly equivocally but analogously? How many sources have I pointed too over the years? How many links? Did you read any of them? Evidently not.
An honest and intelligent Atheist like dguller(who sharply told you off on Feser's blog for your asinine antics)wouldn't be caught dead making this argument.
He knows how to challenge Thomism from position of knowledge. You OTOH are a joke & an unfunny one.
>And Cole has a very strong and legitimate case arguing why it is that a father would allow a child be burned and do nothing.
Not really, Cole presupposes God is unequivocally compared to his creatures & not by way of analogy. Cole like you has an overly anthropomorphic A-historical view of the Christian God. Thus his argument is a category mistake. You have to argue against the God your opponent believes in not the one you wish he believed in because it hurts your little head to do the extra-homework.
Really Paps you come over to Feser's blog, announce you have no intention of reading TLS or AQUINAS and expect to be taken seriously?
You continue to argue from ignorance and still expect the same?
Don't you care about your Atheism? Don't you want to make the strongest most informed intelligent argument possible? Or do you just like scoring cheap rhetorical points because it's less work?
I still can't believe you where ever a school teacher.
>Two questions for you, why do you use the 'conditional' -if- you believe god is not a moral agent.
So why can't I ask rhetorical questions when making a theoretical philosophical argument? Why is that not obvious to you that is how I was speaking? Is it because you are an Ex-Fundamentalist & you still read things hyper-literally in spite of your move to non-belief?
I think so at this point.
> *How* do you 'know' god's nature, and *how* do you 'know' His nature can't be conceived as one? Are you making a claim of fact that you know god's nature in this instance.
This is like asking Stephen Hawking to explain what a Harte/Hawking State is in comparison to a Hawking/Penrose Singularity while stating you refuse to read any books on theoretical physics or even pick up a copy of A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME!
Paps what is it about learning basic philosophy that makes you feel so threatened? You must have some higher learning to be a school teacher so why is this so hard? If you did the reading since we first encountered each other you'd be at least at dguller's level by now.
What a waste.
>How does one reconcile god having a 'morally sufficient reason' on the one hand and god not 'being a moral agent' on the other? The logic is lost on me.
One doesn't but just because I reject the Theistic Personalist God presupposed by the "morally sufficient reason" camp doesn't mean I think the argument against that camp is any good.
I've leveled criticism against bad arguments against Young Earth Creationism made by Atheists.
Doesn't mean I'm a YEC by a long shot.
Don't you care at all about making a good argument for Atheism?
At all?
"Don't you care at all about making a good argument for Atheism?
At all?"
That question kind of answers itself, I think.
>And after two thousand years, what do you suppose the problem is? And how does you perspective respond to the growth of Islam? It seems to be functioning very well without the conception of Classical Theism. Could it be that Islam needs Classical Theism as a fish needs a bicycle? Just asking.
Wow! All I can say is Wow! Paps Classic Theism refers to Natural Theology not Revealed Theology.
Muslims are Classic Theists. You didn't know that(of course because you refuse to read Feser or Davies)
They use many of the same Platonic and Aristotlian philosophical arguments to argue for the existence of God & to draw conclusions about his nature in the area of natural theology as Christians and Jews do. They may come to a few variant conclusions but they believe in the Divine Simplicity like Jews and Christians. They believe God has no obligations etc....
Of course they may have tendencies towards Fatalism and moral volunteerism that a Thomist would reject but there is more agreement then disagreement.
Wow Paps you really can't think beyond your former Bible Only Fundamentalist Protestantism even in your present Atheism?
Wow!
Now to BI who is if you can believe it a dumber version of Paps.
>>"But you can't prove there is no morally sufficient reason for a being with perfect knowledge & omnipotent power to allow any type of suffering."
>Ah yes, the retreat to mere possibility. So feeble.
So you do concede it is a possibility?
Thanks for that you have just given your opponents the lion's share of the argument.
Nice job.
"It's not strictly speaking the beating that heals. It's the entire project of the death."
I don't see how the death of Christ heals. I've never experienced healing by reading about or watching a movie on the death and resurrection. It took years of reading, A.A./N.A. meetings, therapy, and medication to get where I'm at today. I'm not saying I'm perfect either. I have bad days. But there have been times when I have felt the love, serenity, and joy really strong. The presence at times is overwhelming. My mind clears the the love and joy just flows through me to others. It's like being in a state of wonder.
Papalinton, I really don't know if I should even slightly give your response any respect with an answer.
First, it would be quite the fallacy to discount Dinesh's work simply because he is not a scientist.
He is an amazing researcher and debater. Ever seen his debates? Loftus certainly didn't look very well against him. What does that say for him? Even Hitchens called Dinesh a formidable opponent.
The book is complete with cites from philosophers, theologians, physicists, etc etc. He puts together his arguments using thinkers of the past and the present and he is not afraid to take on the current thoughts of the times.
Take a read and tell me what you think. It is actually really good and thought provoking.
"I don't see how the death of Christ heals. I've never experienced healing by reading about or watching a movie on the death and resurrection. It took years of reading, A.A./N.A. meetings, therapy, and medication to get where I'm at today. I'm not saying I'm perfect either. I have bad days. But there have been times when I have felt the love, serenity, and joy really strong. The presence at times is overwhelming. My mind clears the the love and joy just flows through me to others. It's like being in a state of wonder."
OK, that's not exactly what I meant...
But, however you are able to do that, I salute you. I had/have similar issues of my own, and so I know more or less what you mean.
In any case, I think we're don for now. Call it a night?
@David Anderson
Don't feed the gremlins after midnight, dude. They'll just start ranting and posting huge block quotes instead of actually making arguments.
Syllabus,
Sorry. You're right.
Papalinton - Dinesh is awful and Loftus won that debate! :)
>I don't see how the death of Christ heals.
The Cross heals the spiritual damage done to your soul from sin after you repent.
>But there have been times when I have felt the love, serenity, and joy really strong. The presence at times is overwhelming. My mind clears the the love and joy just flows through me to others. It's like being in a state of wonder.
I would say that comes from the Cross, From the Crucified and Risen Christ.
Of course as a Catholic I am bias. I admit that.:-)
Cheers.
"So in violation of the teaching of Aquinas and the Church Fathers you are making an unequivocal comparison between God and His creatures instead of an analogous one?"
Ben, are you familiar with:
Our father which art in heaven
Hallowed be thy name ...etc.?
How does one reconcile an immaterial, omni-max, non-moral agent of Classical Theism with the very deep and personal sentiments expressed in the Lord's Prayer? There is no analogy here. Calling god in such a personal manner more than suggests that it is not an unequivocal comparison but that of a direct relationship. And if calling Il Papa [father], brothers, fathers, sisters and mothers of the church are not an expression of that relationship with god, then what other reason could there be?
Ben
"Muslims are Classic Theists. You didn't know that(of course because you refuse to read Feser or Davies)
They use many of the same Platonic and Aristotlian philosophical arguments to argue for the existence of God & to draw conclusions about his nature in the area of natural theology as Christians and Jews do. They may come to a few variant conclusions but they believe in the Divine Simplicity like Jews and Christians. They believe God has no obligations etc...."
" Yes I understand that, Ben. In fact, "classical theism is, historically, the mainstream view between philosophers and is associated with the tradition of writers like Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, St. Anselm, Maimonides, Averroes and Thomas Aquinas." From Wiki.
But, "in opposition to this tradition, there are, today, philosophers like Alvin Plantinga (who rejects divine simplicity), Richard Swinburne (who rejects divine timelessness) and William Lane Craig (who reject both divine simplicity and timelessness), who can be viewed as theistic personalists."
I have no interest in any debate about the pros and cons of what classical theism, as it is generally an irrelevant and inconsequential one from the perspective of atheism. And yes I do understand that Islam would have appropriated the same thoughts of a pagan philosopher as has catholicism. After all the three Abrahamic faiths are simply variations of an older religious theme, which by the way, through Judaism, had undergone the transition from polytheism to monotheism, and onto which christianity modelled itself; then followed by another version of the old Jewish stories held in common by Muslims in the 7thC.
That is not the issue. And perhaps I could have rephrased my comment about classical theism and Islam a little better. But Ben, you yourself alluded to what I was getting to. How can the few variants of classical theism that you allude to result in such fundamentally and radically different and conflictual perceptions and conceptions of god's relationship to his followers? Mindful of the christian/muslim terror happening in Africa, and the detestation of all things christian in the West by Muslims, and the contesting rhetoric of catholic clergy and laity, ably endorsed and assisted by their evangelical and fundamentalist christian compadres in the US about Islam, does not present a good or welcoming face in the public square.
Incidentally, what does Feser say about what should be done to embrace Islam seeing catholicism and Islam are brothers-in-arms singing from the same Aristotelian hymn sheet? It seems you are advocating Islam as being little different, if not almost the same as catholicism, apart from a few minor variations, because both are founded on Classical Theism. I like your ecumenism. But I'm not sure Muslims are hearing you.
I don't have a dog in this fight but the following is an interesting christian-on-christian review of the catholic/muslim relationship. These christian are Here. Just interesting, that's all.
>How does one reconcile an immaterial, omni-max, non-moral agent of Classical Theism with the very deep and personal sentiments expressed in the Lord's Prayer?
I've explained this & you still don't pay attention.
Paps my late Cat of happy memory related to me and likely "perceived" me(if I may use that term in a lose fashion) as just another animal. Of course as a human I am an order of magnitude above a mere animal.
Why is it remarkable to you when God relates to us we in our limited capacity would perceive Him as a person like us even thought He is Infinity beyond that?
It's not hard.
I'll answer your other brain dead disingenuous shit later.
>Yes I understand that, Ben. In fact,
That is not likelty. If you understood you wouldn't have set the concept of Classic Theism against Islam (which historically is a Classic Theistic religion).
>And perhaps I could have rephrased my comment about classical theism and Islam a little better.
But the problem is you are not trying and thus have nothing interesting to say.
>I have no interest in any debate about the pros and cons of what classical theism, as it is generally an irrelevant and inconsequential one from the perspective of atheism.
Then by definition you have no means to give any rational arguments as to why Classic Theism is false and Atheism is true.
You are at best doomed to only be able to polemic the low brow popular superstitions of peasants
I have never met a so called "teacher" so allergic to mere learning.
dguller knows Classic Theism from Theistic Personalism. Why can't you be more like him?
You save me the ajadah you cause me with your stupidity.
Ben
">How does one reconcile an immaterial, omni-max, non-moral agent of Classical Theism with the very deep and personal sentiments expressed in the Lord's Prayer?
I've explained this & you still don't pay attention."
But you haven't. You have not explained how a catholic reconciles an immaterial, omni-max, non-moral agent of Classical Theism with the very deep and personal sentiments expressed in the Lord's Prayer. Your case has been very poorly prosecuted and has mounted to little more than personal slur and invective.
Tell me, do you go into church and pray for a personal relationship with god, or do you personally pray to an impersonal, immaterial, omni-max entity. And if it is an impersonal, omni-max entity, that is not a moral agent, one that knows everything because of its omniscience, then why bother praying at all? It already knows everything. Just does not make sense. The act of praying to such a god who knows everything even before, and as it happens, and even after it happens, one that knows what you are thinking, feeling and doing, seems to be a somewhat useless and senseless thing to do. Why? Because the exercise seems completely redundant.
Ben, there is no ordinary logic at play here, it is theo-logic.
The act of praying to God only makes sense if you are seeking to establish a personal relationship with Him; but a 'relationship' by its very definition requires reciprocity, it's a two-way thing. If its not two-way it is not a relationship.
How do you convince Walter that he is wrong, knowing full well he too, as I understand him to be, believes in god just as fervently as you do but utterly rejects the concept of a catholic god.
I cannot envisage your perception of the world as anything but a small narrow-focussed perspective that embraces only 1/7th of the global population with the remaining 6/7th of peoples sitting outside the catholic tribe, and that those 6 billion other people are only considered of worth as 'potential' catholics ripe for proselytizing. This is not a view that is consistent with the [apparent] universality of catholicism that catholics love to claim for themselves. Your arguments are unconvincing not only to me, to Walter, but to increasingly more people around the world.
See here
And here
Ben you cannot keep your head in the sand. The world is speaking and the world is changing.
Finally, "Why is it remarkable to you when God relates to us we in our limited capacity would perceive Him as a person like us even thought He is Infinity beyond that?" What does this even mean in plain language? I have been told to understand that god is not 'infinity beyond' but an essence.
@Paps here is a quarter buy a clue.
>You have not explained how a catholic reconciles an immaterial, omni-max, non-moral agent of Classical Theism with the very deep and personal sentiments expressed in the Lord's Prayer.
Translation: I am going to ignore what BenYachov just said to meQUOTE"Why is it remarkable to you when God relates to us we in our limited capacity would perceive Him as a person like us even thought He is Infinity beyond that?END QUOTE and repeat the same lame shit without interacting with it.
Useless thy name is Paps.
>Tell me, do you go into church and pray for a personal relationship with god, or do you personally pray to an impersonal, immaterial, omni-max entity.
Paps in the past I've told you I hold a third alternative. I don't believe in either the anthropomorphic unequivocal human mind vs The Force.
I believe in the Transcendent Intelligence/Will who is Purely Actual.
Why is this fucking hard? Oh that's right because you are too lazy to do your homework "teacher".
Give me a break.
Paps you suck at defending Atheism.
Ben
"
I believe in the Transcendent Intelligence/Will who is Purely Actual.
But it doesn't explain anything let alone mean anything. Are these Feser's words?
"Transcendence (religion), the concept of being entirely beyond the universe (Not a living being)" [the definition from The All References Library], seems to be at odds with something that is 'actual' [actual |ˈak ch oōəl| adjective; existing in fact; typically as contrasted with what was intended, expected, or believed] All References Library. How is something that is not a living being be actual?
There is no sense to the concept.
Ben,
You're wasting your time on a sad, lonely old man. Your time's better spent elsewhere.
I mean, seriously, especially now. Aren't you a gamer? Borderlands 2, Torchlight 2, Guild Wars 2... rather a lot to dive into rather than arguing with the "teacher".
Crude,
Did you read over at Feser's blog when dguller gave him a good smack?
Paps later got all sheepish and apologized for his behavior later on. It went under the radar but I noticed it.
I guess a small part of me wants to hope that even the likes of Paps could change his self defeating ways.
But yeh it's better to be a cynic at this point. Paps is a fundamentalist threw and threw.
He loves his invalid arguments & methods more then the "valid truth" he ultimately believes.
I think I hear FALLOUT NEW VEGAS call me.
Ben,
So I saw. It was hilarious. He didn't change his ways - he was simply exposed, knew it, and hoofed it. Nothing too encouraging there.
Still with New Vegas? Ah well, onto Borderlands 2 for myself. I love a game heavy on the loot.
Well crap. Cole actually made an attempt September 23, 2012 7:21 PM, so now I have to come back... may as well get back to JB, too.
Cole,
None of that "disproves" the God of the Bible and you are confused over what constitutes a "proof" in science. At best, what you mentioned "disproves" that a literalist, YEC interpretation of Scripture is partially at odds with the current scientific consensus. Scientific consensus changes often, so, you haven't shown that science "disproved" the God of the Bible. Do you have an real evidence for your claim?
JB,
Since this whole discussion is thread drift anyways, I just want to let you know I probably won't be back to reply to you after this. I'm only replying now because you took the time to reply to me, and I want to return in kind. I'd love to chat more about it, if you feel the same way then let's continue it at my blog, or your blog, or email, or whatever.
"Many/most, I think, would have to answer with “I have no idea.”"
Not I. I feel like I have a very good idea. Although it's hard to articulate in a one-line blog comment, if I had only one line to try, I'd say it's because one cannot reject that which they've neither understood nor experienced. It's not my fault that Cole or any other atheist can't think of an answer to the question, but, the fact that they can't should not be taken as any evidence or "objection" against God.
"If you (or others) simply weren’t interested in answering (some of) his questions/objections, that’s your prerogative."
No, I'm interested, it's just that I was trying to keep him focused on the initial claims he made. If you give people a long enough rope they'll take off running. You have to pin them down.
"God is said to be only capable of acting according to His own nature (“Goodness” itself), and so cannot choose evil, yet we would still consider God to be “free”, yes?"
My current opinion is that God does not have morally significant free will. So, my answer would be "no," provided that you really mean "morally significant free will" when you say "free will."
"There are always rules in this world, so we really can never be “free”. I cannot choose to reverse the laws of thermodynamics; that option is not available to me."
That you cannot reverse the laws of thermodynamics does not entail that you don't have morally significant free will. It entails that you are not omnipotent. I don't define "free" as the ability to do absolutely anything. So for me, the discussion changes accordingly.
"In any case, as I said before, *IF* someone holds that God can instantiate a reality where people can freely choose *only* good things, then this makes theodicy more difficult, IMHO."
Well, yeah, but IMHO God CANNOT instantiate a reality where people can freely choose *only* good things. That's precisely the paradox under criticism.
Crude,
Can you point me to the dguller / Paps thing? I just looked briefly to no avail.
Thanks bud.
cl,
Right here.
"None of that "disproves" the God of the Bible and you are confused over what constitutes a "proof" in science. At best, what you mentioned "disproves" that a literalist, YEC interpretation of Scripture is partially at odds with the current scientific consensus. Scientific consensus changes often, so, you haven't shown that science "disproved" the God of the Bible. Do you have an real evidence for your claim?"
I had really hoped that he had a better argument than that - say, Quentin Smith's argument against creatio ex nihilo, or a cyclical universe model that shoots the beginning back into infinity. Granted, those still fail, but they're at least competent and well thought out. The whole YEC trope, on the other hand, is just old and worn out.
For all internet Gnus and even some Atheists of good will, YEC is Christianity and they can't conceive of another.
Like I said the lot of them merely have the mundane skills to refute the superstitions of peasants.
This is of course Richard Dawkins fault. He once made some asinine remark that non-Fundamentalist Christians don't take the Bible "seriously" like he & the religious fundamentalists do.
Amazing a whole generation of Atheists condemned to stupid.
The cruel irony is if there really is no God then they are still condemned to stupid.
Life is a comedy and like all comedy it has a tragedy beneath it.
Cheers.
Crude,
Thanks, but... next time please spare me from having to wade through 300+ comments with a direct link, if it's not too inconvenient for you. :)
On another note, I wish I would have resisted the temptation to ask, because now I just wasted another 45 minutes of my life on something related to somebody who doesn't give a rat's ass about truth or cogency. Sure, it gratified the flesh a little to laugh at the beatdown Paps received at the hands of a fellow atheist whom I respect, but, what did it really profit me?
I don't know about anyone else here, but for quite a a while now, I've been getting some real convictions about time spent indulging such commentary lately. It is so, so easy to be duped into thinking we're doing "good" by battling stubborn atheists, but, where is the biblical precedent for this? Jesus told the disciples to "shake the dust" and move to the next town when the stubborn rejected the message. Paul warned us against "vain philosophy" and "quarrels over meaningless words," because they have "no profit" to those who listen and tend to create more dissension.
Now, there is a fine line, and I'm not suggesting we refrain from reaching out to those who genuinely seek answers to questions, but, look at Paps, Cole, BI, etc. Do they strike anybody else as here to learn?
I suggest we all take it to the Lord with specific questions.
cl,
Thanks, but... next time please spare me from having to wade through 300+ comments with a direct link, if it's not too inconvenient for you. :)
Sorry man. I didn't know of any way to direct link a comment. I figured you'd just ctrl-f and look for the name in question.
Now, there is a fine line, and I'm not suggesting we refrain from reaching out to those who genuinely seek answers to questions, but, look at Paps, Cole, BI, etc. Do they strike anybody else as here to learn?
Nope, and I agree with you. Honestly, I generally know when I'm engaging in a potentially productive conversation, and just mocking someone. I flat out ignore Linton 95% of the time, same for the rest.
There's better ways to spend time. I think most people here are in 'shoot the shit' mode, not 'serious discussion' or 'get something accomplished' mode.
Crude,
I did ctrl+F, it still took a while, as there were over 35+ instances of "Papalinton" on just the front page alone.
Dates serve as permalinks on many blogging platforms (I used to wish Vic would enable that here, as it makes things so much easier). If you want to link to a particular comment on Feser's blog, click the date link and copy the URL.
Take care
@cI
It sounded like you weren’t interested in continuing this conversation, and that is fair enough. Nevertheless, there were a few things you mentioned that merited a response. So…
It's not my fault that Cole or any other atheist can't think of an answer to the question, but, the fact that they can't should not be taken as any evidence or "objection" against God.
Well, I agree that it’s not evidence against God’s existence. That much is obvious. What is at issue is the omni-attributes of God. Furthermore, I stated it was a “serious objection”. By that I simply meant that I think that these are not frivolous, dismissive, hand-waves against theistic concepts of God. IMHO, they deserve a response. (And Cole certainly has gotten his fair share!)
My current opinion is that God does not have morally significant free will.
But God has non-moral “free will”? I’m not sure what this distinction accomplishes. Are God’s choices determined, or are they of His own volition?
I don't define "free" as the ability to do absolutely anything.
That’s fair. I guess my follow-up here would be how one demonstrates or defines “morally significant” free-will, and/or how one would disprove it. No offense, but it seems a nebulous concept. It seems to concede that one’s will may not be “significantly” free in other areas. And that was my point: our choices are clearly constrained and influenced. Yet, we would still affirm that we are “free”.
Well, yeah, but IMHO God CANNOT instantiate a reality where people can freely choose *only* good things.
OK, I would assume this is because you’ve defined “free will” as being able to choose between good and evil (e.g. “morally significant”)? If you define “free” as the ability to choose evil, then sure. But this isn’t “free” as it is commonly understood. In such a scenario as I described (freely choosing only good), we may not be “morally free”, but then neither (according to you) is God, and – presumably – neither are those in Heaven.
Maybe you wouldn’t affirm that we are “free” in Heaven, I don’t know. But most do. Yet, most also agree that evil is not possible in Heaven. So, there is a largely agreed-upon reality where people freely choose only Good. Someone commented that Heaven is contingent upon this world, and while that may be true, it does not follow that this is necessary. This does present a serious problem to be grappled with.
@Daniel – sorry for the delayed response!
If however his scenario is completely accurate to the future state of things by seeing the actual choices before they happen (rather than just representations of the choices that could probabilistically occur), then I feel the entity will metaphysically exist.
If you believe that God has foreknowledge of our choices, then on this view you believe that you “metaphysically” existed prior to yourself?
He is then choosing not to give being to something that he already "created" because of the choices the being will make.
There is no “creation”. Perhaps the troublesome part here is my use of the term “simulation”. It seems to me that if you believe God had any other possible universes He could have created (where sentient beings arise), but did not, then He has violated free will. Yet, presumably, wouldn’t want to affirm this is the only possible universe with sentient beings – otherwise we really aren’t “free”, are we?
So, unless you want to affirm that this is the only possible universe (and I don’t think you do – because then are we really “free”?), I would argue that you probably already believe something similar to what I’ve postulated, although perhaps expressed differently.
Unless an act of creating something with intrinsic value is something "good." If such was the case then it would be quite difficult to make a moral comparison between "exist" and "not to exist."
This might be a good objection, if you can somehow demonstrate that there is such a thing as “intrinsic” value. Seems to me that value is assigned from something else. Even granting that there is “intrinsic” value in creating something (anything?), I’m not sure how anyone could know whether such a value was offset by the pain and suffering caused/endured by so many. Seems to me that while we may be adding some “good”, we are nevertheless allowing “bad” again, despite the fact that it can be avoided. I guess it comes down to which is better (assuming both are possible): ONLY GOOD or MOST GOOD + EVIL/PAIN/SUFFERING. I don’t even know how we would answer that, but my point still remains that there at least seems to be a way for God to have created a free world without evil.
I think in principle, existing is greater than the things that could happen during that existence, the average person attests to it.
That people value their own existence does not demonstrate “intrinsic” value. Nor does it demonstrate superiority of existence over non-existence. How many people in a concentration camp do you think wished they had never been born? That Hitler had never been born (despite his intrinsic value)?
Also, we are pretty much back around to one of my original responses - that perhaps a greater good can come from permitting evil. Obviously the Christian story centers around several such events and one of which is of particular importance.
I acknowledge that “greater good” can conceivably come from allowing evil. What I don’t think anyone can know is whether the allowance of evil is offset by this “greater good”. Therefore, a possible scenario where there is no evil/pain/suffering becomes problematic for the “greater good” theodicy. Why is “greater good” to be valued more highly than “less bad”? What’s “better” – a larger gemstone with more inclusions, or a smaller, perfect gemstone? … And, yes, I do realize it’s problematic to compare people with things ;)
While the theoretical aspects are interesting and fun to discuss, it really doesn't mean much in relation to Christianity.
It doesn’t mean much in relation to God’s existence; but I think God’s “goodness” is crucial to Christianity. Otherwise, how do we know we can trust God? Isn’t the “gospel” basically that God has a plan – and that it is “good news”? Why should anyone trust that, if God cannot be shown to be “good”?
JB,
Thanks for responding! Good points, again. I think I misunderstood your scenario argument. I will get back to you sometime later this week. In the meantime, have a good one!
Post a Comment