tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post115422579966482948..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Evil and the Atheism of the GapsVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger196125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18825146223255690822015-06-11T21:00:58.973-07:002015-06-11T21:00:58.973-07:00Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog a...Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I<br />have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way I’ll be<br />subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon.<br /><a href="http://acemaxs44.com/obat-tradisional-infeksi-saluran-kemih/" rel="nofollow">Obat Tradisional Infeksi Saluran kemih</a><br /><a href="http://acemaxs44.com/obat-tradisional-infeksi-saluran-kemih/" rel="nofollow">acemaxs44.com/obat-tradisional-infeksi-saluran-kemih/</a>Dunia Hitamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03071406136807561682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19084811865526132762012-06-16T13:45:51.668-07:002012-06-16T13:45:51.668-07:00">When you say that no possible world can ...<i>">When you say that no possible world can be too bad for God not to create it, this conveys the image of an uncaring God who doesn't give two shits for the created beings that populate his world."<br /><br />If he didn't "give two shits" he wouldn't have created in the first place but this emotional plea is still based on the incoherent concept that God is somehow obligated to us. He simply is not.</i><br /><br />And thus you argue for the impersonal God of Deism. It is the only conclusion that can be drawn without appealling to special revelation.<br /><br /><i>The Reputation God has is he readily forgives sinners and might help you out if you ask but he doesn't owe you help.</i><br /><br />Another appeal to special revelation. There is no philosophical argument which purports to show that the Prime Mover answers human prayers or "forgives" human evils.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8894441601933748442012-06-12T13:46:16.608-07:002012-06-12T13:46:16.608-07:00This Post is a late response but you never know wh...This Post is a late response but you never know who will read it.<br /><br />@Walter<br />>What you say may be of great comfort to you, but it will be far less so to someone who is a skeptic.<br /><br />The rational conclusions by definition are comforting. The skeptic has no rational retort thus I must conclude the reason is emotional.<br /><br />>When you say that no possible world can be too bad for God not to create it, this conveys the image of an uncaring God who doesn't give two shits for the created beings that populate his world. <br /><br />If he didn't "give two shits" he wouldn't have created in the first place but this emotional plea is still based on the incoherent concept that God is somehow obligated to us. He simply is not.<br /><br /><br />>Those of that are created are simply suppose to praise God for the positive "good" of existence itself, even if that existence is filled with misery. Surely you can see how this would be less than satisfactory for some.<br /><br />No rather I find it of great confort I can not coherently blame God for my trouble and I am free to love Him in spite of the shit. Once you disabuse yourself of the fantasy that God owes you anything and except the reality you owe him everything you are free.<br /><br />>BTW, I was using the word "character" as a synonym for "reputation."<br /><br />The Reputation God has is he readily forgives sinners and might help you out if you ask but he doesn't owe you help.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5217737867584693232012-05-30T12:47:08.076-07:002012-05-30T12:47:08.076-07:00Matt,
I'll leave the other stuff aside for no...<b>Matt</b>,<br /><br />I'll leave the other stuff aside for now, other than to say kudos to you for dealing with our criticisms honestly, and head-on. I've been making my way through this entire thread, and snagged a few of your comments along the way. The progression isn't necessarily chronological or even related for that matter, and I still haven't made it through all 200 comments. These are just isolated grabs I took for one reason or another.<br /><br /><i>"Not all evil is caused by man's freedom of choice. After all, the vast (read 99.9999999%) of suffering has occurred before man even came onto the scene. Why should God instantiate a world in which there was so much suffering prior to the it's supposed purpose?"</i><br /><br />You're conflating evil and suffering. As traditionally defined, all evil results from man's abuse of freedom. Therefore, there was no evil before the first sin, whether there was suffering or not. What I'd like to know is this: why do you and most every other atheist simply assume that there is a logical incompatibility between an omnibenevolent God and natural suffering? Do you have something besides your feelings to justify this starting assumption?<br /><br /><i>"It's a pretty gross error to assert that acting is tantamount to having the capacity to act. Whenever I have the choice between drinking an IPA and a stout, I choose the IPA. This doesn't mean that I don't have the ability to choose the stout - I simply don't act upon that possibility."</i><br /><br />That strikes me as a betrayal of the determinism I've heard you argue elsewhere. Have you changed your thinking on this? I ask because, if said determinism is true, then you really *DON'T* have the choice between an IPA and a stout. This "choice" is merely an epiphenomenal illusion.<br /><br /><i>"The could in (2) will work if you change it to "Matt choosing a Stout [would] never be accomplished", but there is no reason it can't be."</i><br /><br />That's incorrect. (1) is the reason it can't be. If God made a world in which Matt always chose IPA, Matt neither could nor would choose stout in such a world. You'd have to change (1) to, "God created a world in which Matt can choose either IPA or stout" in order for the statement, "Matt could choose stout" to be true.<br /><br /><i>"...God, being a perfect being, ought have instantiated the world without imperfection."</i><br /><br />Why? You're going to have to give me some reason other than, "Because Matt DeStefano says so on the internet." As just one possible retort, why can't a perfect being use imperfection to bring about perfection? <br /><br /><i>"Did you even read this joke of a website?"</i><br /><br />Bad signs, Matt, bad signs... there's no possible way you could have read enough of the site to justify that remark. Quell your inner Loftus.<br /><br /><i>"The word games that you guys play to make your beliefs fit are incredible."</i><br /><br />Regardless of who's in the right or wrong between you and Yachov, you've irrationally taken an alleged mistake by one person and leaped to "us guys." C'mon man, reel things in here. Cool down. Resist the Loftus!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38012961457458657102012-05-30T08:30:49.691-07:002012-05-30T08:30:49.691-07:00Ben
What you say may be of great comfort to you, ...Ben<br /><br />What you say may be of great comfort to you, but it will be far less so to someone who is a skeptic. When you say that no possible world can be too bad for God not to create it, this conveys the image of an uncaring God who doesn't give two shits for the created beings that populate his world. Those of that are created are simply suppose to praise God for the positive "good" of existence itself, even if that existence is filled with misery. Surely you can see how this would be less than satisfactory for some.<br /><br />BTW, I was using the word "character" as a synonym for "reputation."Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77417613020227371112012-05-30T08:24:08.078-07:002012-05-30T08:24:08.078-07:00QUOTE" And then such an eager desire will tak...QUOTE" And then such an eager desire will take possession of our soul to gaze upon and enjoy this supreme Good, that she will be irresistibly drawn to God, and will long with all her powers to contemplate His ineffable beauty. And if on account of her sins she is deprived of this beatific vision, it will cause her the most intense anguish. No grief, no torture known in this world can be in any wise likened to it.<br /><br />St. Bonaventure bears witness to this, when he says: "The most terrible penalty of the damned is being shut out forever from the blissful and joyous contemplation of the Blessed Trinity." Again, St. John Chrysostom says: "I know many persons only fear Hell because of its pains, but I assert that the loss of the celestial glory is a source of more bitter pain than all the torments of Hell.............<br /><br /><br />Consequently, if God were to send an Angel to the portals of Hell, with this message to the wretched denizens of that place of torment: "The Almighty has in His mercy had compassion on you, and He is willing you should be released from one of the penalties you endure; which shall it be?" What thinkest thou would be the reply? They would all as one man exclaim: "O good Angel, pray God that if only of His bounty He would no longer deprive us of the sight of His countenance! "This is the one favour they would implore of God. Were it possible for them, in the midst of Hell-fire, to behold the Divine countenance, for the joy of it they would no longer heed the devouring flames. For the vision of God is so beauteous, so blissful, so full of rapture and infinite delight, that all the joys and attractions of earth cannot compare with it in the remotest degree.<br /><br />In fact, all celestial happiness, how greatsoever it might be, would be turned to bitterness if the vision of God was wanting; and the redeemed would choose rather to be in Hell, if they could there enjoy that Beatific Vision, than be in Heaven without it. Just as the privilege of be holding the Divine countenance constitutes the chief felicity of the blessed, the one without which all others would be no happiness at all, so it is the chief misery of Hell, that the lost souls should for ever be excluded from it. On this subject St. John Chrysostom says: "The torments of a thousand Hells are nothing in comparison to the anguish of being banished from everlasting bliss and the vision of God."END QUOTE<br />-THE FOUR LAST THINGSSon of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22453330770783972312012-05-30T08:23:47.139-07:002012-05-30T08:23:47.139-07:00>As for the best of all possible worlds, I reca...>As for the best of all possible worlds, I recall the question being whether the "heaven" you believed in was the best of all possible worlds.<br /><br />Without the Beatific Vision then Heaven is pointless. God is perfect and the Soul's vision of that Perfect Beauty is worth all things.<br /><br />See the next post.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30300006208770034922012-05-30T08:16:19.088-07:002012-05-30T08:16:19.088-07:00>God's existence would not be threatened so...>God's existence would not be threatened so much as his character or reputation would be.<br /><br />"Character" is something only a human person or something unequivocally compared to a human person can have. Thus only a Theistic Personalist deity can have "Character". It's an incoherent concept when applied to CT. Like talking about God containing all perfection also means God therefore has Perfect Muscle tone.<br /><br />>We can take some bite out of the PoE by declaring God to be remote, impersonal, or so transcendent as to be unaffected by human suffering, <br /><br />Rather we just disabuse ourselves of the notion it is coherent to claim He has any moral obligation to stop it when it is in fact incoherent to even imagine CT God to be a moral agent.<br /><br />>but this would portray a God who could never be praised for his benevolence, just respected or feared due to his power.<br /><br />You still think of God in Theistic Personalist terms or impersonalist terms. To some degree.<br />We will work on you.<br /><br />God is ontologically and metaphysically God. He gave us being which is good and to which He derives no benefit and has no obligation to do in the first place. <br /><br /><br />Like I said if Trump pays for my Gas bill but not my property taxes he can only be praised for what he has done (which he didn't have to do in the 1st place) and he can't be condemned for goods he hasn't rendered which he has by definition no obligation to render.<br /><br />This is the difference between praising CT God vs Cosmic Santa.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11636974277062229612012-05-29T16:43:42.131-07:002012-05-29T16:43:42.131-07:00As for the deism thing, what beliefs would you say...<i>As for the deism thing, what beliefs would you say deism and CT cannot share?</i><br /><br />It depends on whose deism you are referring to. Historically, deists believed in a mechanistic universe devoid of immanent teleogy; they would not have been classical theists, as the God they believed in would be something different from the one described by Aristotle. But I see no reason why a deist cannot be an Aristotelian deist.<br /><br /><i> All I know so far is that you reject revelations, but believe there's a God who created the universe, who can be known through reason alone, and whose existence is threatened by the POE.</i><br /><br />God's existence would not be threatened so much as his character or reputation would be. We can take some bite out of the PoE by declaring God to be remote, impersonal, or so transcendent as to be unaffected by human suffering, but this would portray a God who could never be praised for his benevolence, just respected or feared due to his power.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71664617862210186792012-05-29T11:34:52.645-07:002012-05-29T11:34:52.645-07:00Walter,
"Suppositions such as this always ci...<b>Walter</b>,<br /><br /><i>"Suppositions such as this always circle back to mystery."</i><br /><br />Some might, but there is no circling back to mystery here. I believe God did supply people with innate knowledge of morality. Though we have our sociopaths and psychopaths, innate senses of morality as evidenced by subsequent systems are ubiquitous across cultures. Though I believe God preferred we would never have sinned in the first place, now that we have, allowing us the freedom to ignore these senses will prove why we need to obey our Creator. In my opinion, this circles back to reason and empiricism stemming from God's desire to permanently eliminate sin and suffering—not mystery.<br /><br />As for the deism thing, what beliefs would you say deism and CT cannot share? I'm trying to get a little more info from you. All I know so far is that you reject revelations, but believe there's a God who created the universe, who can be known through reason alone, and whose existence is threatened by the POE. This confuses me, because earlier you said the God of CT more-or-less defangs the POE (with some caveat about falling into disfavor with the people). Well, if the God of CT more-or-less defangs the POE, and you can reasonably classify yourself as a CT as you just said, then how is the POE any threat to what you believe?<br /><br />Forgive me if it seems like I'm coming at you. I'm not. There's just a few disconnects here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11477655014064098232012-05-29T11:04:18.383-07:002012-05-29T11:04:18.383-07:00Backpedaling up the thread, you asked Ben why God ...<i>Backpedaling up the thread, you asked Ben why God wouldn't create the best of all possible worlds from the getgo. Part of my answer is that humanity needed an empirical demonstration of the necessity of absolute obedience to God's word. IOW, God had to allow us the chance to "go it alone" in order to prove that we can't go it alone without disastrous consequences for the creation.</i><br /><br />Why would humanity need a demonstration when God could simply create people with the innate knowledge that they can't go it alone? Suppositions such as this always circle back to mystery. <br /><br /><i>Then what becomes the pertinent line of demarcation? Is your concept of God the same as the one conceived of by medieval philosophers of religion? If so, would you say you can wear either label (CT/deist) interchangeably? If not, why not?</i><br /><br />I certainly can classify myself as a CT. The reason I use the label of deist is so that the average person I meet won't automatically think that I am a Christian theist.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57407054480939742512012-05-29T09:37:18.832-07:002012-05-29T09:37:18.832-07:00Walter,
Backpedaling up the thread, you asked Ben...<b>Walter</b>,<br /><br />Backpedaling up the thread, you asked Ben why God wouldn't create the best of all possible worlds from the getgo. Part of my answer is that humanity needed an empirical demonstration of the necessity of absolute obedience to God's word. IOW, God had to allow us the chance to "go it alone" in order to prove that we can't go it alone without disastrous consequences for the creation.<br /><br />In your last comment to me, you wrote,<br /><br /><i>"You do not have to belong to a revealed religion to be considered a CT."</i><br /><br />I already understood that. <br /><br /><i>"A deist can be considered a classical theist as long as the deist's conception of God is the same as the one conceived of by medieval philosophers of religion."</i><br /><br />Then what becomes the pertinent line of demarcation? Is your concept of God the same as the one conceived of by medieval philosophers of religion? If so, would you say you can wear either label (CT/deist) interchangeably? If not, why not?<br /><br /><b>Ben</b>,<br /><br />Thanks for your efforts, I've got a few things to add to your discussion with Matt, but it'll take another day or three for sure.<br /><br />As for the best of all possible worlds, I recall the question being whether the "heaven" you believed in was the best of all possible worlds. Maybe this is just semantics, but it seems to me the "heaven" and New Earth described in the Bible qualifies as the best of all possible worlds. I'm not sure I agree with you that God could have always made a better world, especially because "better" is a value-laden concept (is a world with free will and sin better than a world without free will or sin? Etc.). My concern is that your position seems to imply there is a world better than the eternal restoration God desires to bring about, and I guess I'm just having trouble seeing how / why that could be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31521494055683674322012-05-29T04:59:31.159-07:002012-05-29T04:59:31.159-07:00BTW I would reject the concept of "the best o...BTW I would reject the concept of "the best of all possible worlds" because only God can be absolutely perfect. Part of His perfection is He is uncreated & thus how can he "create" an uncreated world?<br /><br />That is why Thomism rejects this concept. God could have always made a better world & as long as it participates in being there is no world so bad God must refrain from creating it.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4404437111363125382012-05-29T04:54:50.414-07:002012-05-29T04:54:50.414-07:00cl,
I would personally assume since Walter aspire...cl,<br /><br />I would personally assume since Walter aspires to believe in the existence of the God of Aristotle then that is the God he intends to believe in & thus can be called a Classic Theist.<br /><br />The God of Aristotle is the True God of Abraham sans any information we might obtain about him from Divine Revelation.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64981566612899243042012-05-29T04:31:36.626-07:002012-05-29T04:31:36.626-07:00Don't put words in my mouth bud. I'm simpl...<i><br />Don't put words in my mouth bud. I'm simply asking why you're a deist, as opposed to some form of classical theist or Christian.</i><br /><br />Let's try this again. A deist can be considered a classical theist as long as the deist's conception of God is the same as the one conceived of by medieval philosophers of religion. You do not have to belong to a revealed religion to be considered a CT. If you wish to discuss why I am not a Christian then I'm afraid that will take us too far afield from the topic at hand, so we will save it for a future post.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1165325192338378412012-05-28T20:44:21.204-07:002012-05-28T20:44:21.204-07:00Walter,
"What makes you think that deism is ...<b>Walter</b>,<br /><br /><i>"What makes you think that deism is not compatible with classical theism? "</i><br /><br />Don't put words in my mouth bud. I'm simply asking why you're a deist, as opposed to some form of classical theist or Christian. An informative answer would get us closer to fruit than... whatever that yuck was.<br /><br />So, let's try again: why are you a deist and not a Christian, Catholic, Muslim or Jew?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59295245866068710422012-05-28T20:36:43.544-07:002012-05-28T20:36:43.544-07:00grodrigues,
Great comment at May 21, 2012 4:20 PM...<b>grodrigues</b>,<br /><br />Great comment at May 21, 2012 4:20 PM. Very well thought-out IMHO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19529468258954197432012-05-28T20:28:56.886-07:002012-05-28T20:28:56.886-07:00Would you say you're not a CT because of the P...<i>Would you say you're not a CT because of the POE, but you're not an atheist because reason alone is sufficient to establish deity, and that you might have to become an atheist if reason along can't defang the POE against deism? </i><br /><br />Classical theism is philosophical theism. One need not be a Christian, Muslim, or Jew to be a CT. Even if I never found a good answer to the POE, I would still feel that there is sufficient reason to believe in a divine Creator.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21436702449928653142012-05-28T20:19:53.164-07:002012-05-28T20:19:53.164-07:00I'm interested in knowing why you aren't s...<i>I'm interested in knowing why you aren't some form of classical theist, as well as why you're not an atheist.</i><br /><br />What makes you think that deism is not compatible with classical theism? Last I checked Aristotle was no Christian.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48110516977995572592012-05-28T20:17:51.618-07:002012-05-28T20:17:51.618-07:00Ben,
I spoke too soon, the following lines were t...<b>Ben</b>,<br /><br />I spoke too soon, the following lines were the icing on the cake:<br /><br /><i>"That's life son & the POE is different for the Classic Theist and the Classic Theist doesn't presupose a God with any obligations to his creatures. Otherwise it's not God."</i><br /><br />...then, finally,<br /><br /><i>"Adapt or perish!"</i><br /><br />Pure beauty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83367590233699482862012-05-28T20:16:20.949-07:002012-05-28T20:16:20.949-07:00Ben,
"You don't see me bitching because ...<b>Ben</b>,<br /><br /><i>"You don't see me bitching because my anti-materialist polemics don't phase a Platonic Atheist!"</i><br /><br />Woo hoo! That, my friend, is one of the better responses I've heard to that lame "argument from religious disagreement" you see atheists often wage. Trite, concise, witty... a real gem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74862088093311613422012-05-28T20:12:46.356-07:002012-05-28T20:12:46.356-07:00Walter,
I'm interested in knowing why you are...<b>Walter</b>,<br /><br />I'm interested in knowing why you aren't some form of classical theist, as well as why you're not an atheist. Would you say you're not a CT because of the POE, but you're not an atheist because reason alone is sufficient to establish deity, and that you might have to become an atheist if reason along can't defang the POE against deism? <br /><br /><i>"I have displayed no overt emotion in this thread and I appreciate civil discussion like I have received from rank sophist."</i><br /><br />Well, that may have been true when you stated it halfway up the thread, but your quick descent to name-calling is surely consistent with a departure from cold reason, wouldn't you say?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85919330092879540242012-05-28T14:10:13.607-07:002012-05-28T14:10:13.607-07:00Do you agree or disagree with me that the God of C...<i>Do you agree or disagree with me that the God of CT can also be known through reason alone (e.g. Aristotleian / Thomist arguments)?</i><br /><br />Antony Flew seemed to believe so...and so do I.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26875265312933745722012-05-28T11:49:52.472-07:002012-05-28T11:49:52.472-07:00Walter,
Okay, I'll chew on that for a few. In...<b>Walter</b>,<br /><br />Okay, I'll chew on that for a few. In the meantime, I figured I'd field one of your questions to the other believers. You said,<br /><br /><i>"I am still curious, though, as to whether the classical theist believes that Heaven -- whether it be in a Platonic realm or on a redeemed earth -- is the best of all possible worlds."</i><br /><br />I say yes, and I don't think the concept of a best possible world is incoherent at all.<br /><br />WIth regard to deism, you said,<br /><br /><i>"English and early American deists believed in a more active God who could be known through reason alone. "</i><br /><br />Do you agree or disagree with me that the God of CT can also be known through reason alone (e.g. Aristotleian / Thomist arguments)? <br /><br />Do you think that holds for your deism? Can you demonstrate it using reason alone?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14269549073646958422012-05-28T11:26:01.327-07:002012-05-28T11:26:01.327-07:00Fair enough. When time allows, can you give a quic...<i>Fair enough. When time allows, can you give a quick sketch of *YOUR* deist beliefs, such that I might understand how the POE threatens them?</i><br /><br />Mine would be closer to that of the English variety. As far as the POE is concerned, it is the same threat faced by any other monotheism that posits an all-powerful and benevolent deity. Even a French deist would seek to understand the purpose of suffering.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.com