24 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt is unclear how you would do such a thing. In the Garden, there was but one forbidden action, rendering the situation pretty much pass/fail. I fail to see how degrees could have been established in such a proposition.
[b]For two, God could have simply provided his creation with more beneficent characters, such that less suffering naturally results from their autonomous actions.
It is unclear how you would do such a thing. In the Garden, there was but one forbidden action, rendering the situation pretty much pass/fail. I fail to see how degrees could have been est nce of needless suffering, then it should equally hang on even one instance of needless joy.[/b]
I meant that God could have simply created a world with agents that have more beneficent characters than in this world, such that less suffering would result from their autonomous actions. Is this a logically impossible state of affairs? Of course not. So God, being omnipotent, could have brought it about. What is unclear about this?
Absolutely not. We personally decide our own thoughts and actions, as well as our motivations in life. Predilections notwithstanding, we choose--- regardless of external influences.
My claim was that everyone has a character (consortium of action-guiding dispositions) that is ultimately not of their own determining. Are you honestly trying to tell me that you ultimately determined your character? That's ridiculous, since there are several chief factors completely or largely beyond your active control that causally helped shape your character. These would not be limited to your genetic endowment; your environment and milieu; the nature of your upbringing and inculcation.
Sure, we choose and "personally decide" our own actions; and when these choices flow from our abiding character traits and commitments, then we are acting autonomously. But, certainly this does not show or entail that we ultimately determine our own characters.
Also, you and others who are contending that suffering is a litmus test which disproves either God's goodness or existence have yet to address why God allows any happiness--- assuming His existence, of course. If this "test" hangs on even one instance of needless suffering, then it should equally hang on even one instance of needless joy.
I'm sorry, but I’m not sure I understand what you are trying to get at. Are you honestly asking me why I argue the "problem of suffering" rather than, say, the "problem of joy/happiness"? If so, I cannot believe I have to explain this to you. Suffering hurts and is bad, and it is characteristically something we have obvious prima facie obligation to minimize within the limits of our abilities. On the other hand, nobody I know thinks that joy or happiness is characteristically something we have prima facie obligation to minimize within the limits of our abilities. So (although I would want to make a clear distinction between, say, eudaimonia in the sense of flourishing and happiness/joy as transitory states), to talk about 'unnecessary joy' sounds somewhat bizarre whereas 'unnecessary suffering' is much more natural. So I have good reasons to think the problem of suffering makes for a forceful argument; whereas the "problem of joy", not so much.
If this doesn’t address what you are trying to get at, then I don’t understand what you are trying to get at.
24 May 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloI think perhaps you should revise your original claim, which was that we cannot come to accurate judgments about God -- since, presumably, you will want to hold that when it comes to your judging that he is righteous and good (regardless of whether it is based on revelation or observation or whatever), such judgments enjoy accuracy.
[b]For God to be good, holy and just, it is not necessary that his acts (or lack of action) be comprehensible to us, esp. in light of the fact that our minds are of comparably limited scope and duration.
This I would probably grant you, but this doesn't have anything to do with my charge. My charge was about the internal inconsistency of your stan ...[text shortened]... ur time, since I am not interested in merely question-begging efforts).[/b]
We cannot arrive at dependably accurate judgments about God based merely on observation and the subsequent aid of reason. If I lose my daughter in a car accident caused by icy driving conditions, it does not necessarily follow that since this accident was allowed to happen, God does not exist; although that may be a tempting conclusion to draw considering the circumstances. Reason may lead me to conclude that God's existence is highly implausible, but then again, the further exercise of reason might also lead me to conclude that I haven't the necessary information at my disposal to make any kind of definitive judgment one way or the other.
This I would probably grant you, but this doesn't have anything to do with my charge. My charge was about the internal inconsistency of your stance.
There is no internal inconsistency because this is my stance (above), as I am capable of expressing it in the realm of reason, i.e., we cannot arrive at dependably accurate judgments about God based merely on observation and the subsequent aid of reason. God's revealing of himself in scripture through the prophets, on the other hand, is not knowledge arrived at through observation or reason, but through faith. Therefore, I do admit the limits of what I am capable of understanding, even the hopeless condition my own reasoning affords me (that God probably doesn't exist), yet I am also capable of rejoicing in the revelatory knowledge which faith provides, because it is a higher kind of knowledge - that given by God himself.
So, because this is a mere possibility (for instance, it's certainly possible in just the sense that it does not logically contradict the evidence we have), that means we cannot "accurately establish" the proposition that it is raining outside? That's nonsense. Likewise, it's nonsense for you to say that the mere possibility that there exist reasons beyond our comprehension that would prove me wrong somehow shows either (1) it is doubtful I am right in claiming that it is highly implausible that the suffering of the neonate is necessary for the bringing about of greater good or (2) that we are incapable of accurately establishing such things.
Whether or not we can accurately establish if it is raining outside or not based on the possibility that our senses might be irretrievably deceived in some manner is hardly comparable. One is bringing into question the reliability of the data which our senses provide us, the other is bringing into question the capacity of our understanding and the breadth of our knowledge. In the first instance, we are dealing with finite things, such as vibration and neurochemical responses, etc. In the second instance, we are dealing with an infinite being, with infinite attributes, who is privy to knowledge which we know far surpasses our own (assuming such a being exists). By even postulating the existence of such a being we bring into question our ability to understand his ways, therefore it is far more reasonable to doubt your conclusions about God's ways than it is to doubt our senses.
24 May 09
3 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAn all powerful God could CHOOSE to relinquish part of his power via free will. If so, it would explain why he is so interested in us as seemiongly insignificant as we are in comparison to the vastness to the rest of the universe. In short, perhaps it is the only aspect of creation he has freely chosen to surrender direct control over. As I have said repeatedly, if God is love as the scriptures indicate and if free will is a vital component of love as I have suggested, it all makes pretty good sense to me.
I've skimmed some of this, but so far as I can tell there is at least one situation that has yet to be dealt with in a straightforward manner by any of the Christians. They seem to dance around it.
If God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, such a God would create a universe where there is no possibility of suffering. I haven't seen anyone gi believe that God is lacking in one or more of the three characteristics, which ones and why?
24 May 09
Originally posted by whodeyYes an omnipotent God could choose to relinquish part of his power. You seem to have completely missed the point of my post. Ask yourself, would an omnibenevolent God purposely create a universe where suffering is possible? Would an omnibenevolent God purposely create a disease such as cancer that inflicts such suffering?
An all powerful God could CHOOSE to relinquish part of his power via free will. If so, it would explain why he is so interested in us as seemiongly insignificant as we are in comparison to the vastness to the rest of the universe. In short, perhaps it is the only aspect of creation he has freely chosen to surrender direct control over. As I have said repea ...[text shortened]... ree will is a vital component of love as I have suggested, it all makes pretty good sense to me.
Please reread my post and address the situation cited:
"If God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, such a God would create a universe where there is no possibility of suffering. I haven't seen anyone give a rational explanation how a God that has all three of these characteristics wouldn't create such a universe."
24 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by whodey2) No; this is not much of an answer to my question, nor an accurate summation of what I was asking.
2) Of course, we all die so we all pay the ultimate penalty for sin whether it be today, tomorrow, or in a 100 years. What you are asking really is, what is the best way to go and how soon?
3) Saying that God desire to kill us all would be to say that God desried us to sin and then suffer as a result. It completly negates the free will argument I have ll you are doing as well, eh? So I guess it simply comes down to having faith once again, no?
3) Who said God desired to kill us all?
I'm not quite sure what the point of your parent example is. Yes, children of abusive parents suffer. Yes, my proposal remains that all of this abuse could have been prevented if the parents were designed to be more morally enlightened when making decisions.
4) He left because God told him to leave. This was after Abraham's prayer. [However, Abraham did not go any lower than "10 righteous [people]" in his prayer.]
25 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou miss my point as I seem to have missed yours.
Yes an omnipotent God could choose to relinquish part of his power. You seem to have completely missed the point of my post. Ask yourself, would an omnibenevolent God purposely create a universe where suffering is possible? Would an omnibenevolent God purposely create a disease such as cancer that inflicts such suffering?
Please reread my post and add tion how a God that has all three of these characteristics wouldn't create such a universe."
Try to follow my logic for a bit.
1. God is love thus God desires love.
2. To engage in a loving relationship, both parties MUST be free to reject or accept the other. Otherwise it is simply God loving or hating himself back.
3. God did not create sin and suffering, rather, it is simply a condition of his absence and experienced via free will and the choice to reject God. After all, if God is the source of life and love then being isolated from it would have obvious consequences.
26 May 09
7 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasWe cannot arrive at dependably accurate judgments about God based merely on observation and the subsequent aid of reason.
[b]I think perhaps you should revise your original claim, which was that we cannot come to accurate judgments about God -- since, presumably, you will want to hold that when it comes to your judging that he is righteous and good (regardless of whether it is based on revelation or observation or whatever), such judgments enjoy accuracy.
We cannot a reasonable to doubt your conclusions about God's ways than it is to doubt our senses.[/b]
I thought God was supposed to be some sort of moral exemplar. Does this mean that I cannot come to any accurate judgments about how I ought to live by, say, observing and reasoning on the life of Jesus?
Whether or not we can accurately establish if it is raining outside or not based on the possibility that our senses might be irretrievably deceived in some manner is hardly comparable. One is bringing into question the reliability of the data which our senses provide us, the other is bringing into question the capacity of our understanding and the breadth of our knowledge.
The point is that you have done nothing more than play the selective skeptic (as I explain further below).
In the second instance, we are dealing with an infinite being, with infinite attributes, who is privy to knowledge which we know far surpasses our own (assuming such a being exists). By even postulating the existence of such a being we bring into question our ability to understand his ways, therefore it is far more reasonable to doubt your conclusions about God's ways than it is to doubt our senses.
I don't know what is meant by "infinite" being or "infinite" attribute. We are just postulating the existence of some entity that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. Sure, it's clear that if such a being existed it would know a lot more than any one of us does. And yes, I concede that (as is the case with nearly any inquiry we might take on) there exists the possibility that there exist reasons that such a being would have access to that we do not, and that such reasons could prove us mistaken in our own judgments. Now, in no way have you demonstrated that either of these considerations means that we ourselves cannot come to accurate judgments; and, worse, if you did, that would just have devastating effects on our entire judgment-making platform. Start being consistent: if I had to doubt my judgments any time there existed the mere possibility that there exist reasons beyond my attention or comprehension that could prove me wrong, then I would have to doubt virtually everything.
I understand your point: your point is that an omniscient being would have a much greater general basis on which to make informed decisions. That's correct. But what you don't seem to understand is that this doesn't in any way give me reasonable cause to doubt my own judgments. Think about it: in any judgment you make, it is presumably the case that an omniscient being would, in judging the same situation, have a more extensive general basis of understanding. Now, you want to claim that (for example in the case of the neonate) since I myself am not omniscient, I should doubt my judgments concerning what an actual omniscient being would endorse because there may exist extra reasons under the omniscient being's attention that are not available to me. But think about what this would commit us to! In virtually any judgment we make, we are advancing something we think is true (barring cases where we render opinions that we think are not truth-apt, like maybe during talk that envelops aesthetics or something); and hence we are implicitly advancing something we think an omniscient being would endorse (because an omniscient being by our own supposition endorses every true proposition). Now, if we had to doubt our own judgments concerning what an omniscient being would endorse, then it would follow that we basically have to doubt ALL our own judgments. This is what I am trying to get across. If you are right that I should have to doubt my judgment that an omniscient being would understand, say, that it is right to prevent the suffering of the neonate (merely because, in light of the fact that he is omniscient and I am not, there may exist reasons under his attention that are not under mine); then I should have to doubt virtually all of my judgments on nearly all matters because all of these judgments represent at least implicit claims about what an omniscient being would understand to be correct.
So, you have done nothing more than introduce a naive and vicious sort of skepticism.
26 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI'm sorry, but your talk of free will and sin and the choice to reject God have nothing to do with many, many cases of suffering. For instance, it has nothing to do with my example of the suffering neonate.
You miss my point as I seem to have missed yours.
Try to follow my logic for a bit.
1. God is love thus God desires love.
2. To engage in a loving relationship, both parties MUST be free to reject or accept the other. Otherwise it is simply God loving or hating himself back.
3. God did not create sin and suffering, rather, it is simply a conditio ...[text shortened]... God is the source of life and love then being isolated from it would have obvious consequences.
26 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyIf God is omnipotent and omniscient then God purposely created a universe that has sin and suffering. To say that God "did not create sin and suffering" in this universe yet the creation of the universe was fully under the control of God is nonsensical.
You miss my point as I seem to have missed yours.
Try to follow my logic for a bit.
1. God is love thus God desires love.
2. To engage in a loving relationship, both parties MUST be free to reject or accept the other. Otherwise it is simply God loving or hating himself back.
3. God did not create sin and suffering, rather, it is simply a conditio ...[text shortened]... God is the source of life and love then being isolated from it would have obvious consequences.
You're going to have to explain how the introduction of suffering from cancer was necessary for free will.
Point 2 doesn't seem to make much sense either, but I'd like to hear what you have to say about the above first.
26 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloSo according to the Bible, when did sufering and death enter the world? Was it not when sin entered the world? As a Christian I have no problem admitting that those without sin or the innocent suffer simply because they live in a world that has sin in it. Christ is a prime example of this.
I'm sorry, but your talk of free will and sin and the choice to reject God have nothing to do with many, many cases of suffering. For instance, it has nothing to do with my example of the suffering neonate.
26 May 09
4 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIt most certainly is NOT nonsensical. It is just as sensical as saying that God did not create darkness or cold. What is darkness and cold? Is it not merely a description of a lack of heat or light? Ironically, the world of sin is also referred to as "darkness". In and of itself, darkness does not exist because there is nothing there to measure. All one can measure is the presence of light. That is what is real. That is what is really being talked about when one mentions "darkness". Likewise, what you are aaying when one sins is that they have a lack of the love of God in their hearts. It is nothing that God created because it was never there......
[b]If God is omnipotent and omniscient then God purposely created a universe that has sin and suffering. To say that God "did not create sin and suffering" in this universe yet the creation of the universe was fully under the control of God is nonsensical.
26 May 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSin creats suffering. How is that so hard to fathom? What you are really saying is, suffering should only happen to those "worthy" to recieve such suffering, however, as with most destructive forces such as a bomb or hurricane, it matters little who gets in the way.
You're going to have to explain how the introduction of suffering from cancer was necessary for free will.
Point 2 doesn't seem to make much sense either, but I'd like to hear what you have to say about the above first.[/b]