- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I take God's integrity as a given because there is no evidence to the contrary.
It depends how you interpret it.
You can call it whatever you wish; just don't be surprised if your definition doesn't line up with everyone else's.
I don't think you are in a position to speak for everyone else really. In any case, call it what I will, it still fails in my view.
Originally posted by LemonJelloNo. For the last time, the claim I made is that God, being supposedly omnipotent, could have created a world with agents that possess on the whole more beneficent characters than what actually exists.
Right. So either God could (according to you) have made man to either make only the right decision about the fruit (thus rendering him an externally-controlled, yet somehow autonomous creature--- almost like he’s breathing whether he wants to or not) or, leaving the decision as truly a matter of free will, make man in such a way as to limit the amount of ...[text shortened]... oy" in any way make for a compelling argument against the existence of 'God'?
Whether you say it for the last time or not, it's the same as when you said it the first time: how can you suggest that God could have made a "more beneficent" agent and NOT suggest that His creation was less than the one you are suggesting? Talk about your logical contradictions!
Yikes.
Exactly.
Thus in order to show that he could have brought about a certain state of affairs, it suffices for me to show that the state of affairs is logically possible. Seriously now, what don't you understand about this?
It is understood perfectly. You continue to express reality in terms of logic. Logic does not require truth. Therefore, you can paint any version of any scenario you wish and have it make logical sense. You cannot do the same if you wish to talk about reality, with its dependence upon truth.
So, you have no such argument as what I inquired about then?
Sure I do. It was the one about plants and dirt. Try reading it again.
What does any of this have to do with the question of whether or not we ultimately determine our own characters?
Because how a person acts is how we determine their character. They are one and the same.
So, how would the "problem of joy" in any way make for a compelling argument against the existence of 'God'?
Among other reasons, the so-called problem of evil or problem of suffering may as well be the problem of crossword puzzles, or the problem of dandelion seeds. If we could logically describe the existence of even ONE unnecessary crossword puzzle which could not in anyway be attached to the greater good, we could therefore logically deduce that God is not omnipotent.
The argument is so silly, I wonder how such otherwise great thinking minds get tripped up on the same. It's like a four-move checkmate.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell, those are pretty bald claims! You might have seen the truth that appears beyond the contradiction, but you have not demonstrated it. You have not shown that you are any less prone to seeing what you wish to see than anyone else. (Your declarative one-liners really carry no weight.)
The contradiction appears only to those who wish to see it. For those seeking the truth, the truth appears beyond the contradiction. It all depends upon what one is looking for.
Let’s be frank: your particular theological conceptualization of God is not necessarily—God. There are certainly other conceptualizations (even within a supernaturalist-dualist paradigm; which, admittedly, is not mine). To say that God has (or is defined by) integrity or perfection—and is hence non-contradictory—does not entail that your conceptualization, no matter how rich, is necessarily free from contradiction(s).
Now, so far as I can see, all you have done here is to relieve the contradiction by asserting that no suffering is unnecessary/gratuitous. (And then saying how silly the “problem of evil” is after all.)
That certainly does relieve the contradiction, without—as LJ pointed out to me—contravening any principle of logic. But it commits you, as LJ has also pointed out, to the position that one less child rape, one less victim of torture, one less victim of the Nazi holocaust, one less short-lived suffering newborn, etc.—would make the world less good (or render the perfect imperfect). That is the same as saying that God cannot/could not act to relieve such suffering without violating the perfection of God’s creation, and God’s own integrity.
The interesting thing, to me, is that seems to commit you to the belief that God’s own integrity requires that terrible suffering on the part of the newborn that LJ used for an example (as well as all the others).
Originally posted by LemonJelloOk, you spent a LOT of time answering my question (depending on typing skills, lol) and I appreciate it. I hate it when people answer a dissertation with a one liner, especially when it just changes the subject.
[b]I challenged your assumption that any tragic event can be classified as not contributing toward a greater good.
I never assumed any such thing. I never claimed that for any tragic event, the event cannot be classified as contributing toward a greater good. For instance, nowhere have I committed myself to the idea that tragic events cann Similar things go for terrorism or illnesses, or climatic disasters, etc, etc.[/b]
However, all of your post does boil down to the necessity vs. sufficiency thing. I get it and I guess I missed that.
The reason I think suffering, even terrible suffering exists necessarily is, well... to quote John Calvin:
“You must submit to supreme suffering in order to discover the completion of joy”
A world without suffering would cause all of us not to undersand or experience joy and happiness. Sort of like there would be no such thing as light unless darkness exists, and the converse. Suffering is in fact, a necessary part of all our experience.
God enjoys doing good things to and for us, but He does appreciate being appreciated. If all we had was the good, then we'd come to expect it and not understand the benefit. I just experienced the worst Gout attack of my life. 5 days I've been in excruciating pain. I told my wife over dinner, I thank God for it because now, I find myself being grateful for 'everyday life.'
Originally posted by sumydidWould you apply the same principle to your own children? ie make them suffer in order to help them enjoy life?
A world without suffering would cause all of us not to undersand or experience joy and happiness. Sort of like there would be no such thing as light unless darkness exists, and the converse. Suffering is in fact, a necessary part of all our experience.
God enjoys doing good things to and for us, but He does appreciate being appreciated. If all we had was the good, then we'd come to expect it and not understand the benefit. I just experienced the worst Gout attack of my life. 5 days I've been in excruciating pain. I told my wife over dinner, I thank God for it because now, I find myself being grateful for 'everyday life.'
Are you planning to have another Gout attack next time you feel that you are not being grateful enough?
If a person dies in agony in some secluded spot where nobody ever knows about it, who benefits from the experience?
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by sumydid
The reason I think suffering, even terrible suffering exists necessarily is, well... to quote John Calvin:
“You must submit to supreme suffering in order to discover the completion of joy”
The reason this argument doesn't work for me is that I can imagine, without apparent logical contradiction, that the world could be constituted differently so that suffering is unneccesary.
You might reply that my mortal intellect simply can't appreciate the necessity that is apparent from a god's eye view. But this is just a variation of the Book of Job Defence. It is my contention that these debates properly resolve to this line, which ends in a draw.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWould you apply the same principle to your own children? ie make them suffer in order to help them enjoy life?
Would you apply the same principle to your own children? ie make them suffer in order to help them enjoy life?
[b]God enjoys doing good things to and for us, but He does appreciate being appreciated. If all we had was the good, then we'd come to expect it and not understand the benefit. I just experienced the worst Gout attack of my life. 5 days I'v ny in some secluded spot where nobody ever knows about it, who benefits from the experience?
First of all we are talking about God's "allowing" people to suffer rather than stopping it; rather than your scenario where God makes someone suffer directly. Back to the "allowing" of suffering, well yes, I would allow my children to suffer to a small degree because it helps them grow. It's that thing called "tough love" I guess. If a parent jumps to their child's aid everytime they seemingly suffer, the child becomes spoil and learns to expect someone to bail them out, which will set them up for a major downfall in adult life.
Are you planning to have another Gout attack next time you feel that you are not being grateful enough?
🙄 you are so funny!!
If a person dies in agony in some secluded spot where nobody ever knows about it, who benefits from the experience?
The person, first of all. Secondly your hypothetical is a little extreme. It's hard for me to imagine someone dying and no one ever knowing about it, present or future. It's certainly not something we could prove because we just don't know if the body will be discovered in the future.
Originally posted by sumydidThere is really no distinction. From a moral standpoint, if God is capable of preventing a given instance of suffering and chooses not to, it is directly equivalent to deliberately causing the suffering. Essentially in each instance has two choices - the person suffers or the person does not suffer.
First of all we are talking about God's "allowing" people to suffer rather than stopping it; rather than your scenario where God makes someone suffer directly.
Back to the "allowing" of suffering, well yes, I would allow my children to suffer to a small degree because it helps them grow.
But there are clearly limits.
It's that thing called "tough love" I guess. If a parent jumps to their child's aid everytime they seemingly suffer, the child becomes spoil and learns to expect someone to bail them out, which will set them up for a major downfall in adult life.
What if you could prevent the major downfall in adult life? Would you still use 'tough love' and why?
🙄 you are so funny!!
And you are avoiding the question. You readily accept as reasonable Gods choice to let you suffer, yet you yourself would never willingly make the same choice. If you had medicine that would stop your gout, would you take it, or would you judge that if God thinks the suffering will be good for you, then who are you to go against His judgement.
The person, first of all.
But the person is dead. How can the suffering help him?
Secondly your hypothetical is a little extreme. It's hard for me to imagine someone dying and no one ever knowing about it, present or future. It's certainly not something we could prove because we just don't know if the body will be discovered in the future.
Yet you must surely concede that it almost certainly does happen. It would be quite remarkable if God saved anyone who got into a life threatening situation where nobody could learn from his mistakes.
Let's see if I can do this without the reply being all bold... I couldn't figure out what I did to cause that in the last message.
There is really no distinction. From a moral standpoint, if God is capable of preventing a given instance of suffering and chooses not to, it is directly equivalent to deliberately causing the suffering. Essentially in each instance has two choices - the person suffers or the person does not suffer.
No way! I see a clear distinction. Call it free will. If we make a choice and the result is we suffer for it, God violates our free will by stepping in and changing the result. God directly making us suffer also emphatically violates the free will principle. But if we make a choice, and we suffer, then God aids in turning that sufferage into a blessing, well, that's a big difference than the other 2 scenarios. I see it as God either letting us live and die by life's events (man-caused or not, usually the former) or, by His mercy, turning events into blessings that otherwise wouldn't have been. In either case He is being either just, or better than just.
But there are clearly limits.
Yes there are, in both cases. We have to remember that, converse to the Atheist/Darwinist view, life isn't over after physical death. Therefore, physical death and physical suffering leading to death, is not the worst thing that can happen to someone... not by a long shot.
What if you could prevent the major downfall in adult life? Would you still use 'tough love' and why?
No. I respect free will too much. The only time I would intercede in my child's life is during their infancy when they aren't capable of making cognitive decisions. Otherwise, the only time I would intercede is if serious harm would come to my child. But that's where God and I differ. I don't respect free will so much that I would allow my child to hurt themselves seriously. God on the other hand allows us to bring harm to ourselves. It's just that afterward He, by His own mercy and for His own divine purposes, will intercede on some people's behalf to turn the tragedy into a miracle. He doesn't do it for everyone. That's the crux of it and where I think the "God is not just" crowd should be focusing their attention. Given that God intercedes for some and not for others, is that just? The only proper Christian answer is, that it is just for God to let us suffer as He didn't cause it and free will is at a premium... but when He DOES step in to aid some people that's even more than just... so He's being just to all and more than just to some. Is that just? I'm not even sure it is. It depends on the angle.
But the person is dead. How can the suffering help him?
Again I will remind that Jesus looked forward to death.. He almost couldn't wait to leave this place and get back to heaven. Death is a blessing. I'm waiting for your counter to that which I expected a couple messages ago, but I know it's coming now.
And you are avoiding the question. You readily accept as reasonable Gods choice to let you suffer, yet you yourself would never willingly make the same choice. If you had medicine that would stop your gout, would you take it, or would you judge that if God thinks the suffering will be good for you, then who are you to go against His judgement.
Ok I never looked at it as God making a choice to let me suffer. I only said that I was so thankful when it was over that I gained a renewed appreciation for 'normal life,' and in and of itself I was just thankful to God for that. I'm not sure God Himself put forth all that effort just to make me realize something. Maybe He did but I feel a little self-centered to think He did. Gout attacks happen and when they do I don't start cursing God for bringing them upon me. My only thought about God during real desparation is when I don't know what else to do. To be honest, I rarely pray for God to make me feel better because it makes me feel hypocritical. If He wanted me to feel better, I'd feel better. Praying that He 'change His mind' is almost suggesting that His plan for me is inferior to mine. That might sound sick to you but it's all because in my heart I try to stay as humble as possible and those thoughts just come natural. In fact I'll tell you something strange. I have battled many times with the idea that prayer is pointless. If you take logic and all the facts we are given to the extreme, prayer really does seem pointless. But.. we are told to pray so as a matter of obedience (and yes, in times of desparation with nowhere else to turn) I do it. Most of my time spent talking to God is about praise and questions, not requests for favors.
Originally posted by sumydidYou just need to check that each bold start has a corresponding bold end tag in both the quoted text and your response. If there are more starts than ends the result will be all bold.
Let's see if I can do this without the reply being all bold... I couldn't figure out what I did to cause that in the last message.
No way! I see a clear distinction. Call it free will. If we make a choice and the result is we suffer for it, God violates our free will by stepping in and changing the result.
That is not true in the slightest. The vast majority of suffering is not by choice (did you choose to have gout?). Even when the suffering is a result of choice, removing the suffering is rarely ever a violation of free will. For the vast majority of suffering we would choose to avoid it if we could and if God helped us to do so he would be enabling our free will, not violating it.
I see it as God either letting us live and die by life's events (man-caused or not, usually the former)
Are you aware that most suffering and death is due to disease? How is that man-caused?
I still feel you are avoiding the real argument which is that God is capable of stopping any given instance of suffering and by choosing to not do so he is making a choice and is thus responsible for the consequences. You are trying to paint him as a bystander and absolve him of responsibility.
Again I will remind that Jesus looked forward to death.. He almost couldn't wait to leave this place and get back to heaven. Death is a blessing.
But what does the suffering that causes the death do that benefits the person dying?
Ok I never looked at it as God making a choice to let me suffer. I only said that I was so thankful when it was over that I gained a renewed appreciation for 'normal life,' and in and of itself I was just thankful to God for that. I'm not sure God Himself put forth all that effort just to make me realize something. Maybe He did but I feel a little self-centered to think He did. Gout attacks happen and when they do I don't start cursing God for bringing them upon me. My only thought about God during real desparation is when I don't know what else to do.
I think that whether or not God caused your gout is irrelevant. The fact that he could have prevented it but chose not to is the relevant issue. You claim that he chose not to either because it would violate your free will if he did so, or because to leave you to suffer will benefit you in the long term. I rather doubt that in this instance you saw it as a free will choice so you were forced to conclude that God allowing you to suffer must have some long term benefit - which you then looked for and found as a greater appreciation of the life you have when you are not suffering from gout. But your explanation is hollow because even though you want to believe it, you would not actually willingly implement it on yourself or on another. Further, I don't think you have answered my question about whether you would choose to relieve your own suffering if you had the opportunity to do so. If you did, you would be contradicting Gods choice and thus showing that you do not in fact believe his choice to be for the best.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou just need to check that each bold start has a corresponding bold end tag in both the quoted text and your response. If there are more starts than ends the result will be all bold.
You just need to check that each bold start has a corresponding bold end tag in both the quoted text and your response. If there are more starts than ends the result will be all bold.
No way! I see a clear distinction. Call it free will. If we make a choice and the result is we suffer for it, God violates our free will by stepping in and changing s choice and thus showing that you do not in fact believe his choice to be for the best.
Thanks, I think I've got the hang of it. This forum isn't near as robust and user friendly as I'm used to. But that's fine, the debate is really good here. Smart folks.
That is not true in the slightest. The vast majority of suffering is not by choice (did you choose to have gout?). Even when the suffering is a result of choice, removing the suffering is rarely ever a violation of free will. For the vast majority of suffering we would choose to avoid it if we could and if God helped us to do so he would be enabling our free will, not violating it.
Well I hate to play the "trump card" but since in the case of this debate, God's existence and the Bible's integrity are a given, then technically the whole lot of suffering is the fault of Adam and Eve who represented all of the human race (original sin/imputation concept)
Also, you are trying to obligate God to take suffering away when He didn't directly cause it. He's not obligated to do so.
Are you aware that most suffering and death is due to disease? How is that man-caused?
Mankind's actions have caused much disease. Again technically, our God-chosen perfect representatives caused all disease in what was a paradise and now is a fallen world.
But what does the suffering that causes the death do that benefits the person dying?
Those who die in a state of belief and faith, get the best gift imaginable, life with God in bliss.. heaven. But the Bible says the suffering we perservere earns additional rewards in heaven.
I don't think you have answered my question about whether you would choose to relieve your own suffering if you had the opportunity to do so.
How is this for an answer, and obviously you haven't experienced the horror itself. YES.
If you did, you would be contradicting Gods choice and thus showing that you do not in fact believe his choice to be for the best.
I guess it's a chicken/egg thing. God, IMO, didn't choose to make me suffer with a gout attack. He simply didn't, to my knowledge, step in and change the natural course of it by prematurely ending my pain. But nowhere in the bible does it say that we cannot help ourselves. Although... the Quakers are real close to what you describe. I just don't subscribe to the idea that I can't even help myself, else I'm circumventing God's will. That's nonsense.
Originally posted by sumydidActually since the vast majority of the believers in God do not take Genesis literally, it can't be taken as a 'given'. But anyway, it doesn't address my challenge in the slightest. Your claim was that suffering was a result of free will and thus relief of the suffering was a violation of free will. My challenge is that Adam and Eve may have made a free will choice but the suffering was a consequence of the choice not a desired outcome. If God is omnipotent he can allow the free will choice and still relieve the suffering without violating free will. Further, why does Adams free will trump mine? Why must I suffer because of Adam?
Well I hate to play the "trump card" but since in the case of this debate, God's existence and the Bible's integrity are a given, then technically the whole lot of suffering is the fault of Adam and Eve who represented all of the human race (original sin/imputation concept)
Also, you are trying to obligate God to take suffering away when He didn't directly cause it. He's not obligated to do so.
If you read the whole thread you will see that a key component of the argument is that God is loving - in which case he is obligated to relieve any unnecessary suffering that he can.
Those who die in a state of belief and faith, get the best gift imaginable, life with God in bliss.. heaven. But the Bible says the suffering we perservere earns additional rewards in heaven.
And someone like me that would suffer and die in a state of disbelief?
I guess it's a chicken/egg thing. God, IMO, didn't choose to make me suffer with a gout attack. He simply didn't, to my knowledge, step in and change the natural course of it by prematurely ending my pain. But nowhere in the bible does it say that we cannot help ourselves. Although... the Quakers are real close to what you describe. I just don't subscribe to the idea that I can't even help myself, else I'm circumventing God's will. That's nonsense.
Again, you don't answer the question - you just call it nonsense. If ending the pain prematurely is Gods will, then why does he not do it? If it is not Gods will then why is doing it yourself not circumventing Gods will?
Again we are assuming an omnipotent God who is loving and thus obligated to relieve unnecessary suffering ie suffering that is not beneficial to us.
You seem to be challenging the obligation bit, so maybe you could explain whether you believe God is not loving or whether you do not think that his obligation follows from that fact.