A Response to the Problem of Evil
Jeff Carter responds to my chapter on the problem of evil. He wrote:
Suffering allows for the proving and demonstration of courage, faith, stamina, perseverance, determination, spirit, triumph, glory, heroism, overcoming. Thus, while motives of an individual may be malicious, the condition of meaningless suffering is not evil to God - it is the backdrop against which the godly qualities of life are manifested and made clear.My question is why these virtues are important to God since in heaven for the saints they will be completely irrelevant in an eternal bliss without any pain or suffering. See what you think.
65 comments:
Jeff's answer is no answer at all, of course. If "god" made everything, why couldn't "god" have made it so that we could show those qualities without having to have gratuitous evil and suffering in the world? It wouldn't actually be that difficult.
Does the God described by this theodicy not sound suspiciously like Jigsaw from the SAW movies?
The people putting forward such arguments, most of them living comfortably in their middle class american homes, need to keep in mind that this world serves as little more than a torture chamber for a great many beings (human and nonhuman) born into it.
Swinburne wrote a whole book with that defense I think.
So when millions of people are directly or indirectly affected by an atomic bomb attack, it's not an evil to God because it allows people to show compassion and courage? If the entire human race except one person is wiped out by deadly virus, it's not an evil to God because it allows that one person to show an enormous amount of courage and persevance?
That's just silly. Actually if we are following Swinburne and co. reasoning, there is no need to bother helping poor people, or spending billions finding a cure of cancer, because those conditions allow to show a lot of courage, compassion, faith, etc.
I would prefer to take a phenomenological approach to the questions of suffering and of evil. In this approach, our minds create all of the distinctions and dualities, such as good/evil, right/wrong, and then we find evidence in the world to buttress those creative interpretations.
If you adopt the paradigm that we are mere humans, some of who are trying and generally failing to have spiritual experiences, then it makes perfect sense to adopt any of the dualist models and to ask questions such as why does evil exist or why does god permit suffering.
If instead you adopt the paradigm that we are spiritual beings having a human experience, the main challenge of which is dealing with the interpretations of the mind, then those questions become bogus, and those apparent dualities and issues can be seen as products of our imagination, not as verifiable exernal realities.
So god neither causes nor permits suffering. Our minds create it. So the whole question (contradiction) about how you can believe in an all-powerful god while also believing in the existence of a separate, independent power such as evil/Satan becomes irrelevant.
All you really have are egos running around making stuff up and forcing their fictions on others.
This defence strikes me as racist and ignorant.
The greatest natural disasters - drought, famine, disease, even earthquakes and tsunamis - strike African or South Asian countries. Hundreds of thousands of them die in solitude, many of them children. They are never given the opportunity to demonstrate faith, courage or stamina.
Are the lives and suffering of these people just to teach us a lesson? Talk about dehumanizing.
Is it necessary that so many children die of starvation every year? Could the same lesson be learned if 50 were to survive? 100? 100,000? If droughts were to abate and crops were to grow would that in any way change our opportunities for courage, faith, and heroism? I've lived my whole life without going truly hungry - what opportunities am I missing that starving African children have gained and should we be praying for a draught to strike the US and give a million Americans the blessing of death by starvation?
So god neither causes nor permits suffering. Our minds create it.
Spoken like a college freshman philosophy student whose most profound experience of suffering is getting turned down for a date.
I'm sure a child whose legs have been sheered off in a car accident would find it terribly comforting to know that the pain is all in her head.
Dear David B. Ellis,
I would like to think that any college freshman would understand the difference between experiencing "pain", such as accompanies physical injury, and "suffering", which is a product of the mind.
Example: You get mugged. For a brief time you experience pain. but as the body heals, the pain subsides and goes away, except in extreme circumstances. However, the memory of that mugging can affect you for years, long after the physical has healed. That is suffering.
To me, the strongest argument would be what John said in the original post. Unless Christians can prove that those qualities are somehow important or necessary, the argument doesn't hold much water.
And if somehow they were able to prove that their god deemed the qualities of overcoming, etc. to be important, I would question the sanity of their god. To cause one (or many) humans suffering to allow other humans the opportunity to display courage is a sick and twisted concept.
@david.
If god doesn't cause or permit suffering than it doesn't have the right to ask us to manifest any instict/desire to prevent suffering. Your view on suffering exempts you from addressing the question since we are talking about a god that DEMANDS something from us.
If the cristian who wrote that appology master piece of shit is so convinced of his truthiness than obviously Hell is the biggest source for demonstrating courage and heroism. Therefore the only people that deserve to go to Heaven are those that will fight God for every soul in Heaven and will renounce their place in Heaven if only one soul will suffer for eternity. It seems to me that only atheists (like Loftus and others) are meeting this criteria. If the argument is valid, than all christians that embrace the doctrine of Heaven and Hell are the lowest of the low. Although I do think the argument doesn't hold water, I do think that the christians who accept wholeheartedly the infinite punishement for finite evil are the lowest of the low. But still... I would fight God if any of these people would be sentenced to hell.
"Such is human nature, that if we were all hit on the head with a baseball bat once a week, philosophers would soon discover many amazing benefits of being hit on the head with a baseball bat: It toughens us, renders us less fearful of lesser pains, makes bat-free days all the sweeter. But if people are not currently being hit with baseball bats, they will not volunteer for it."
-link
I think Mr. Carter also forgot to mention that in the "Better World", if God didn't give him a brain/mind, he wouldn't be able to figure this out. From what I can get in his article, I would guess that God also made some people ugly, so that the pretty people should feel "blessed", and be appreciative. Seems your god has little faith in his own creation, but that's ok, because I have no faith in him anyways.
From his line of reasoning, is there any wonder why God does not answer prayers? Can we now see why prayers are never answered? God has a purpose for your sufferings and evils that you face, why would he stop them. Think of all the time you waste praying, God has it all already planned out for you and your loved ones. See, when someone holds a gun to your head, don't pray, just tell yourself, this is going to make people around you stronger, more faithful, and more courageous. It seems God is simply using us all as puppets for the next puppet, for his own will, against our own will.
So how if as Jeff say's, "Thus, if suffering is shown to benefit, then it and the God that allows it, may be described as good," can this be considered good? If so, whatever we "mere" humans do to cause suffering, which turns out to be better for us after all, it and us should also be considered good. The reason you make such justications, is because in your Christian doctrine, your fictional God is describe as all-good. He can do no wrong, anything he does is good. But if you believe in this fictional God, all I can say is, "good" for you.
John, who said these qualities will be completely irrelevant in heaven (or more correctly, the new Heaven and New Earth)?
Jeff's answer, however, is also somewhat deficient, in proposing that evil is perhaps not evil to God. But, as we know in other contexts, like law enforcement or parenting, what is perceived as evil by those who do wrong does serve a higher purpose. Discussions about "the problem of evil" are often completely removed from context, and so end up being completely meaningless.
I just want to point out that I am lowercase david, don't confuse me with uppercase David!
lol
All –
Keep in mind that I was responding to John’s presentation of the problem of evil in his book. I modeled my “better world” on the one John proposed. John asked why God didn’t just skip this world and create the “better world” first.
It would probably be best to read this entire comment first before you respond. I make several connected arguments along the way.
To Kyle:
If "god" made everything, why couldn't "god" have made it so that we could show those qualities without having to have gratuitous evil and suffering in the world? It wouldn't actually be that difficult.
I think that is an excellent point and it gets to the heart of my argument. So, I’m very interested in how the life qualities I mentioned (faith, compassion, love, etc) - are truthfully manifested without the existence of pain and suffering. Explain to us how that can happen.
To David B. Ellis:
Does the God described by this theodicy not sound suspiciously like Jigsaw from the SAW movies?
Well, I’ll have to say I haven’t seen the movie, though I think my teenage son has seen them all, so to be such a repulsive concept it must hold an attraction to someone. Again, this takes us back to the central question of whether certain life qualities can be manifested / actualized in the absence of suffering.
If they cannot be separated, and this is the crucial point, and one still objects to the existence of suffering, then he is saying that he prefers the elimination of suffering to the existence of compassion and courage. Then it’s a matter of what one values. My values are with the existence of compassion and courage, because these are the qualities of life.
But take this a bit further. If, as I argue, these courage qualities are essential to life, then God cannot honestly confer eternal life to anyone who does not possess them. That means that anyone in favor of the absolute elimination of suffering is in favor of no one living.
What follows is that there should be no universe at all. Me, I think there should be a universe and I would say the vast majority of people in the history of the world agree with me, because couples still bring babies into the world knowing that they will have to endure some amount of suffering. Are you one who says, “Well, I’d just rather there not be a universe at all, if it has to come with suffering”?
If you think it’s not right to live with suffering, why are you still here?
To Kiwi:
So when millions of people are directly or indirectly affected by an atomic bomb attack, it's not an evil to God because it allows people to show compassion and courage?
What is evil to eliminate all courage and compassion from reality just to eliminate pain and suffering.
That’s just silly.
It’s not silly – it’s a matter of what you value – the elimination of suffering or the existence of life and courage
….there is no need to bother helping poor people, or spending billions finding a cure of cancer, because those conditions allow to show a lot of courage, compassion, faith, etc.
I never said it was moral for me to ignore the suffering of others and I never said certain suffering wasn’t evil to me. I said God uses intensive suffering to manifest qualities of life. I totally reject the idea that God’s morality must conform to mine, when I know less than He does.
To Tyro:
Hundreds of thousands of them die in solitude, many of them children. They are never given the opportunity to demonstrate faith, courage or stamina.
The struggle to live and the expression of the powers that allow us to overcome and live are expressed to some degree by everyone that lives. It's called living.
Is it necessary that so many children die of starvation every year? Could the same lesson be learned if 50 were to survive? 100? 100,000?
I know it’s pointless and meaningless, but try to have some courage, not all of us are overcome by things like this. There is a power of hope and stamina in the world that will cause us to endure and overcome. Millions are suffering. But most do not choose to end their suffering, they choose to struggle on, that they might live. Apparently, most do not believe that the fact of suffering is sufficient cause to end existence.
I've lived my whole life without going truly hungry - what opportunities am I missing that starving African children have gained and should we be praying for a draught to strike the US and give a million Americans the blessing of death by starvation?
You might not be experiencing it, but misery and suffering is in the world, and you know about it. Does it make you want to despair? And have you?
To mathyoo:
Unless Christians can prove that those qualities are somehow important or necessary, the argument doesn't hold much water.
I stated my beliefs about God in the beginning of my blog. God’s essential relevant qualities here are life, faith and truth. I explained that these qualities are essential to eternal life. No manifestation of these qualities, no eternal life.
And if somehow they were able to prove that their god deemed the qualities of overcoming, etc. to be important, I would question the sanity of their god.
As to the importance of overcoming of suffering to God, that is proven right quickly. It's exactly the central point of Christianity – the overcoming resurrection that follows the suffering and death of the crucifixion.
And again, let me emphasize that time and again, John has stated that what is most important for the problem of evil reconciliation is that the Christian reconcile his own personal beliefs about God with the existence of suffering, and he has repeatedly said I must do this with no reference to the beliefs of the atheists. This I have done. You might not agree with my values, but I based this apology on my beliefs, not yours.
To cause one (or many) humans suffering to allow other humans the opportunity to display courage is a sick and twisted concept.
And I find the concept of refusing to allow courage and compassion to exist just to eliminate suffering a sick and twisted concept, in fact, cowardly, sniveling, and despicable.
Also, keep in mind that I said that this courage is not a mere display but a manifestation of eternal life. God cannot honestly confer eternal life upon someone unless they manifest the qualities of eternal life.
To Logosfera:
Hell is the biggest source for demonstrating courage and heroism. Therefore the only people that deserve to go to Heaven are those that will fight God for every soul in Heaven and will renounce their place in Heaven if only one soul will suffer for eternity.
Absolutely correct! And Christ has done this by enduring Hell and overcoming it. And just as you said, Christ left His place in heaven and endured Hell so that every soul might have a place in heaven. So right on. Amazing insight, Logosfera.
In conclusion, if no courage, compassion and faith exist, how can that be good? Are you saying that you would prefer NO compassion and courage if suffering could be eliminated? Which would you prefer – a universe with suffering or no universe?
Can’t speak for all of you, but most of you seem to have values that lie with the elimination of suffering, and therefore, no universe. My values lie with the manifestation of compassion. I find the former value just as cowardly and sniveling as you find the latter monstrous.
As I said, earlier, John had said that my argument had to be based on my beliefs, not yours. But if you wanted to compare the two value systems, how would you decide between the two?
And finally, everyone seemed to miss my other major point, and that is, God cannot honestly confer eternal life on anyone that does not possess the qualities of eternal life - it's a matter of God being TRUTHFUL - so John’s proposed “better world” is implausible.
Jeff,
Millions are suffering. Apparently, most do not believe that the fact of suffering is sufficient cause to end existence.
I don't understand what you're getting at with these defences. Are you arguing that because the level of suffering is not high enough that most people chose suicide then the level of suffering is fully justified?
I have read your blog post and you seem to be saying that there are only two possible worlds: one with no natural disasters and no suffering at all, and the world we see today. What about a world with less suffering? Just how much is necessary?
If infant mortality worldwide was reduced to the levels we see in the most advanced Western nations, who would be harmed? If only 5 thousand African children died every year from starvation instead of the almost one million that die currently, who would be harmed? Virtually no Americans have seen their siblings and friends die from malaria yet they aren't suffering spiritually for this lack.
If some level of suffering is necessary, what is that level? I think you evade that issue by dealing only with a heaven-on-earth.
And while it isn't my argument, I don't think you've addressed John's point. If suffering is necessary somehow, then wouldn't an eternity without suffering be spiritually and morally destructive? If heaven is without suffering and it is eternal, then why is it necessary in our limited life?
"I said God uses intensive suffering to manifest qualities of life."
Unless you can show it's a logical impossibility for humans to manifest qualities of life without intensive suffering, I see no reason to accept your theodicy.
As far as I can see, there's plenty of people who are able to manifest qualities of life without intensive suffering.
Jeff said,
"I think that is an excellent point and it gets to the heart of my argument. So, I’m very interested in how the life qualities I mentioned (faith, compassion, love, etc) - are truthfully manifested without the existence of pain and suffering. Explain to us how that can happen."
This is my first response, which I'm leaving here as a kind of interesting artifact. I say that because my wife thought of the argument "against" what I'm saying here, and I no longer particularly like this argument - just think it's interesting! Read my next comment if you're just interested in my "final answer".
For one, I don't consider faith to be a good thing, but you probably already guessed that. :)
For two, it is very simple to describe a better world. I would first ask: What do you mean by "truthfully manifested"? If it means that people who have a chance to be compassionate actually have the real, physical opportunity to be compassionate, I don't see why that needs to be the case. I would think it would be enough to judge a person's character by, for example, causing them to have a delusion which shows something that they have the opportunity to be compassionate about. No one real has to be hurt in any way - if the person responds compassionately, they get an A+ from "god". If they respond badly, then they lose out. And no one had to be hurt to do it.
Furthermore, there's no reason these delusions couldn't be manifest in many people simultaneously - a mass hallucination, if you will. This will give every person who wants to act an opportunity to act, and every person who wants to be bad that chance to be bad - all without anyone getting hurt! Except for the bad guys, of course, who get sent straight to "hell" by an "all-loving" being...
My wife's response to this was: He can just say that that's the way the world really is, and so it's all a delusion and nothing is really wrong. We just think it is in order to show compassion (etc) or not. Read on for my actual response.
Okay, response two is much simpler: Why not just create us with those traits innately? He IS "god", after all!
And if "god" knows all (or is outside of time), why does he create any of the evil people? It just doesn't make any sense. Jeff, no offense, but I think you're just trying to rationalize a failing and faulty theory.
Perhaps Job should have prostrated himself before Satan to give thanks for being provided with the opportunity to prove his faithfulness to God. Perhaps we should all thank Satan for allowing us to manifest our godly qualities.
Credit where credit is due.
would like to think that any college freshman would understand the difference between experiencing "pain", such as accompanies physical injury, and "suffering", which is a product of the mind.
I don't know what dictionary you're using but physical pain is a variety (one of several) of suffering---and is one of the varieties of suffering which the POE addresses.
Question: Why do we have fatal traffic accidents?
Answer: "The carnage of the roadways is necessary because it allows to see how important seatbelts are."
This may sound silly, but it is logically the same argument. The presence of a counteracting good does not in any way justify the existence of a prevailing evil. The "good" is only good in the context of the evil already existing: it does not make any sense to manufacture evil for the purpose of allowing "good" to appear.
If this argument for evil were sound, then it would make sense to cripple children at birth! Why? Because it would give them many more opportunities to show bravery and strength in overcoming their disadvantages as they grew up.
Is it ethical for us to cripple our children? Of course not.
Similarly, it would not be ethical for a deity to intentionally inflict suffering on its creations just so that they have the opportunity to prove integrity.
@Jeff Carter
What an insight from your part too. So many pieces of shitty arguments are needed to back up a piece of shitty!
So Jesus left his Heave that he spent an eternity in, lived 30 days as a leader pretty much without worrying about the next day and suffered 3 days in Hell? Wow... Wow... if that's sacrifice I already sacrificed more. I gave 1$ to a poor guy. That is around 1 in a million of what I could earn in my life time. What did Jesus gave to humanity? 30 years out of infinity? Yes that is ZERO! Even Prometheus suffered more for humans.
If you really want a REAL role model you should worship Prometheus.
This strikes me as another example of the "teach us a lesson" refutation of the problem of evil. But it falls flat because I would rather not learn the lesson, rather not demonstrate my faith, if it meant suffering existed anywhere.
It also implies that if I had suffered more in my life I would be religious. This raises the question of whether god really wants a relationship with me. I mean, if he wanted me to believe, why not make me suffer more?
Finally, why couldn't an omnipotent being create a world that those qualities are manifested without suffering? A mountain climber demonstrates stamina, courage, and determination without the need for suffering. Hell, when my daughter took her first steps she demonstrated determination with great joy.
Why couldn't the omnipotent creator of the world make it so that we didn't have to suffer to demonstrate godly qualities?
The trouble with the various Christian responses to the problem of evil is that they are infinitely flexible: the amount of evil actually present in the world is, amazingly enough, precisely the right amount of evil to allow sufferers (mostly poor, young, and darkskinned) to demonstrate their courage in the face of trials, which somehow redounds to the glory of God (don't ask why). The slipperiness of such argumentation allows of no logical counterargument: it's not even wrong, but simply wrongheaded.
I'll agree with the other skeptics here, and raise them one, along with Jorge Luis Borges: the real sacrifice was made not by Jesus, but by the real Son of God, Judas. After all, Judas was necessary for the Crucifixion, and he is not lounging at the Right Hand of God now, but burning in Hell. Who made the greater sacrifice: Jesus or Judas?
Ok, let's posit Jeff's question, "a universe with suffering or no universe?" My question to you would be, since you seem to think that God had to have suffering existing in the universe, consequently producing compassion and courage, what would be the difference between a universe where God was visible present, and our actual universe?
From what I can get hearing your hypothesis, God supposedly hides in order for us to have faith too, which is probably what you Christians believe anyways. However, not only is this just rhetoric, it is irrelevant to this topic. So why does God also have to hide when we would still possess these virtues while still being visibly present? As others have shown, your argument does not hold much weight.
To Tyro:
Are you arguing that because the level of suffering is not high enough that most people chose suicide then the level of suffering is fully justified?
No. I am arguing that:
1. God is Eternal Life.
2. Eternal Life regenerates, reproduces, itself. This reproduction is the purpose of the universe.
3. The realization of Faith and these other qualities are essential for eternal life to be conferred, or earned. In essence, they ARE eternal life.
4. These qualities cannot be manifested except in relation to pain and suffering.
5. Given (3) and (4), an argument for the elimination of pain and suffering is an argument against the manifestation of these qualities and eternal life.
6. Given (2) and (5), an argument against the manifestation of these qualities of life is an argument against the creation of the universe itself.
7. I was pointing out that rather than not exist in order to eliminate suffering, the vast majority of people believe that life is worth it even with the suffering . In other words, most people don’t argue for (6).
What about a world with less suffering? Just how much is necessary?
That’s a good question. In that blog, in the hypothetical conversation, between God and the Skeptic, God negotiates with the Skeptic about the level of suffering necessary. The Skeptic argues that faith in response to a little suffering isn’t really showing much. It isn’t really much of a faith at all unless it can overcome the power of meaningless suffering. So how much is necessary? Enough to seriously challenge faith. As a side conversation, can meaningless suffering even be quantified? In other words, does the question “how much” have any real meaning?
If infant mortality worldwide was reduced to the levels we see in the most advanced Western nations, who would be harmed?
By conceding to the argument that faith must be challenged / manifested by meaningless suffering – in other words, He agrees that it is a valid argument - God is in effect turning the reins of the world over to a malicious element called Satan that wages war upon the world. Who knows why Satan does what he does? This lack of knowledge is part of the reason it’s senseless in our eyes. By attempting to minimize the suffering I think you are trying to quantify or make sense of something that is senseless.
If some level of suffering is necessary, what is that level? I think you evade that issue by dealing only with a heaven-on-earth.
No, I honestly believe I’m clear on that. Meaningless, pointless suffering as a condition is necessary to effectively challenge and manifest our faith. As I stated above, is it even possible to quantify meaningless, pointless suffering. More or less suffering is not going to make it any less or more meaningless.
If suffering is necessary somehow, then wouldn't an eternity without suffering be spiritually and morally destructive? If heaven is without suffering and it is eternal, then why is it necessary in our limited life?
I did address this in my blog: “Note: While the “heaven right off the bat” scenario does not allow for the honest demonstration of the life quality of faith – the two phased world of 1) the work of demonstration or proof, the valley of decision, otherwise known as “this world” and 2) rest from the proof, the world to come, allows for both the demonstration of faith and the ultimate elimination of suffering.”
Thus, reality is a two-phased universe which consists of 1) the work of manifestation and 2) rest from that work.
To kiwi:
Unless you can show it's a logical impossibility for humans to manifest qualities of life without intensive suffering, I see no reason to accept your theodicy.
In the first place, given the boundaries of the challenge John posed, I was to reconcile MY beliefs, not yours, about God with the suffering in the world. This I have done, since my belief is that these qualities of life are God and that they cannot be manifested without suffering.
To go beyond those boundaries for arguments sake, I will give an example. Faith is that power which overcomes meaningless pain and suffering. Therefore, for it to manifest itself, pain and suffering must exist as well. It’s logical because it’s by definition.
If you want to discuss the definition of these qualities, that’s OK with me. Furthermore, why don’t you show me that these qualities CAN be manifested without suffering, and I will believe you.
To Kyle:
For one, I don't consider faith to be a good thing, but you probably already guessed that. :)
That might be because you think I consider faith to be belief in some historical artifact like “Jesus was raised from the dead” in the same vein as “Columbus discovered America in 1492.” I do not. Faith is overcoming courage, stamina, perseverance, trust. Are you saying these are bad qualities?
I would think it would be enough to judge a person's character by, for example, causing them to have a delusion which shows something that they have the opportunity to be compassionate about.
Yes, exactly as your wife said, assuming that I accept your argument, how do I know this isn’t already the case?
Why not just create us with those traits innately?
First of all, I hesitate to answer this question at all, because you made a claim that it wouldn’t actually be that difficult to create a world where these qualities would manifest themselves without suffering. I asked you explain how this would be and you have sidestepped the challenge of proof.
Nevertheless, I addressed your question in my blog. In the “better world” those traits ARE innate within those in the world:
Skeptic: Well, again, that will allow for a demonstration of a moderate kind of faith, a kind that can take the heat as long as it’s understandable. But if you will allow intense, meaningless, gratuitious, pointless, senseless suffering they will fold like a old beach chair. After all, isn’t meaningless suffering the hardest to overcome?
God: No, they won’t. I know them. I can see inside of them, since I know all things.
Skeptic: Well, I don’t know about that, but even if you do know, it remains theoretical, rather than actual, knowledge, does it not? Potential unrealized, shall we say? Or, they are truth in word but not in deed? Can your Sons really be said to be beyond reproach as long as they remain unproven?
To IdahoEv:
Question: Why do we have fatal traffic accidents? Answer: "The carnage of the roadways is necessary because it allows to see how important seatbelts are."
To compare the courage, the stamina, the perservance and endurance that we manifest when a loved one dies to the seeing the importance of seatbelts is to trivialize that resilience, that idomitable spirit, which you want to do, of course. You want to say that the payoff for suffering is trivial to the suffering itself. I am arguing the opposite – that the manifestation, the existence, the expression of love and compassion and courage and overcoming power is far greater and far more important than the suffering itself.
The presence of a counteracting good does not in any way justify the existence of a prevailing evil.
It does in my belief system. “For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.” Why is your belief system any better than mine?
It does not make any sense to manufacture evil for the purpose of allowing "good" to appear.
It does if that appearance is necessary to confer or earn eternal life. Else there can be no eternal life. See the argument laid out above.
If this argument for evil were sound, then it would make sense to cripple children at birth!
I do not have the moral authority to cripple a child because I am not his creator. But a Creator would have a right to deal with a creation in a way he sees fit.
Similarly, it would not be ethical for a deity to intentionally inflict suffering on its creations just so that they have the opportunity to prove integrity.
Again, not in my belief system. What makes your belief system any better than mine? Whence is your morality derived?
To Logosfera:
As I’ve said several times on D.C., I can always tell when a person’s ability to reason has failed, because the personal insults begin.
Apparently you don’t know much about the gospel of Christ and Hell, for you are failing to recognize the intensity of his suffering. Intensity is not measured by duration.
And,I’ll be glad to consider worshipping Prometheus if he will present himself immediately to me as Christ has done. The next time you talk to Prometheus tell him I want to talk to him.
To Icelander:
I would rather not learn the lesson, rather not demonstrate my faith, if it meant suffering existed anywhere.
Yes, that's it in a nutshell. It's just as I stated earlier. You would rather there be no world than any suffering. I would rather there be a world and life and us in it with suffering than no world at all. It’s a matter of what your value system is. You may find my value system monstrous, but I find yours cowardly and whimpering.
It also implies that if I had suffered more in my life I would be religious. This raises the question of whether god really wants a relationship with me. I mean, if he wanted me to believe, why not make me suffer more?
You wouldn’t be any more religious unless you responded to the suffering with love and courage and compassion. I mean, you could respond with bitterness and despair, in which case you fail.
Finally, why couldn't an omnipotent being create a world that those qualities are manifested without suffering?
Are you not reading what I have said? I absolutely claim it cannot be done. Why don’t you show us how these qualities are manifested without suffering? I have asked this question three or four times now and everyone has declined to answer.
A mountain climber demonstrates stamina, courage, and determination without the need for suffering. Hell, when my daughter took her first steps she demonstrated determination with great joy.
Ah! Finally! But the mountain climber exhibits these qualities HERE IN THIS WORLD precisely because of the RISK of pain and suffering exists. In a world without pain and suffering that risk would not exist. In the “better world” there would be no pain if he fell and no death if he fell, so what is there to be afraid of? What fear is there to conquer? Here, his stamina and determination are in manifested in relation to the resistance he encounters in climbing to the mountaintop – fatigue, cold, lack of oxygen, hunger – all forms of SUFFERING. In a ‘better world”, since there’s no suffering, there’s no resistance to climbing the mountain, and therefore no determination, since there’s nothing to be determined AGAINST.
My son took steps today and there was no real joy. Why not? Because my son is twenty years old and it’s no big deal for him. There is joy for your daughter’s first steps because she did something difficult for her, she overcame that difficulty. Difficulty is a form of suffering.
Why couldn't the omnipotent creator of the world make it so that we didn't have to suffer to demonstrate godly qualities?
Again, show us how that could be.
To Zilch:
The amount of evil actually present in the world is, amazingly enough, precisely the right amount of evil to allow sufferers (mostly poor, young, and darkskinned) to demonstrate their courage in the face of trials..."
I never said it was “precisely the right amount”. You’re grouping me inaccurately with others who say this. In fact, I have said that it’s pretty senseless to attempt to quantify meaningless suffering. It’s just an attempt to make sense out of the non-sensical.
…which somehow redounds to the glory of God (don't ask why)….
Have you read my blog or are you just assuming my argument is the same as everyone else’s? In fact I said this:
“I have not claimed that suffering exists in order for God to be glorified. I have not claimed that suffering makes us better people. My claim is that suffering is a matter of the expression of TRUTH. Faith untested and unrealized is a false faith. Suffering, in particular meaningless suffering, proves us as Sons of God. I have claimed that without such proof, no one is worthy of eternal life. Thus, the “better world” I imagined is not plausible for the Christian God.”
The slipperiness of such argumentation allows of no logical counterargument: it's not even wrong, but simply wrongheaded.
First, since my demonstration was a result of John’s challenge that a Christian must reconcile his own beliefs about God with suffering in the world without reference to outside belief, you must demonstrate that my own beliefs are inconsistent with the fact of suffering, and that you have failed to do.
And my argument is well-laid out. See Points 1 through 7 above in my answer to Tyro.
Who made the greater sacrifice: Jesus or Judas?
How do you know where Judas is?
Finally, except for Zilch, no one has even attempted to demonstrate that faith and courage can be demonstrated without pain and suffering. I have demonstrated why Zilch’s scenario fails.
I must conclude that since these qualities cannot be manifested without suffering and are essential to earning of eternal life, then you who argue against any suffering are saying it’s better not to have a world at all if it has to have suffering. It’s just the difference between a cowardly, bleeding heart and a heart of faith, and courage and resilience. Who is to say which is morally preferable?
On some level, the argument is about whether eternal life should be earned or whether it is entitled. My belief is that is should be earned. Your belief seems to be, should eternal life exist at all, we are all entitled to it.
To Andre:
what would be the difference between a universe where God was visible present, and our actual universe?
Faith would not be able to manifest itself. Faith by definition is evidence of the unseen. You can’t have faith in something that is seen. Who hopes for what he already has? Thus, if God revealed Himself totally to the world, there would be no place for faith, it could not exist.
Why does God also have to hide when we would still possess these virtues while still being visibly present?
Your assumption that we would possess these values, particularly faith, if God were visibly present is incorrect. See above.
As others have shown, your argument does not hold much weight.
Where exactly has this been shown?
Throughout this entire thing, the idea unlying every post of Jeff's is "God, the omnipotent inscrutable One, is incapable of doing [x]."
Jeff has repeatedly and insistently argued that his god can't actually do everything, and that his god is incapable of finding ways around certain challenges, i.e. God needs there to be suffering in order for courage to exist. Meanwhile, we're all still hanging around on the idea that God should be able to do anything.
It appears that we think God should be more powerful than Jeff does. We, the non-Christians, actually have higher standards for God than Jeff. Am I the only one who finds this ironic?
(And by the way, Jeff: I like how, in reference to the evil that Satan does, you said that we shouldn't try to make sense of the "senseless," when that is exactly what you are trying to do, not us.)
Jeff Carter writes:
I never said it was moral for me to ignore the suffering of others and I never said certain suffering wasn’t evil to me. I said God uses intensive suffering to manifest qualities of life. I totally reject the idea that God’s morality must conform to mine, when I know less than He does.
I am having a little difficulty understanding your entire line of reasoning. It seems to me that the direction in which your argument clearly tends to point is that there is always, at any given time, an optimal amount of suffering in the world. If there were too much, then God would be at fault for allowing the excess, and if there would be too little, then God would be equally at fault for not providing for enough. But since God can never be at fault, the amount of suffering that actually exists at any given time must be precisely equal to the amount that God wants to exist, in this best of all possible worlds.
If that is the case, then if "certain suffering is evil to you," it must be the case that you are entirely mistaken. It cannot be evil if God allows it. And if you think that it would not be moral for you to ignore the suffering of others, then you must also be mistaken about that, if one argues -- as you obviously do -- that God allows others to suffer for purposes known to him, but not to you.
Phillip -
It appears that we think God should be more powerful than Jeff does. We, the non-Christians, actually have higher standards for God than Jeff. Am I the only one who finds this ironic?
Ironic, but true nonetheless. In my statement of beliefs I never posited that God is so powerful that He could accomplish the illogical, such as demonstrate faith without suffering when in fact by definition, faith is the overcoming of suffering.
You are confusing the definition of the Christian God with the god of Aristotle or Locke or other theistic but non-Christian concepts.
(And by the way, Jeff: I like how, in reference to the evil that Satan does, you said that we shouldn't try to make sense of the "senseless," when that is exactly what you are trying to do, not us.)
Well, I appreciate that, but I fear you are confusing the two ways of making sense. I am explaining the plausibility of the condition of meaningless suffering, (that is, relative to human perspective) that to God has purpose.
Others are arguing that in order to establish purpose I have to quantify all suffering and demonstrate that every bit of it is necessary.
However, if you concede that God should allow meaningless suffering, if seems irrational to complain that He has allowed too much meaningless suffering. The randomness and excessiveness of the suffering is part of what makes it seem meaningless.
Gary -
It seems to me..that there is always...an optimal amount of suffering in the world. If there were too much, then God would be at fault for allowing the excess.
Not at all. See my response to phillip, directly above. The excessiveness contributes to the meaninglessness of it. "Oh, Lord, why, O why is there SO MUCH suffering in the world?"
It cannot be evil if God allows it.
God is beholden to what is moral for me. It is not immoral for me to swat a fly, but it is immoral for me to kill another human being. This is because I am not of the same order as the fly. God is not of the same order as man. This follows, unless, you believe it is immoral to kill a fly. Hey, you're not one of THOSE are you?
Jeff Carter writes:
Not at all. See my response to phillip, directly above. The excessiveness contributes to the meaninglessness of it. "Oh, Lord, why, O why is there SO MUCH suffering in the world?"
Your reply noted, and found completely baffling. Your response to Phillip included the following statement:
I am explaining the plausibility of the condition of meaningless suffering, (that is, relative to human perspective) that to God has purpose.
I take this statement to mean that
meaningless suffering is only apparently meaningless, but actually fulfills God's purpose. That would be perfectly in line with my contention that your argument points to the conclusion that the amount of suffering in the world at any given time (whatever that amount happens to be) is the optimum amount -- that is, precisely the amount that God requires to fulfill his purpose.
Jeff further writes:
It is not immoral for me to swat a fly, but it is immoral for me to kill another human being. This is because I am not of the same order as the fly. God is not of the same order as man. This follows, unless, you believe it is immoral to kill a fly.
But if you succeed in killing another human being, what sense are we to make of the fact that God has allowed you to succeed (i.e., did not thwart your act)? Does this additional argument of yours not imply, in conjunction with your previous line of reasoning, that you must have been of a higher order than the person you killed?
If, on the other hand, you try to swat a fly and fail, what sense are we to make of that? Could it be the case that you are not actually of a higher order than that particular fly, given that God did not favor you swatting attempt with success?
Are you arguing that people are to God as flies are to people -- loathsome pests?
Jeff - I'm sorry if I wasn't clearer before, hopefully this time I can do better.
The point I was trying to make is that according to your view that suffering has to exist in order for the universe to exist, because that's just how your God rolls, I can see no reason why he couldn't be visibly present, while we would still be able to express compassion, courage, and faith.
This would still be possible, because just as certain as you are that he exists and still allows suffering, there's not much of a difference left if he was visibly present. (except unseen as you mentioned) Yet, as certain as you are, you still display these virtues. So even if seen, he would still be allowing evil, while we would still be able to mourn lost one's for example, pray, and hope to get into heaven as well. Unless, you think that if we could see God, all our natural human (and animal) emotions would magically disappear. For example, even if God appears to all of us just for one minute, and then disappears for another 2000 yrs, would we lose all our virtues then?
So in a sense, you would be saying that if God was seen, he would likely have to make us in a different way where we would not need these virtues. But this would go against your claim that suffering has to exist for your Christian God created universe to exist.
If he does exist, then you have to admit that there could have been another way, since you believe if he was seen, our world would be different than it is. (For example as you say, we wouldn't require faith.) Basically what I'm saying is that, if your God exist and is seen by his angels, unless they don't also experience suffering, then there could have been another way.
BTW, you said that God had immediately presented himself to you, do you still need to have faith?
Your argument that these virtues are needed to obtain eternal life, what happens to babies who don't get to make there first step because of death? And what are your views on animals and other creatures obtaining eternal life also?
Just one more question. What benefit is it to us that the devil also hides like God does? Are we also to have hope and faith that we shall one day see him? I would really like a response to this question also, I just find it odd that they both feel it's necessary and "beneficial" to hide from us. I do appreciate your time.
@Jeff Carter
Aparently you don't understand what I've said. I never once said it was about duration it is about PROPORTION. Your failure to see that is because of your religious upbringing. People search for propotion in art, justice etc. But christians are not searching for proportion. If they did, they would reject the concept of heaven and hell, the most abominable ideas in human history.
Imagine 2 people walking near a begging person each giving 10 dollars. Do you appreciate them the same even if one is Bill Gates and the other is a person who earns 10$/month? I don't think so.
As for Prometheus not appearing in your dream there are so many questions to be asked: have you been born in prometheus worshipers household? have you fasten for a week and prayed to prometheus to appear in your dream? do you think you are worthy of prometheus appearing to you? are you 100% sure in wasn't the angry Zeus sending you the fake jesus vision?
Do you really think a person yelling "Fuckin retard, one apple + one apple is two apples" is not reasoning well?
God is not of the same order as man. This follows, unless, you believe it is immoral to kill a fly. Hey, you're not one of THOSE are you?
I think there's a very real moral issue regarding how beings of a higher order of sentience and intelligence ought to behave in regard to those of a lower order which should not be dismissed so casually.
Christians seem so often to think God has no moral responsibilities regarding the creatures he has brought into being (and I'm talking about living beings with the capacity to suffer in general--not just humans--chimps, gorillas, dogs, horses, whales, dolphins and so many thousands of others)
And christians seem to be consistently on the wrong side of this issue (as they consistently are on so many others). I can't begin to count the number of times I've heard a christian claim that God has the right to do anything at all with the beings he's created.
Words that should send a chill up the spine of any person whose capacity for compassion has not been warped by dogma.
Suffering allows for the proving and demonstration of courage, faith, stamina, perseverance, determination, spirit, triumph, glory, heroism, overcoming.
Except for the millions of people -- throughout time -- who could never recover from the unimaginable suffering they had to go through -- the ones who were emotionally crippled, for the rest of their lives or the ones who endured, horrendous, suffering, only to die or the ones who were so broken they retreated into the oblivion of the mind -- none of them encompassing any of the attributes you offer.
If there is a god, that uses suffering as a tool, then not only is he inept, he is contemptible and a hideous, torturer of souls, which, boils down to: I'm hurting you in vile, egregious ways, so that you might (maybe you will, maybe not) demonstrate courage, faith, stamina...etc.
You would think an all-loving deity, who could think the universe into existence, could have come up with something better, that didn't include repugnant, unthinkable, suffering, that as -- evidence shows -- is not unequivocal, in proving or demonstrating what you have concluded.
--S.
To Gary:
…your argument points to the conclusion that the amount of suffering in the world at any given time (whatever that amount happens to be) is the optimum amount -- that is, precisely the amount that God requires to fulfill his purpose.
I see your point and I disagree with it. How can something that is by definition excessive and random be optimized and precise?
But if you succeed in killing another human being, what sense are we to make of the fact that God has allowed you to succeed (i.e., did not thwart your act)?
You may draw the conclusion that God has given me free will with which to define myself. You cannot draw the conclusion that God is evil because of something I did. I am responsible for my own acts.
Does this additional argument of yours not imply, in conjunction with your previous line of reasoning, that you must have been of a higher order than the person you killed?
No. It means I committed an immoral act since the human being I murdered was of the same moral order as myself.
If, on the other hand, you try to swat a fly and fail, what sense are we to make of that?
It means I missed.
Are you arguing that people are to God as flies are to people -- loathsome pests?
No. I am arguing that just as I have higher moral qualities and sensibilities than a fly that morally allow me to take liberties with them, so God has higher moral qualities and sensibilities than people that allow him to take liberties with them, such as give life, take life, forgive, judge and condemn.
Could it be the case that you are not actually of a higher order than that particular fly, given that God did not favor you swatting attempt with success?
No. My miss does not diminish the fact that my moral qualities and sensibilities are of a higher and different order than the fly.
To Andre
I can see no reason why he couldn't be visibly present, while we would still be able to express compassion, courage, and faith.
I see your point and I will try to do better to explain myself, too. My belief is that God values a certain kind of faith. Not a non-interested belief that I have in an historical fact, such as “The Battle of Hastings was in 1066”, but a type of trust that endures, rises above and overcomes difficulty, opposition and active resistance. A particular kind of difficulty that he wants us to rise above is the kind we encounter when he is not visibly present. (“It sure would be a lot easier for us to believe in God if he would just come down here and make himself known. Why, if he’d come today, think of all the media coverage!") Well, precisely. Even the cowardly and the lazy could believe in that. So, God is not simply looking for belief – he’s looking for courageous, overcoming faith, the kind that can overcome the difficulty of him not being present. Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
…there's not much of a difference left if he was visibly present…
It may be that I am still misunderstanding you, but I think there is a huge difference and I think Loftus agrees with me on this, or else he wouldn’t be asserting that Jesus picked a bad time historically to appear and that he would done better to appear in the current age. He has stated that even if God exists, he wants to shame him for not providing sufficient evidence and reasons to believe. My contention is that God uses lack of “sufficient evidence” to weed out the cowardly and faint-hearted.
For example, even if God appears to all of us just for one minute, and then disappears for another 2000 yrs, would we lose all our virtues then?
Now here you seem to be saying something different from “visibly present”, at least from my perspective, for I DO believe that God appears to us, not just in the visible, objective realm.
So in a sense, you would be saying that if God was seen, he would likely have to make us in a different way where we would not need these virtues.
Correct. As I said earlier reality consists of two phases – work and rest. The work of manifestation of faith, courage, stamina in response to evil and suffering occur in this world and eternal life is earned. In the second phase, rest, the life now earned is conferred. Suffering is done away with and faith is no longer necessary, for its manifestation is complete. “Now we see through a glass darkly, then we shall see face to face.”
If he does exist, then you have to admit that there could have been another way, since you believe if he was seen, our world would be different than it is. (For example as you say, we wouldn't require faith.) Basically what I'm saying is that, if your God exist and is seen by his angels, unless they don't also experience suffering, then there could have been another way.
I think I answered this above, but if not, please try again, I will eventually understand your assertion. Angels may have everlasting existence, but do not have eternal life. There’s a difference. Since they are not possessors of eternal life, they neither have faith nor suffer.
BTW, you said that God had immediately presented himself to you, do you still need to have faith?
Yes, because he does not present himself to me in his totality so as not to overwhelm my free will. I may be certain of his existence, but I still must trust the kind of person he is. When a non-believer says that want to see evidence, are they not speaking of God presenting himself to such a degree that faith is not necessary?
Your argument that these virtues are needed to obtain eternal life, what happens to babies who don't get to make there first step because of death? And what are your views on animals and other creatures obtaining eternal life also?
First, the death of a baby is extremely horrendous and challenging to us. Others beside the baby are the ones who must demonstrate their faith in this situation, not the baby. God judges on what challenges and what options are presented to a person, what opportunities are given. “To whom little is given, little is required.” A baby is judged based on the fact that almost no opportunity was given him, that he played a role which he fulfilled, and that if any failure was demonstrated he was too weak to be responsible. In other words, he receives eternal life.
Any creature other than man cannot be granted eternal life.
Just one more question. What benefit is it to us that the devil also hides like God does? Are we also to have hope and faith that we shall one day see him? I would really like a response to this question also.
Because I have to struggle with difficulties like, “Maybe there is no devil. Maybe there’s nothing behind this physical world, maybe there is nothing but this physical world and what we see. Maybe there are no right and wrong actions, just actions. And if there is no devil, no angels, no unseen world, then perhaps there is no God…..”
To Logosfera:
I understand thoroughly the concept of proportion. Just what do you think is the proportional response to utter and blasphemous rebellion, an attempt to overthrow, murder and destroy the infinitely and absolutely perfect righteous being?
As for Prometheus, I’m under no obligation to bother with him until he presents himself to me. Why should I go looking for him? If he wants me, he can come get me. Jesus came to me, I didn’t come to him.
Do you really think a person yelling "Fuckin retard, one apple + one apple is two apples" is not reasoning well?
I think that person is letting the other person get under his skin and losing all dignity. For one thing, he seems to get all hot and bothered about the concept of hell, but thinks nothing of degrading and despising and hating another human being. You may not believe in hell, but you’d like to send me there.
To David:
Christians seem so often to think God has no moral responsibilities regarding the creatures he has brought into being
I never said God has no responsibilities toward his creatures. What do you think those responsibilities are? How do you derive what those responsibilities are?
To sconner –
Except for the millions of people -- throughout time -- who could never recover from the unimaginable suffering they had to go through –
What demagoguery. What a pathetic mess of tears and hand-wringing. How in the world do you even get through the day? Nietzche would be ashamed of you. As I have said before, the sole focus on the suffering denigrates the value of the compassion and strength expressed. You can’t explain to me why I should care more about the suffering than I do about the love and courage.
Here’s a poem by one of those suffering who rose above it. It may not be doctrinely correct, but boy, does it capture the heart of Christianity –
OUT of the night that covers me
Black as the Pit from pole to pole
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance,
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
Suffering allows for the proving and demonstration of courage, faith, stamina, perseverance, determination, spirit, triumph, glory, heroism, overcoming.
Again, that's precisely the sort of argument used by Jigsaw.
Why do christians so often sound like movie serial killers when they talk theodicy?
I never said God has no responsibilities toward his creatures. What do you think those responsibilities are? How do you derive what those responsibilities are?
The same way I come to conclusions about what a human's responsibility is to an injured and suffering animal---and its not by thumbing through a book looking to see what some ancient writer tells me to do.
Are you trying, again, to claim there are no moral truths if there is no God?
You do realize, don't you, that if you're mistaken about the existence of God (or about his character), that you are defending the position that the most horrible cruelties are not morally wrong?
And you do realize, don't you, that this constitutes the most extreme possible form of moral relativism?
jeff,
What demagoguery. What a pathetic mess of tears and hand-wringing. How in the world do you even get through the day? Nietzche would be ashamed of you.
So you can't reconcile the fact that people have suffered, egregiously, without proving and or demonstrating courage, faith, stamina, perseverance, determination, spirit, triumph, glory, heroism, overcoming. If you can not reconcile this, you render your whole argument obsolete.
As I have said before, the sole focus on the suffering denigrates the value of the compassion and strength expressed. You can’t explain to me why I should care more about the suffering than I do about the love and courage.
I don't care about your subjective perspective on suffering vrs. love and courage; the fact remains, people have suffered, throughout time, who never proved or demonstrated courage, faith, stamina, perseverance, determination, spirit, triumph, glory, heroism, overcoming. For these suffers, no compassion or strength could be expressed.
You made the claim that, suffering allows for the proving and demonstration of courage, faith, stamina, perseverance, etc. but this statement crumbles under the very fact that not all suffers are capable of demonstrating your list of subjective attributes. In fact, other suffers are the antithesis of your list of "surviving" attributes.
--S.
Jeff,
I have a few questions regarding your concept of suffering as a necessary requirement for eternal life.
Q: Do you believe life beings at conception?
Q: If so, what happens to the soul of a embryo that dies within a week or so after conception? Does it go to Heaven or Hell?
I'm asking because a embryo doesn't have a nervous system, let alone a brain, until at least 4 weeks at the earliest. So it's impossible for an embryo to experience earthly suffering before this time. And without earthly suffering, you've ruled out it's chance for eternal life.
Jeff wrote:
1. God is Eternal Life.
2. Eternal Life regenerates, reproduces, itself. This reproduction is the purpose of the universe.
3. The realization of Faith and these other qualities are essential for eternal life to be conferred, or earned. In essence, they ARE eternal life.
4. These qualities cannot be manifested except in relation to pain and suffering.
5. Given (3) and (4), an argument for the elimination of pain and suffering is an argument against the manifestation of these qualities and eternal life.
6. Given (2) and (5), an argument against the manifestation of these qualities of life is an argument against the creation of the universe itself.
7. I was pointing out that rather than not exist in order to eliminate suffering, the vast majority of people believe that life is worth it even with the suffering . In other words, most people don’t argue for (6).
Your argument seems to imply suffering is a necessary part of things that have life. However, you haven't substantiated this fact. (Please see my comment above)
In regards to [4], if God can create conscious beings with free will out of nothing, then why wouldn't he be able to create a conscious being with with faith, courage, etc? You simply haven't reconciled these two beliefs.
It's as if God can create a entire car from nothing, but he can't create a car that has the equivalent of being driven 2,000 miles, or even 2 miles.
Are you claiming there are things that only we can give ourselves and God is helpless to provide?
In regards to [1], God, being omnipotent and omniscient, cannot have faith in us or trust us, since we would be completely transparent to him. There is no gap in his knowledge in which to posit an unknown outcome or result. Nor would he be able to experience courage, etc.. How can he be eternal life, given [3]?
Why would God value these things if he cannot experience them himself?
@jeff carter
The proportionate punishement for "to utter and blasphemous rebellion, an attempt to overthrow, murder and destroy the infinitely and absolutely perfect righteous being"?
How small is this infinite that can be destroyed by a human you're talking about? Don't tell me, in hell only people who tryed to kill Jesus will go? Absolutely perfect righteous being? The entity (jesus) that watched the first ambush (yes I'm talking about the original sin) is righteous. Well, I have other usage for the word "righteous" and I'm not using it to describe a father that beats his 2 year old son to death because he doesn't know 20 decimals of PI. But if you call that "righteous" and heaven will be filled with "righteous" people I wish you "good luck".
As for me wishing you to send you to hell, I already stated I would not wish this for my worst enemy. But I see the same religious pattern: believers know what atheists want better than the atheists themselves. How omniscient of you :)
To David B. Ellis:
Why do christians so often sound like movie serial killers when they talk theodicy?
I don’t know, why do atheists so often sound like the stereotypical movie woman of the 30s and 40s? Or why do they so often sound like every defeatist nay-sayer down through history? Actually, they sound like Johnny Fontaine. Remember him? He was down-and-out, whining about his circumstances (he was suffering) and put his head in his hands and moaned, “Oh, Godfather, I just don’t know what to do.” The Godfather jerked him up and said, “You can act like a MAN.”
The same way I come to conclusions about what a human's responsibility is to an injured and suffering animal---
So what are those responsibilities? Why are there any responsibilities at all? Also, your scenario assumes the relation (distance) of God to man is the same as man to animal. How do you know it’s not similar to man to insect?
and its not by thumbing through a book looking to see what some ancient writer tells me to do.
You must not have read my comments much on D.C. I’m the one who asserts that the Bible is irrelevant to the gospel of Christ.
Are you trying, again, to claim there are no moral truths if there is no God?
Absolutely. I agree with Nietzche. If God is dead, then we are free to make our own morality, or better yet, have none at all, that is, be completely amoral. Do you disagree with Nietzche and if so, why?
You do realize, don't you, that if you're mistaken about the existence of God (or about his character), that you are defending the position that the most horrible cruelties are not morally wrong?
Are you serious? If I’m wrong, then there are no consequences, so why should I care?
And you do realize, don't you, that this constitutes the most extreme possible form of moral relativism?
I sure do. So what?
To sconnor…
So you can't reconcile the fact that people have suffered, egregiously, without proving and or demonstrating courage, faith, stamina, perseverance, determination, spirit, triumph, glory, heroism, overcoming. If you can not reconcile this, you render your whole argument obsolete.
Absolutely not. First, I never argued that the sufferer was necessarily the one who demonstrates the courage. It could be someone else. And the demonstration itself is not what is necessary but the opportunity. Some have the opportunity to display faith and courage and they don’t. They fail.
the fact remains, people have suffered, throughout time, who never proved or demonstrated [these qualities]. For these suffers, no compassion or strength could be expressed.
Someone, not necessarily the sufferer, has the opportunity to express these qualities even if the suffering is not specifically known to them, because the suffering exists as part of the condition of meaningless suffering.
To Scott –
Q: Do you believe life beings at conception?
I believe life begins either at conception or somewhere soon thereafter. Since no one really knows the safest thing to do is to presume it’s at conception.
Q: If so, what happens to the soul of a embryo that dies within a week or so after conception? Does it go to Heaven or Hell?
The spirit returns to God.
So it's impossible for an embryo to experience earthly suffering before this time. And without earthly suffering, you've ruled out it's chance for eternal life.
No, as I have explained earlier that it is not necessarily the sufferer that has the opportunity to manifest faith. But I think I see where you are going with this, and I think it is a very good point. I would assert, as Loftus has in some cases, that exceptions don’t destroy the whole general concept. In this case, the general concept is that eternal life must be earned and the vast majority of the 100 billion humans that come into existence so far have had that opportunity.
Your argument seems to imply suffering is a necessary part of things that have life. However, you haven't substantiated this fact.
No, I haven’t. I have only stated this is my belief. Loftus’ challenge was to reconcile suffering with MY OWN beliefs. If you want to concede that I have won met THAT challenge, then we can go on to question my underlying beliefs of my response.
Why wouldn't he be able to create a conscious being with faith, courage, etc?
In regards to [1], God, being omnipotent and omniscient, cannot have faith in us or trust us, since we would be completely transparent to him.
Yet again, I addressed this in my blog. In the “better world” I described God did do this:
God: No, they won’t. I know them. I can see inside of them, since I know all things.
Skeptic: Well, I don’t know about that, but even if you do know, it remains theoretical, rather than actual, knowledge, does it not? Potential unrealized, shall we say? Or, they are truth in word but not in deed? Can your Sons really be said to be beyond reproach as long as they remain unproven?
Are you claiming there are things that only we can give ourselves and God is helpless to provide?
I am saying that potential faith is not realized faith.
Nor would he be able to experience courage, etc.. How can he be eternal life, given?
God himself must manifest these qualities and has done this through his suffering on the cross, descent into hell and resurrection. Christ prayed at Gethsemane, If these things be possible, take this cup away from me. But it’s not possible. God himself, since He is Love, must realize His love. Otherwise it remains mere potential.
To Logosfera:
As for me wishing you to send you to hell, I already stated I would not wish this for my worst enemy. But I see the same religious pattern: believers know what atheists want better than the atheists themselves. How omniscient of you.
You said you wouldn't, but you act like you would. It's not omniscience. I based it on your own actions.
So what are those responsibilities? Why are there any responsibilities at all?
We both accept that there are moral responsibilities. Do I really have to prove a meta-ethical theory for us to have this discussion---especially when you haven't deigned to do the same?
Also, your scenario assumes the relation (distance) of God to man is the same as man to animal. How do you know it’s not similar to man to insect?
You seem to be assuming that a beings moral responsibility to another being is based on the gap between the two beings levels of sophistication. I, on the other hand, think the level of responsibility toward, for example, a dog suffering horribly from having been injured by a car is essentially the same for a man, a superintelligent alien, an angel or a god. Its a function of the SUFFERER'S level of mental sophistication and, therefore, capacity to suffer. Not the distance between sufferer and person in a position to come to their aid.
By your reasoning, Jesus, had he been one of the persons walking by in his parable of the good Samaritan, would have had little or no moral culpability for passing by without a second thought----that dieties have a right to be indifferent to suffering.
What an utterly bizarre moral system!
He was down-and-out, whining about his circumstances (he was suffering) and put his head in his hands and moaned, “Oh, Godfather, I just don’t know what to do.” The Godfather jerked him up and said, “You can act like a MAN.”
don’t know, why do atheists so often sound like the stereotypical movie woman of the 30s and 40s?
So it's whiny and "womanish" to think its wrong not to aid those suffering horribly?
Thanks for that moral insight.
And, recall, this has been a discussion of suffering in general---not my own suffering. I happen to have been born in a wealthy nation with, so far, good health and relatively little suffering.
Others have not been so lucky.
If I’m wrong, then there are no consequences, so why should I care?
This is the moral perspective of a sociopath (again, you're sounding like Jigsaw---are you doing that on purpose or does it just come naturally).
Q: If so, what happens to the soul of a embryo that dies within a week or so after conception? Does it go to Heaven or Hell?
A:The spirit returns to God.
I've read (correct me if I'm wrong) that for every baby born there are a great many embryos naturally "aborted" without the mother ever knowing she was pregnant.
So heaven's population will be, if this thinking is correct, made up mostly of people who never lived long enough to be carried to term.
Whether that weighs against the character-building theodicy I'll leave you to judge for yourself. I think this theodicy is sufficiently absurd already not to require it.
jeff,
Absolutely not. First, I never argued that the sufferer was necessarily the one who demonstrates the courage.
Good, then you concede the point that there are suffers who do not accomplish any of the attributes you list.
What a shitty plan; one must suffer egregiously, so the other can feel courageous or heroic or any of the arbitrary attributes you mention? That is a sadistic plan.
Do you have kids? Would inject your child with a terminal disease, so your wife could "get over" and persevere over the monumental feelings of grief; the unbearable misery of having to watch her child suffer and die?
...and what if she didn't have the courage and she didn't persevere and she didn't triumph over adversity and she just crawled into a little ball and was incapacitated, until the day she died?
If this is god's plan, then you have reduced him to a monstrous torturer, who let's children suffer in unimaginable ways just so someone can feel they accomplished something. You would think, the supposed, creator of the universe, could have come up with something better -- something that didn't use children as cosmic experiments, where they suffer so hideously, just so someone else has the opportunity to display faith and courage. In an effort to save your god's reputation you have to rationalize the rationalizations and do mental gymnastics to condone your god's atrocious actions.
The best minds will tell you that when a man has begotten a child he is morally bound to tenderly care for it, protect it from hurt, shield it from disease, clothe it, feed it, bear with its waywardness, lay no hand upon it save in kindness and for its own good, and never in any case inflict upon it a wanton cruelty. God's treatment of his earthly children, every day and every night, is the exact opposite of all that, yet those best minds warmly justify these crimes, condone them, excuse them, and indignantly refuse to regard them as crimes at all, when he commits them. Your country and mine is an interesting one, but there is nothing there that is half so interesting as the human mind. -- Mark Twain
--S.
Jeff: I would assert, as Loftus has in some cases, that exceptions don’t destroy the whole general concept. In this case, the general concept is that eternal life must be earned and the vast majority of the 100 billion humans that come into existence so far have had that opportunity.
Must? Please clarify your position. Is it a necessity, in the vein that there must be evil for good to exist, or a optional requirement imposed by God? Your argument seems to flip-flop.
Scott: Your argument seems to imply suffering is a necessary part of things that have life. However, you haven't substantiated this fact.
Jeff: No, I haven’t. I have only stated this is my belief.
Right. However, I've provided an scenario where, by your own definition, life exists, despite the impossibility to experience earthly suffering. It's not clear how you can rationally sustain this belief in light of this conflict.
Scott: In regards to [4], if God can create conscious beings with free will out of nothing, then why wouldn't he be able to create a conscious being with with faith, courage, etc? You simply haven't reconciled these two beliefs.
It's as if God can create a entire car from nothing, but he can't create a car that has the equivalent of being driven 2,000 miles, or even 2 miles.
You have yet to address this question. One could create a series of beliefs for any position. This does not mean such a position is rational.
Scott: In regards to [1], God, being omnipotent and omniscient, cannot have faith in us or trust us, since we would be completely transparent to him.
Jeff: Yet again, I addressed this in my blog. In the “better world” I described God did do this:
God: No, they won’t. I know them. I can see inside of them, since I know all things.
Transparent = "I can see inside of them, since I know all things." How can one have faith or trust without a lack of knowledge? You appear to be supporting my position, not refuting it.
Scott: Are you claiming there are things that only we can give ourselves and God is helpless to provide?
Jeff: I am saying that potential faith is not realized faith.
Please see your argument. 4. These qualities cannot be manifested except in relation to pain and suffering. Either God cannot manifest them or he chooses not to manifest them. You can't have it both ways.
Scott: ... Nor would he be able to experience courage, etc. How can he be eternal life, given[3]?
Jeff: God himself must manifest these qualities and has done this through his suffering on the cross, descent into hell and resurrection.
God lives "vicariously" though human beings, by "turning off" his omni-traits at will?
Again, if faith is a requirement for eternal life, then how can God be eternal life? His omniscience seems to exclude this possibility.
I wrote:
…your argument points to the conclusion that the amount of suffering in the world at any given time (whatever that amount happens to be) is the optimum amount -- that is, precisely the amount that God requires to fulfill his purpose.
To which Jeff Carter responded:
I see your point and I disagree with it. How can something that is by definition excessive and random be optimized and precise?
Let me answer your question this way, Jeff. Jesus is quoted as saying, "With God all things are possible." If Jesus actually said that, and if we are to take him at his word, one obvious implication is that the suffering allowed by God, or caused by God (that is, ALL suffering) could be optimized and precise, if that is what God wanted. Do you not think that is the case?
I wrote:
But if you succeed in killing another human being, what sense are we to make of the fact that God has allowed you to succeed (i.e., did not thwart your act)?
Jeff Carter responded:
You may draw the conclusion that God has given me free will with which to define myself. You cannot draw the conclusion that God is evil because of something I did. I am responsible for my own acts.
Well, let us stop short -- for the moment -- of saying that God is "evil" because of something you did. You contend that God is a higher order moral being than man, although it seems to me that you seem to waffle slightly on the crucial question of whther God has any moral obligation to man. If God has no moral obligation to man, it would be reasonable to conclude that nothing God does (or doesn't do) to man can be characterized as "evil." With that as the working assumption for now, let us instead explore the question of whether God shares responsibility for the outcome of any acts that you commit. Let us assume, as in my initial question, that you kill someone. Three questions:
(1) Would it be correct to say that, according to your view of the matter, this could only be the case if God had allowed you to do the killing, or assisted in you in doing the killing?
(2) Do you think that God would have been aware in advance that you were going to do the killing?
(3) If the answer to question (2) is "yes," when, do you think, would God first have become aware that you were going to do the killing?
I wrote:
Are you arguing that people are to God as flies are to people -- loathsome pests?
To which Jeff Carter responded:
No. I am arguing that just as I have higher moral qualities and sensibilities than a fly that morally allow me to take liberties with them, so God has higher moral qualities and sensibilities than people that allow him to take liberties with them, such as give life, take life, forgive, judge and condemn.
Would you say that your claim that "God has higher moral qualities and sensibilities than people" is based on observational data, or is it an a priori assertion, or is at expression of faith?
Jeff
It seems to me that your beliefs are very much influenced by the Genesis story of original sin. Your whole argument sounds the same as one saying that the reason why we are sinners is because the mother and father of humanity ate a fruit. And they were also tempted by this same devil you think exists, but is hiding also like God.
Most Christians (including myself) once believed literally, the Adam and Eve story, which explained evil and suffering. The fact that people were willing to believe in such nonsense because of our presupposition of god, is an indication why people like you have to find a way to hold on to your faith. Christians might want to consider rewriting the bible.
This I conclude this because your argument makes no sense. And if you are right, your omniscient god should have known people like me who wouldn't figure it out, would think just that. But does he care about that? I think not, because he's going to what he wants to do. So what can I do? Doesn't really matter does it?
You said your god "values a certain kind of faith", here you're saying, because God wants a specific type of faith, and the only way for him to get it, he has to allow suffering. And that we cannot obtain eternal life without us displaying faith. Are you telling me this does not sound childish and petty to you? So God created us, thinks it best that we experience suffering in this lifetime, and depending on what you believe, I either go to hell suffering forever, or die? Not only that, if I'm going to hell, when I die, he's going to resurrect me again, just so that I can experience suffering again? What a wonderful god he is.
Do you realize what your telling me, that faith is the most important thing in our conceivable universe, all because your god wants to be entertained through our tribulations.
Some say we experience suffering and evil because God wanted to give us freewill, so how does this go with your contention that we suffer in order to portray these virtues. If God is forcing suffering on us in order to achieve this, where is our freewill. The fact that suffering exists, it gives us the freewill to react with sadness, hopelessness discouragement, hatred, and fear. But at the same time we still have the choices of overcoming our trials through positive thinking. Now, in a sense though, we really don't have the freewill or choice in either way we react, because the situations and consequences will do the trick for us. It's a natural requirement of consciousness.
I haven't responded to some of your replies to me, I'm hoping I won't have to, but if you push me, I'll react. Just one thing before I stop, Jesus did appear in a bad time in history, which explains why he supposedly believed in the same nonsense they believed in at that time.
@jeff carter,
my only action is to get angry at people that, while not retarded, act retarded.
Your selfishness is monstrous. Just because you had some sort of epiphany about a caracter from the book that was used as detergent to wash your brain you are willing to kiss the ass of the (nonexistent) entity that condemns so many to pain and misery. You claim that you have no obligation to worship Poseidon because he didn't came to you (like you are somehow worthy of that) but I have the obligation to kiss Jesus ass that didn't appear to me? If that is not selfcenterness I don't know what it is. "When we will know the center of the universe so many will be surprised it is not them".
When you or your children are sick do you use medicine? Don't tell me, suddenly your pain and suffering is there just to display the willingness to go to the doctor? Suddenly your pain and suffering is not there to show courage. It's not even a message that your ass is required in Heaven a little bit sooner. But other's people suffering is neccesary for Jesus to appear in your dreams and make you feel like a "special child".
To David B. Ellis:
We both accept that there are moral responsibilities. Do I really have to prove a meta-ethical theory for us to have this discussion---especially when you haven't deigned to do the same?
I derive the moral virtues I am emphasizing here – faith, courage, strength – not from the Bible but from the Gospel of Christ. Should there be no God, then my moral perspective simply devolves to that of Nietzche’s. So from where do you derive the idea that the elimination of suffering is of a higher moral value than the expression of compassion and courage?
I, on the other hand, think the level of responsibility toward, for example, a dog suffering horribly from having been injured by a car is essentially the same for a man
It wouldn’t be immoral to shoot the dog to put him out of his misery. I wouldn’t shoot a man so injured. All you’ve managed to demonstrate is that you and I have two different moral systems. You can’t offer me compelling reasons to accept your moral system. The circumstance that you and I can’t persuade one another demonstrates the relativity of moral systems without God, another reason to accept Nietzche’s viewpoint.
By your reasoning, Jesus, had he been one of the persons walking by in his parable of the good Samaritan, would have had little or no moral culpability for passing by without a second thought----that dieties have a right to be indifferent to suffering.
Wrong. Jesus was God as Man. He called himself the Son of Man, his moral obligations were those of a man.
What an utterly bizarre moral system!
I think the same of yours, which apparently are without foundation. In fact, why do you even insist that there are morals? If there is no God, why can't you just have the courage to admit that we are all amoral and we can do as we please?
So it's whiny and "womanish" to think its wrong not to aid those suffering horribly?
Great scott, man, you just hit the nail right on the head. I declare the value of AIDING the sufferers – that is DEMONSTRATING one’s compassion, rather than whining that suffering exists.
It’s whiny and “womanish” to sit around complaining about the suffering, rather than acknowledging the great value of compassion.
Others have not been so lucky.
Boo hoo hoo. The poor will be with you always.
This is the moral perspective of a sociopath
Do you think Nietzche was a sociopath? Explain to me how that is so.
And yours moral perspective is that of a spineless noodle, right?
Whether that weighs against the character-building theodicy I'll leave you to judge for yourself. I think this theodicy is sufficiently absurd already not to require it.
I admitted earlier it is a very good point, but I can’t conclude that these “unknown” abortions don’t have some impact on the people that are born into this world. And if it has an impact, it can have a purpose.
To sconnor -
What a shitty plan; one must suffer egregiously, so the other can feel courageous or heroic or any of the arbitrary attributes you mention? That is a sadistic plan.
Look around. People suffer all the time so that others might be live better. It’s called self-sacrifice. It’s called love. But oh, that’s evil isn’t it?
So, I gather that, like some of the others admitted here, that you would rather there be no universe at all, rather than a universe with suffering? Now THAT is a plan that is so cowardly and spineless as to make me sick. So we both think each other’s plan sucks. So what? All it means is that I don’t your morals and you don’t like mine. It’s gets us no closer to determining whether one is superior or whether there can even be a defensible moral system.
Do you have kids? Would inject your child with a terminal disease, so your wife could "get over" and persevere over the monumental feelings of grief; the unbearable misery of having to watch her child suffer and die?
As a matter of fact I have four kids, and we discussed this issue this earlier. You cannot compare my moral obligations with those of God’s.
And do you have kids? Do you advise them that, when they encounter adversity to just crawl up into a little ball and give up? Do you tell them, “Life’s not worth the suffering, so first chance you get just check out”?
The fact that you people are even engaging with me belies your assertions. If you think things are so bad, you would have committed suicide already. Instead, you choose to fight and try to overcome. You exhibit the very virtues you despise.
...and what if she didn't have the courage and she didn't persevere and she didn't triumph over adversity and she just crawled into a little ball and was incapacitated, until the day she died?
That doesn’t sound like my wife. She’s been fighting pancreatic cancer for four years and every day instead of sinking into despair she gets up and goes to work and faces the day with hope and courage. If she ever did sink down, I would tell her to get over her pity party and fight back!
If this is god's plan, then you have reduced him to a monstrous torturer, who let's children suffer in unimaginable ways just so someone can feel they accomplished something.
But that’s the only two options you wonderfully imaginative and creative minds can come up with – either God is a monster or He doesn’t exist! Just because your feeble mind can’t fathom an answer, you conclude there isn’t one. What arrogance.
You would think, the supposed, creator of the universe, could have come up with something better.
I’ve asked a half a dozen times in this thread alone for someone to come up with “something better” and apparently it can't be done or someone would have explained it to me. In fact, it was Loftus’ proposal of such a “better world” that prompted my blog and I showed it to be implausible. Since no one seems to be able to explain just what this “better world” is, I think I’d best still with my own explanation.
The best minds will tell you…
Is this how you derive your morality? You let the “best minds” tell you what it is?
To Scott:
Must? Please clarify your position. Is it a necessity, in the vein that there must be evil for good to exist, or a optional requirement imposed by God?
Godly qualities MUST be manifested so that eternal life may be earned. These qualities can ONLY be manifested in relation to suffering. I admit the case of the aborted needs to be clarified but remains an exception.
Right. However, I've provided an scenario where, by your own definition, life exists, despite the impossibility to experience earthly suffering. It's not clear how you can rationally sustain this belief in light of this conflict.
I said one has to demonstrate godly qualities to earn eternal life. I said that godly qualities can only be expressed in relation to suffering. It doesn’t follow that the suffering has to be one’s own.
In regards to [4], if God can create conscious beings with free will out of nothing, then why wouldn't he be able to create a conscious being with with faith, courage, etc? You simply haven't reconciled these two beliefs.
You have yet to address this question. One could create a series of beliefs for any position. This does not mean such a position is rational.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I have addressed this over and over again. I have said numerous times that the potential quality is not the realized quality. God may create man with potential courage but if it is not realized, well, it’s not REAL. And it can only be realized in relation to suffering.
Transparent = "I can see inside of them, since I know all things." How can one have faith or trust without a lack of knowledge? You appear to be supporting my position, not refuting it.
You didn’t read the skeptic’s reply. He questioned whether theoretical or potential virtue is real virtue. This is my essential point. Potential virtue is meaningless. Only actualized virtue is real.
Please see your argument. 4. These qualities cannot be manifested except in relation to pain and suffering. Either God cannot manifest them or he chooses not to manifest them. You can't have it both ways.
I agree, I can’t have it both ways, but I don’t see where I’ve said that God chooses not to manifest them. I have said earlier that not only Man, but God as well, must manifest these qualities.
God lives "vicariously" though human beings, by "turning off" his omni-traits at will?
I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Please clarify.
Again, if faith is a requirement for eternal life, then how can God be eternal life? His omniscience seems to exclude this possibility.
God manifested all these qualities through Christ on the Cross. And as I said earlier, it is something He MUST do.
To Gary Charbonneau –
Let me answer your question this way, Jeff. Jesus is quoted as saying, "With God all things are possible." If Jesus actually said that, and if we are to take him at his word, one obvious implication is that the suffering allowed by God, or caused by God (that is, ALL suffering) could be optimized and precise, if that is what God wanted. Do you not think that is the case?
What He wants is suffering to appear meaningless and pointless to us because this is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, challenges to our faith. As I said earlier, its excessive and random nature is part of what renders it meaningless. To optimize or make it precise would seem to defeat that purpose.
it seems to me that you seem to waffle slightly on the crucial question of whther God has any moral obligation to man.
Just for the record, I believe that one of God’s moral obligations to man is that he not override man’s free will. I don’t know if that adds anything to the debate or not.
Three questions:
(1) Would it be correct to say that, according to your view of the matter, this could only be the case if God had allowed you to do the killing, or assisted in you in doing the killing?
I am not sure if there is not a third option and that is, man operates as a moral free agent. What do you mean by “allow”? If God’s responsibility for the act is inherent within the meaning of “allow”, then I reject it.
(2) Do you think that God would have been aware in advance that you were going to do the killing?
Yes.
(3) If the answer to question (2) is "yes," when, do you think, would God first have become aware that you were going to do the killing?
Before He created the world.
However, knowledge of an act is not equivalent to moral responsibility. That would mean that man’s free will cannot exist in parallel with God’s foreknowledge!
Would you say that your claim that "God has higher moral qualities and sensibilities than people" is based on observational data, or is it an a priori assertion, or is at expression of faith?
It comes not from observational data nor from an expression of faith, but from my personal encounter with Christ within my Self, although some might derive the relational distance from the definition of the term “creator”.
To Andre –
It seems to me that your beliefs are very much influenced by the Genesis story of original sin.
Nah. I’ve been consistent on D.C. that the Bible is irrelevant to the Gospel of Christ.
Most Christians (including myself) once believed literally
Sorry you fell into that trap. So, when you were a Christian, you were one of those that I fought against, even then?
your omniscient god should have known people like me who wouldn't figure it out
‘wouldn’t’ is correct. Wouldn’t doesn’t mean couldn’t.
You said your god "values a certain kind of faith", here you're saying, because God wants a specific type of faith, and the only way for him to get it, he has to allow suffering.
Why don’t you show me, O wise one, how courage can be shown without suffering? You keep saying that God is so great, he can do anything, but even God cannot do the illogical.
And that we cannot obtain eternal life without us displaying faith. Are you telling me this does not sound childish and petty to you?
The reason this sounds childish and petty to you is because you don’t understand that these things are synonymous. Eternal Life IS faith and courage and compassion. How can one have eternal life without having eternal life?
So God created us, thinks it best that we experience suffering in this lifetime
I’m getting so tired of saying this over and over. You people are rationalists and yet you can’t seem to grasp the easiest concept. The equation of Eternal life to faith, courage, compassion is NOT a matter merely of what God “thinks best”. It is a matter of SHEER DEFINITION. To have eternal life, you have to have eternal life. If eternal life is faith, determination, courage, then you have to have faith, determination and courage to have eternal life. It’s not like “I will give you $100 for working an hour”. Eternal life is not the PAY. Eternal life simply IS, IS, IS faith, determination and courage. If you don’t display these things, then you don’t have them and if you don’t have them, you don’t have eternal life. This is not some pay system that God arbitrarily came up with, it is WHAT HE IS.
and depending on what you believe, I either go to hell suffering forever, or die?
You know what? I think you people think I am the average run-of-the-mill Christian that drops by this website, and you don’t bother to read just what I have said. I have said eternal life depends on what you ARE, not WHAT you believe. I have said earlier that the type of belief in question is not a belief in a historical fact, like “The Civil War began at Fort Sumter”.
Not only that, if I'm going to hell, when I die, he's going to resurrect me again, just so that I can experience suffering again?
I never said that. I’m not one who believes hell is mind-bending torment. It’s simplest definition is separation from God.
Do you realize what your telling me, that faith is the most important thing in our conceivable universe, all because your god wants to be entertained through our tribulations.
Wrong again. Boy, you’re more narrow-minded than a Christian. Faith is the most important thing in the universe because that is what eternal life IS. It wasn’t something that God decided to MAKE the most important thing in the universe. It’s important because that’s what He IS. In other words, the relation of faith to eternal life is not something God had any say-so about.
Some say we experience suffering and evil because God wanted to give us freewill, so how does this go with your contention that we suffer in order to portray these virtues. If God is forcing suffering on us in order to achieve this, where is our freewill.
There’s no negation of free will. You can choose to overcome or you can choose to despair.
we really don't have the freewill or choice in either way we react
Or you denying that we have free will?
but if you push me, I'll react
Why is it so important for you to react, if pushed? It seems by doing so, you prove my point, that there is a power that can rise in us when we face difficulty or oppression or if we are challenged. If the elimination of suffering is so important to you, why don’t you just quit?
To logosfera -
Your selfishness is monstrous.
Au contraire, mon frere. It is your selfishness that is cowardly. You would rather eliminate the entire universe than to have suffering. I want all people to live and instead of wallowing in their pity party, I want them to have courage to overcome their adversity! I want them to get off their ass. You would rather them not have an ass.
the (nonexistent) entity that condemns so many to pain and misery.
How can he condemn many to pain and misery if he’s nonexistent? That’s seems a basic philosophical contradiction, if you ask me.
You claim that you have no obligation to worship Poseidon because he didn't came to you
We were speaking of Prometheus, not Poseidon.
but I have the obligation to kiss Jesus ass that didn't appear to me?
Well, there you go again. I never said you were under any obligation to Jesus if he hasn’t appeared to you. As a matter of fact, I would say that if he hasn’t appeared to you, you are under no obligation.
If that is not selfcenterness I don't know what it is.
Well, since it’s not as you described it, then it must not be self-centeredness.
When you or your children are sick do you use medicine? Don't tell me, suddenly your pain and suffering is there just to display the willingness to go to the doctor?
Where in the world do you people get your reasoning skills? I have explained at least three times now that my moral obligations are not God’s. You can’t derive God’s moral responsibilities from merely looking at mine. Half of the things you argue about have already been addressed if you’d bother to read.
I said one has to demonstrate godly qualities to earn eternal life. I said that godly qualities can only be expressed in relation to suffering. It doesn’t follow that the suffering has to be one’s own.
I'm not following you. How can you earn something by doing nothing? Are you suggesting there is a particular void of suffering that must be filled before a particular number of souls can have eternal life?
The closest I can come to making sense out of this is that the human race as a whole earns eternal life when it's members suffer. But, this still leaves several questions. How much suffering is required? If there isn't enough suffering to cover the entire human race, why would some get eternal life, but not others? Who gets credit for another's suffering? Etc.
don’t know what you’re talking about. [...] God may create man with potential courage but if it is not realized, well, it’s not REAL. And it can only be realized in relation to suffering.
You keep glossing over the part of my comment that illustrates my question.
Scott: It's as if God can create a entire car from nothing, but he can't create a car that has the equivalent of being driven 2,000 miles, or even 2 miles. A car is an analog to human beings and millage is an analog to suffering.
Imagine the following scenario. God creates a person. This person suffers. God destroys this person. Could God then recreate this very same person? Would they be "real"? If so, then God has the ability to create people who have the properties you've described without suffering. If not, then why would any properties God instills, such as free will, be any more or less "real?" You've simply asserted that some properties are impossible for God to endow, but not but no others.
You didn’t read the skeptic’s reply. He questioned whether theoretical or potential virtue is real virtue. This is my essential point. Potential virtue is meaningless. Only actualized virtue is real.
I'm not referring to the skeptics ability to express faith. I'm referring to God. Unless there is a gap in God's knowledge in which to posit a possible but ultimately unknown result or outcome, then how can God have faith? How can God trust? How can God be eternal life (1 & 3 in your argument) if he cannot manifest these properties?
To clarify, faith and trust are important to us because we are finite beings. They are a direct result of our limitations. If we created God, it would come as no surprise if we designed him to value these things as well. However, God is supposedly infinite and all knowing. You've asserted that God values that which is logical impossible for him to exhibit based on the very properties you ascribe to him (knowing all things.)
I agree, I can’t have it both ways, but I don’t see where I’ve said that God chooses not to manifest them. I have said earlier that not only Man, but God as well, must manifest these qualities.
Please see above. You claim there are necessary requirements which must be fulfilled for eternal life and that human beings must manifest these properties in themselves by suffering. Either God is helpless to endow us with these properties himself or he decides not to endow them. Which is it?
Scott: God lives "vicariously" though human beings, by "turning off" his omni-traits at will?
Jeff: I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Please clarify.
I don't see how God be both all knowing and not all knowing at the same time. Nor do I see how God can simply decide not be all knowing at a particular point in time, yet exist outside of time. The best analogy I can come up with is that God wanted to know what is was like to be blind, so he created beings that couldn't see and let them stumble around in the darkness.
I wrote:
When, do you think, would God first have become aware that you were going to do [a] killing?
Jeff Carter responded:
Before He created the world.
However, knowledge of an act is not equivalent to moral responsibility. That would mean that man’s free will cannot exist in parallel with God’s foreknowledge!
Yes, well, there's your theological problem, you see. You hold the God created the world, and you, knowing that, in this hypothetical situation, the consequence of his doing so would be that you would kill someone else. The question therefore arises, if he didn't want you to kill someone else, why did he create you in the first place, given that he knew precisely that this is what you were going to do? God didn't just permit the murder, he was the Uncaused First Cause of it.
It seems to me rather difficult for you to argue succesfully that "divine foreknowledge" is not, in fact, divine intent, and thus to argue that God the Omniscient Creator would not be responsible for all the perfectly foreseen consequences of his own act of creation. But you're certainly welcome to try.
Jeff
It does not matter if you honestly never considered yourself a sinner, based on the Adam & Eve story. My point was that most lay Christians today, believe they're in danger of hell because in the beginning, two people disobeyed God, which to them explains why they now have to pay for their sins by suffering, but if they believe in God, there's still a slight chance, of life going back to how it was suppose to be before the devil changed God's plan.
The fact that they literally believe this nonsense, all because they were born into a society that brainwashed them in believing in an "all-loving good god", shows how one will accept any view, as long as God's in the picture. So being convinced of such a god, even a story like in Genesis will be reconciled some way some how, by believers, since they also believe if it's in the bible, then it's true.
When it comes to you, you are trying to reconcile and justify suffering by thinking of a way to make sense of it all, since you choose to believe in this god, just like the Genesis believers. This is why I used the word influenced, because it still stands that you are influenced by the Genesis attempt to explain life's imperfection, even though you claim it's the gospel of Christ that's relevant. My contention is that you are no different than the bible thumping Christians who accepts the Genesis concept of original sin. Your argument for suffering is no better.
Now, you asked me to show you how suffering can be shown without suffering while you avoid answering my assertion. You are the one telling me God wants a certain kind of faith, and I'm the one telling you why it's silly to think because God values love, hate has to exist or God values courage, so suffering must exist. What if I don't want to express courage, why do I still deserve to suffer? You previously said only humans will go to heaven, why do animals display courage but gets snubbed? We both display courage but for one it doesn't matter. What's the difference?
But let me try to get this straight. Since God exists, Satan must therefore exist to make God God, just like hate must exist for love to be magnified? Am I understanding you? What about if everything was reversed? What if it was God who manifested from the always existed wicked devil? What if suffering manifested from lacking? courage? What if it is because of love that hate is manifested? Are these impossible notions, I'll let you tell me.
On the other hand, have you ever considered simply that suffering is on it's own term, suffering? If you were able to take off your God glasses you would be able to see it for what it really is. Instead you try to justify it with a silly argument.
I saw on the news today that a 23yr old woman was stoned to death in front of hundreds in Somalia, because of adultery. Here we see God causing suffering on top of allowing it, just by not making it clear of his standards, consequently, the people that he cares so much for, go about killing each other because they care so much about what they think he thinks? Isn't that ironic?
One last thing before I finish this "chapter", What is the purpose of suffering over and over and over in one's life? How much courage does your God need from us to meet his requirements? See, you might say this is not what you're saying, but I can still ask because your argument is not sitting well with any of us anyways.
To be continued.....
jeff,
Look around. People suffer all the time...
Uh, yeah, tell me something I don't know
...so that others might be live better. It’s called self-sacrifice. It’s called love.
Your rationalization of suffering is shallow and limited. Evidently, you can not admit to the magnitude of human suffering, that has gone on throughout time. With so many people that are suffering and have suffered, in so many horrific, differing ways, how can you even begin to tabulate or quantify the wretched misery? You dismiss all other forms of excruciating pain and unspeakable suffering to only include your myopic rationalization that suffering is "that others might be live better" and you hearken self-sacrifice and love -- when suffering is not created equal and does not subscribe to your lame argument of heroism and perseverance.
So, I gather that, like some of the others admitted here, that you would rather there be no universe at all, rather than a universe with suffering?
I know your modus operandi is making assumptions and diverging. I made no such comment. You are simply, putting words in my mouth to argue something I didn't say. It is a diverging tactic where you don't have to address my arguments by creating new ones that you can answer. Do try and stick to the arguments at hand, please.
As a matter of fact I have four kids, and we discussed this issue this earlier. You cannot compare my moral obligations with those of God’s.
Oh, but I can compare your moral obligations to that of god's; in fact, I did. Additionally, your statement, "You cannot compare my moral obligations with those of God’s", would be more accurate and honest, if it read, You cannot compare my moral obligations with those of God’s immoral obligations.
The reality of the situation is, we make observations based on the real-life happenings around us. We can agree that it is wrong to give one of our children a deadly disease or to do nothing while that child suffers -- we know that would be cruel, monstrously abusive and morbidly neglectful -- morally repugnant. We have this information. What information do you have -- besides conjecture or assumption -- that god's obligations would go against, said information, especially being a supposed all-loving god? I'm asking you to substantiate your position that god's immorality is justified.
And do you have kids? Do you advise them that, when they encounter adversity to just crawl up into a little ball and give up? Do you tell them, “Life’s not worth the suffering, so first chance you get just check out”?
No, of course not, but again you miss the point altogether. The fact is millions of people, through out time, do succumb to suffering, people do give up, people are broken and become incapacitated, mentally unstable, mentally crippled, or attempt/commit suicide, even when other people give words of encouragement and love. Furthermore, millions have suffered, throughout time, that did not have the luxury of other people encouraging them or loving them -- millions and millions of people have been ignored and neglected, tortured and slowly died in anguish. In an effort, to salvage your god's atrocious reputation, your rationalizations, crumble under the weight of these facts. You are not looking at the big picture of mass suffering, throughout time, before medicine, before technology, before psychiatry -- before your romanticized version of suffering, that only includes the last eighty years.
The fact that you people are even engaging with me belies your assertions.
Fact? your statement is a logical fallacy, there are a myriad of reasons why we engage you, none of which belies our assertions.
If you think things are so bad, you would have committed suicide already. Instead, you choose to fight and try to overcome.
Again you miss the point, just because we go on with our lives doesn't mean that others don't succumb to suffering. 89 people, in the U.S. just committed suicide today, alone. That statistic gets exponentially bigger as you go back in time.
That doesn’t sound like my wife. She’s been fighting pancreatic cancer for four years and every day instead of sinking into despair she gets up and goes to work and faces the day with hope and courage. If she ever did sink down, I would tell her to get over her pity party and fight back!
This only points to your, vast, ignorance. If she became clinically depressed, your condescending remarks and "guilting" her into getting better would do more harm than good. And just because your wife is a trooper and she puts on a happy face and trudges off to work doesn't mean everyone handles suffering the same way. That's the ultimate point. If god put this dumb-ass plan into action, why didn't he consider ALL the ramifications? All the mass suffering, all the vile unimaginable suffering that has gone on that doesn't include one iota of your justifications?
If this is god's plan, then you have reduced him to a monstrous torturer, who let's children suffer in unimaginable ways just so someone can feel they accomplished something.
But that’s the only two options you wonderfully imaginative and creative minds can come up with – either God is a monster or He doesn’t exist!
I see, you can't address why god let's children suffer in hideous and unimaginable ways, just so someone can feel they accomplished something -- can you?
Explain how a parent can force their six year old child into prostitution, where old men violate them and abuse them and after several years of this, the child is murdered -- how is that part of god's plan? How do you condone or justify this?
Just because your feeble mind can’t fathom an answer, you conclude there isn’t one. What arrogance.
I'm basing my arguments on factual observations, what are you basing yours on?
Arrogance? Isn't it ironic that the Christian club you belong to -- professes humility, all the while condemning the non-religious of arrogance? When, in fact, your world view wallows in egregious arrogance: "our triune Christian God is the one and only true God and is the creator of the universe who, takes an interest in me, loves me, accepts me, will reward me with the blissful pleasures of heaven, after my death; all my beliefs, extracted from scripture, will always be the best statement of truth, forever and anyone who disagrees with me will be tortured in the flames of hell, for an eternity." This is a level of delusional, arrogance and superiority that is astonishing.
You would think, the supposed, creator of the universe, could have come up with something better.
I’ve asked a half a dozen times in this thread alone for someone to come up with “something better” and apparently it can't be done or someone would have explained it to me.
Doesn't matter what we come up with, but god being god should be able to come up with an infinite amount of possibilities, all accomplishing what he wanted to accomplish, none of which would include the torture, brutalization or the unthinkable suffering of innocent children.
God could have made an infinite amount of worlds, each with an infinite number of incredible and wonderful possibilities at every turn, everyone of them extremely, enjoyable and utterly satisfying, accomplishing what he wanted to accomplish without egregious suffering and evil existing.
Since no one seems to be able to explain just what this “better world” is, I think I’d best still with my own explanation.
Just did above, but, let's see, what about the fairytale of heaven. Evidently, there is no suffering in heaven. There is just bliss and pure love and supposedly the souls have free will -- or is heaven a place where there is no suffering but now the souls are robots with no free will?
Also, since the dawn of man, why does this supposed omniscient, all-loving god keep creating souls -- more earthly children, sentencing them to endure egregious pain, abuse, torture and unimaginable suffering, knowing full well that these children will not be loved nor will they or their acquaintances be courageous, heroic, or overcome their heinous situations?
The best minds will tell you…
Is this how you derive your morality? You let the “best minds” tell you what it is?
More diverging. You can't address the salient and germane, quote by Mark Twain, specifically, so you change the subject. The reluctance to argue the quote speaks volumes.
--S.
Jeff wrote: You can’t have faith in something that is seen. Who hopes for what he already has? Thus, if God revealed Himself totally to the world, there would be no place for faith, it could not exist.
Here you clearly state that one cannot have faith in that which one has knowledge of.
But you also claim that God has knowledge of everything, with leaves nothing unseen.
Skeptic: ...But if you will allow intense, meaningless, gratuitious, pointless, senseless suffering they will fold like a old beach chair. After all, isn’t meaningless suffering the hardest to overcome?
God: No, they won’t. I know them. I can see inside of them, since I know all things.
This means it is impossible for God to have faith in anything.
As such, your argument...
[1] God is eternal life.
[3] The realization of Faith and these other qualities are essential for eternal life to be conferred, or earned. In essence, they ARE eternal life.
...is a contradiction in terms.
@Jeff
"I’ve asked a half a dozen times in this thread alone for someone to come up with “something better” and apparently it can't be done or someone would have explained it to me."
Humans are better than god. Humans create worlds where virtues can express without needless suffering? Want proofs? It's very easy acctually. Take a look at any computer game that has a hero that kills monsters. That is a world created by humans. Of course there is no free will because the game is about a character being controlled but it could easily be programmed with some artificial inteligence and it would become a movie (just like this universe is a movie for god's entertainment). Have you seen a game where while the hero fights evil forces in another corner of the game a father is mollesting his child? Have you seen a game where in order for the hero to accomplish his mission he must kill the children of his his opponents (how it's happening in the war in israel)?
Humans are better than your god. And it took 80 years (since we discovered programming) to prove that while god spent an eternity to plan this universe. The only excuse he may have is that he's insane from the eternity he spent in solitude.
Great scott, man, you just hit the nail right on the head. I declare the value of AIDING the sufferers – that is DEMONSTRATING one’s compassion, rather than whining that suffering exists.
Great Scott, man! Do you not realize that there is a massive amount of suffering that humans are completely unable to do anything about!
I derive the moral virtues I am emphasizing here – faith, courage, strength – not from the Bible but from the Gospel of Christ.
That's nice but its not a meta-ethical theory. Please don't demand one from me until you show yourself willing to supply one as well.
Should there be no God, then my moral perspective simply devolves to that of Nietzche’s.
Really? If God didn't exist, you'd become a Nietszchean?
Why?
So from where do you derive the idea that the elimination of suffering is of a higher moral value than the expression of compassion and courage?
Let me get this straight. You WANT there to exist poverty because that allows the well-off to exhibit the virtue of charitableness.
Thank you for demonstrating the premise on which this blog is founded---that the christian religion has a damaging effect on those who practice it---in this case, warping their concept of morality in a way that is truly disturbing.
The circumstance that you and I can’t persuade one another demonstrates the relativity of moral systems without God, another reason to accept Nietzche’s viewpoint.
What's this obsession with Nietszche? I've never in my life met an atheist who was a Nietszchean.
Why should it disagreement among nonbelievers on ethics demonstrate the relativity of morality without God when theists themselves disagree just as strongly and widely among themselves?
What is actually being demonstrated is that meta-ethics is not like mathematics. Moral truths are not susceptible to proof like mathematical theorems.
Wrong. Jesus was God as Man. He called himself the Son of Man, his moral obligations were those of a man.
OK, fine. Then if God the father or an angel came down to earth and walked that road they, not being humans, would have no moral obligation.
That makes it so much better.
In fact, why do you even insist that there are morals? If there is no God, why can't you just have the courage to admit that we are all amoral and we can do as we please?
We already can do as well please. That we CAN do as we please has no bearing on what we SHOULD do.
The existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities simply has no bearing on the issue. For every attempt to base morality on a god there is a variation of the Euthyphro dilemma which shows it to fail.
Moral truth does not depend on the existence or nonexistence of any deity. It is on a far firmer foundation than that. It's foundation is in the inherent value of love itself. The existence or nonexistence of any thing, or any being, even a god, can do nothing to rock those foundations.
Do some fail to experience love with the depth necessary to understand its value?
Sure. But I need not make Nietszche's mistake.....nor yours.
Boo hoo hoo. The poor will be with you always.
So much for demonstrating compassion.
Sorry for the long delay. My job sometimes takes me away from the blog.
To Scott –
I'm not following you. How can you earn something by doing nothing? Are you suggesting there is a particular void of suffering that must be filled before a particular number of souls can have eternal life?
The one who earns eternal life is not “doing nothing”, he is manifesting the qualities of eternal life – faith, courage, compassion – in response to the suffering of this world. What part of that do you not understand?
The closest I can come to making sense out of this is that the human race as a whole earns eternal life when it's members suffer.
You are misinterpreting this. Eternal life is not earned when people suffer. Eternal life is earned when the qualities of eternal life are manifested.
How much suffering is required? If there isn't enough suffering to cover the entire human race, why would some get eternal life, but not others? Who gets credit for another's suffering?
I explained above that the quantity of suffering is irrelevant when you’re speaking of meaningless, pointless suffering. Why are these questions important for the overall concept?
Imagine the following scenario. God creates a person. This person suffers. God destroys this person. Could God then recreate this very same person? Would they be "real"?
The person you described may be real but without the manifestation of eternal life, he does not possess eternal life.
I'm not referring to the skeptics ability to express faith. I'm referring to God. Unless there is a gap in God's knowledge in which to posit a possible but ultimately unknown result or outcome, then how can God have faith? How can God trust? How can God be eternal life (1 & 3 in your argument) if he cannot manifest these properties?
God does manifest all these qualities through the crucifixion and the resurrection. This is why God MUST be crucified.
To clarify, faith and trust are important to us because we are finite beings. They are a direct result of our limitations.
I disagree. God IS faith and trust.
Please see above. You claim there are necessary requirements which must be fulfilled for eternal life and that human beings must manifest these properties in themselves by suffering. Either God is helpless to endow us with these properties himself or he decides not to endow them. Which is it?
I’m not buying your “either/or” scenario. God gives us the potential ability, the free will, to manifest these qualities. It is up to us to realize them, to make them real. God is not going to realize them for us.
I don't see how God be both all knowing and not all knowing at the same time. Nor do I see how God can simply decide not be all knowing at a particular point in time, yet exist outside of time.
I do posit that God is all-knowing. You seem to want to say that because God knows something He is responsible for it, and that I reject. Knowledge, including foreknowledge, does not destroy free will.
To Gary –
The question therefore arises, if he didn't want you to kill someone else, why did he create you in the first place, given that he knew precisely that this is what you were going to do? God didn't just permit the murder, he was the Uncaused First Cause of it.
No, that’s your philosophical misunderstanding. See above. God’s foreknowledge does not destroy my free will and responsibility.
It seems to me rather difficult for you to argue succesfully that "divine foreknowledge" is not, in fact, divine intent, and thus to argue that God the Omniscient Creator would not be responsible for all the perfectly foreseen consequences of his own act of creation. But you're certainly welcome to try.
It’s actually very easy: Knowledge and intent are two different things. They have two different meanings and are two different things. If you believe they are one and the same, the burden’s on you to show that they are.
To Andre:
t's silly to think because God values love, hate has to exist or God values courage, so suffering must exist. What if I don't want to express courage, why do I still deserve to suffer?
As I have said previously, it not simply a matter of God “valuing” love. God IS love, so if you don’t manifest that quality, then He is not in you and you do not have eternal life. Unrealized love simply remains theoretical love or no love at all. The attempts so far to show that love can be manifested without suffering have failed because they rely on the false premise that theoretical or potential love is real love.
You previously said only humans will go to heaven, why do animals display courage but gets snubbed? We both display courage but for one it doesn't matter. What's the difference?
Animals don’t display the type of faith I am speaking of. When I use the terms faith, courage, etc. I speak in general terms to get the point across. But to be clear, I am speaking of a trust in God, which animals don’t exhibit.
But let me try to get this straight. Since God exists, Satan must therefore exist to make God God, just like hate must exist for love to be magnified? Am I understanding you?
Yes, there is truth in what you have said in this statement.
What about if everything was reversed? What if it was God who manifested from the always existed wicked devil?
An interesting idea, but I reject it because when I look around the world, it seems to me that suffering can be manifested without the existence of faith and love, but not vice versa.
I saw on the news today that a 23yr old woman was stoned to death in front of hundreds in Somalia, because of adultery. Here we see God causing suffering on top of allowing it, just by not making it clear of his standards, consequently, the people that he cares so much for, go about killing each other because they care so much about what they think he thinks? Isn't that ironic?
Stop blaming God for what people do. People are responsible for their own actions.
How much courage does your God need from us to meet his requirements?
Enough so that whatever comes its way, it is manifested always.
To sconnor -
Evidently, you can not admit to the magnitude of human suffering, that has gone on throughout time.
Of course I can and do, but what you are trying to force me to do is to be overwhelmed by its magnitude and starting sobbing and crying and fall like a nervous wreck into the corner, which I consider to be a pathetic response to life. What is your response to all the suffering, to just give up? Cry like a baby?
“So, I gather that, like some of the others admitted here, that you would rather there be no universe at all, rather than a universe with suffering?”
I know your modus operandi is making assumptions and diverging. I made no such comment. You are simply, putting words in my mouth to argue something I didn't say. It is a diverging tactic where you don't have to address my arguments by creating new ones that you can answer. Do try and stick to the arguments at hand, please.
No, I think it is quite relevant, since my claim is that if the universe is to exist at all, it must exist with suffering. You’re all hot and bothered because there’s suffering in the world, so I’m asking you, would you rather there not be a universe at all? If you don’t can’t take all this incredible suffering, why don’t you just commit suicide?
Oh, but I can compare your moral obligations to that of god's; in fact, I did.
I meant that you cannot make a valid comparison of my moral obligations and God’s. And you knew what I meant. Don’t play dumb.
I'm asking you to substantiate your position that god's immorality is justified.
Where have you been? That’s what this whole thread is about. My argument justifies God’s allowance of pain and suffering in the world.
Furthermore, millions have suffered, throughout time, that did not have the luxury of other people encouraging them or loving them -- millions and millions of people have been ignored and neglected, tortured and slowly died in anguish
Why should I value the failure of the many over the triumph of the few, which you conveniently ignore? Simply because there are more failures than triumphs?
ain you miss the point, just because we go on with our lives doesn't mean that others don't succumb to suffering. 89 people, in the U.S. just committed suicide today, alone. That statistic gets exponentially bigger as you go back in time.
So, again, the mere quantity of pathetic failures is of more importance than those who endured and overcame? Tell me why you choose the losers rather than the overcomers – why are they of more moral value?
This only points to your, vast, ignorance. If she became clinically depressed, your condescending remarks and "guilting" her into getting better would do more harm than good.
No, I think it points to your quitter attitude and your ignorance. Cancer patients that despair, die. Even the doctors will tell you that those that have the fighting spirit are the ones that will overcome.
All the mass suffering, all the vile unimaginable suffering that has gone on that doesn't include one iota of your justifications?
You seem to have a one-track mind. Suffering and how bad it seems is all you seem to thing about. Why do you wallow in this?
I see, you can't address why god let's children suffer in hideous and unimaginable ways, just so someone can feel they accomplished something -- can you?
Yes, I can and I have, and I have made myself very clear – God values (and by this term value, I mean God IS these things) a person’s overcoming faith, courage, and compassion more than all the suffering in the world.
Do you understand what I am saying now? Faith, courage, compassion and love mean more to God than the meaningless suffering in the world. All you are saying is that you don’t like suffering and that you disagree with God’s value system, but you can’t show why your value system is any better than God’s. Once again, it comes down to our value system.
You can call God’s value system monstrous. And I call yours cowardly and pathetic and neurotically, obsessively focus on suffering.
Explain how a parent can force their six year old child into prostitution, where old men violate them and abuse them and after several years of this, the child is murdered -- how is that part of god's plan? How do you condone or justify this?
It is justified by that there are people in the world who will not allow themselves be overwhelmed or fall into despair about it. Life refuses to quit, life goes on, life is determined. If everyone were to adopt your philosophy, the world would just give up and die.
Doesn't matter what we come up with, but god being god should be able to come up with an infinite amount of possibilities, all accomplishing what he wanted to accomplish..
No. God simply cannot do the illogical. Since love is, by definition, the overcoming of evil and suffering, that evil and suffering must exist for love to be manifested. God cannot overcome that logical limitation.
what about the fairytale of heaven. Evidently, there is no suffering in heaven. There is just bliss and pure love and supposedly the souls have free will -- or is heaven a place where there is no suffering but now the souls are robots with no free will?
I explained this in an earlier response. Reality is of two phases – the work of manifestation (this world) and the rest and peace following manifestation (the world to come). The suffering of this world allows the manifestation of eternal life which allows the peace in the world to come.
To Scott (Part II) -
Here you clearly state that one cannot have faith in that which one has knowledge of. But you also claim that God has knowledge of everything, with leaves nothing unseen.
Christ took on to form of a man in which He gave up His knowledge.
[1] God is eternal life.
[3] The realization of Faith and these other qualities are essential for eternal life to be conferred, or earned. In essence, they ARE eternal life.
...is a contradiction in terms.
Excellent point, but this is precisely why the world must be and why Christ had to come into the world. He gave up his knowledge and demonstrated that God, too, has faith, and courage, etc by His death and resurrection. God has done what He asks us to do.
To Logosfera –
Humans are better than god. Humans create worlds where virtues can express without needless suffering? Want proofs? It's very easy acctually. Take a look at any computer game that has a hero that kills monsters.
You are actually arguing that a computer game character exhibits real courage?
To David B. Ellis -
Great Scott, man! Do you not realize that there is a massive amount of suffering that humans are completely unable to do anything about!
We are never completely powerless in the face of suffering. We always have the option to have courage or despair.
That's nice but its not a meta-ethical theory. Please don't demand one from me until you show yourself willing to supply one as well.
So, what would you consider a proper derivation?
Really? If God didn't exist, you'd become a Nietszchean? Why?
Because if no God exists, I am free to make my own morals, as Nietzche stated. Don’t you agree?
Let me get this straight. You WANT there to exist poverty because that allows the well-off to exhibit the virtue of charitableness.
It’s not fair to claim that I WANT there to exist poverty. I said poverty MUST exist that charitableness exist, because there is simply no other way for charitableness to exist. There’s a difference.
What's this obsession with Nietszche? I've never in my life met an atheist who was a Nietszchean.
That’s because most atheists insist on clinging to a morality that is irrational. At least Nietzche had the guts to say if there is no God, there are no morals. I don’t think rational atheists can rationally justify their own moral systems.
OK, fine. Then if God the father or an angel came down to earth and walked that road they, not being humans, would have no moral obligation.
Come on. I never said that. I said their moral obligations would be different from that of a human.
The existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities simply has no bearing on the issue.
Moral truth does not depend on the existence or nonexistence of any deity. It is on a far firmer foundation than that. It's foundation is in the inherent value of love itself.
And to the person who says, “Screw all that!” you say……?
So much for demonstrating compassion.
Let’s reserve compassion for those who really need it, not those who are making invalid philosophical arguments.
To all –
This will be my last response on this blog. I have enjoyed the intellectual stimulation, but will now move on to other threads and other blogs. However, if you feel you want to discuss this further, I can be reached at sophie11@sophiesladder.com.
The reason for suffering is sin. God is absolutely innocent regarding sin. Neither did he author sin, nor is he in any way supportive of its existence.
God is good! God is great!
regarding the magnitude of human suffering
Of course I can and do, but what you are trying to force me to do is to be overwhelmed by its magnitude and starting sobbing and crying and fall like a nervous wreck into the corner, which I consider to be a pathetic response to life. What is your response to all the suffering, to just give up? Cry like a baby?
I don't care if you sob and cry. The only point I'm making is your limited rationalization to try and justify suffering to salvage your god's reputation fails because it doesn't address all the people (millions upon millions) through out time, who suffered, in so many differing and hideous ways, who could not be heroic or triumphant, who could only succumb to to their suffering, who gave up, who cried and became mentally crippled and so on.
Can you fit these people into your justification of suffering? So far you have not been able to and you resort to how you think you would handle suffering. Given the right circumstances you, too, could be in a hopeless situation, where overwhelming grief or despair could cause you to succumb -- think about it.
regarding existence:
No, I think it is quite relevant, since my claim is that if the universe is to exist at all, it must exist with suffering. You’re all hot and bothered because there’s suffering in the world, so I’m asking you, would you rather there not be a universe at all? If you don’t can’t take all this incredible suffering, why don’t you just commit suicide?
Again, this is not about me; it's about your rationalization. People do suffer and commit suicide -- how does that fit into your justification of suffering?
I meant that you cannot make a valid comparison of my moral obligations and God’s. And you knew what I meant. Don’t play dumb.
You're the one who is playing dumb -- "playing" being an optional word. The only way we can judge morality is by the morals of our time. Like I said before, we can both agree, that injecting one of our children with a deadly disease and then neglect them while they suffer, for years, only to die would be morally vile.
What argument can you possibly offer that would change the vile immorality of that particular situation, when it is by the hand of god? -- beside, regurgitating the lame and unsupported claim that we can't judge god's immorality by the only moral code we possess.
Where have you been? That’s what this whole thread is about. My argument justifies God’s allowance of pain and suffering in the world.
You most certainly have not. Again, you must address the millions of people who have suffered throughout time, who did not benefit from any of your justifications -- please do so, I'm waiting.
Why should I value the failure of the many over the triumph of the few, which you conveniently ignore? Simply because there are more failures than triumphs?
So, again, the mere quantity of pathetic failures is of more importance than those who endured and overcame? Tell me why you choose the losers rather than the overcomers – why are they of more moral value?
Because they do not fit in your justification of suffering and pain. If you can not address these people who suffered, for none of your justifications, then your whole premise crumbles, in failure. How do these people fit into your premise? Simply, segregating these people out of your premise by not acknowledging them is lazy and boils down to: pay no attention to the millions who have suffered so egregiously throughout time, they do not fit in my premise.
No, I think it points to your quitter attitude and your ignorance.
You have no idea what my attributes are, in regards to fighting -- this is another diverging tactic that does not address the arguments, at hand.
Cancer patients that despair, die. Even the doctors will tell you that those that have the fighting spirit are the ones that will overcome.
Not true, happy cancer patients die, everyday. Also, substantiate your claim with scientific studies that cancer patients who despair, will die.
Additionally, condescending remarks and laying guilt trips on a person does not help -- can you offer any argument to the contrary, specifically or will you continue to change the subject?
Sconnor said, All the mass suffering, all the vile unimaginable suffering that has gone on that doesn't include one iota of your justifications?
You seem to have a one-track mind. Suffering and how bad it seems is all you seem to thing about. Why do you wallow in this?
Whether I wallow in it or not --has no bearing on my arguments, one way or the other -- you continue to change the subject, because you can not address my arguments, specifically.
Tell me how your premise includes, all the mass suffering, all the vile unimaginable suffering that has gone on that doesn't include one iota of your justifications?
Sconnor said, I see, you can't address why god let's children suffer in hideous and unimaginable ways, just so someone can feel they accomplished something -- can you?
Yes, I can and I have, and I have made myself very clear – God values (and by this term value, I mean God IS these things) a person’s overcoming faith, courage, and compassion more than all the suffering in the world.
How, exactly, do you know god values these attributes in people? Please substantiate that claim.
And by valuing these attributes (faith courage etc.) then by default, god must devalue all the people he created including children who by their own human nature succumbed to suffering. How come this sounds more and more like a shitty plan conceived by Jeff Carter, rather than by the omniscient, creator of the universe?
Do you understand what I am saying now? Faith, courage, compassion and love mean more to God than the meaningless suffering in the world. All you are saying is that you don’t like suffering and that you disagree with God’s value system...
No, I'm saying the people who have suffered egregiously, throughout time, are not compatible with your premise. Furthermore, now, you have relegated the billions of souls who suffered, unimaginably, that did not include your attributes (faith, courage, compassion and love) to meaningless fodder. What is their worth, in your premise?
All you are saying is that you don’t like suffering and that you disagree with God’s value system...
No, I'm saying, I don't know god's value system and you don't either. You do not possess any special knowledge that I or anyone else wouldn't have. You -- arguing for god's value system -- is like me arguing for Poseidon's right to capsize boats.
You can call God’s value system monstrous. And I call yours cowardly and pathetic and neurotically, obsessively focus on suffering.
You're wrong because it is not my value system -- it is a fact, that millions and millions of people suffer horribly, become despondent, hopeless and succumb to their suffering. Additionally, these people who succumbed to their suffering were not cowardly or pathetic, they were demoralized, they were broken, they were grief-stricken, they were clinically depressed, they were brutalized, they were tortured, their minds did the only thing their minds could do and that was to give up, their will was crippled and they succumbed, at no fault of their own. How does that fit into your premise?
You can call God’s value system monstrous
No, I said If it was god's value system -- the one where he didn't consider ALL the ramifications, all the mass suffering, all the vile unimaginable suffering that has gone on, that doesn't include one iota of your justifications, then you have reduced him to monstrous torturer, who let's children suffer in unimaginable ways, just so someone can feel they accomplished something. Am I wrong, did god consider children who have suffered in vile and unimaginable ways, who don't fit your premise. Can you address this chink in your argument without diverging or putting all the children aside who have suffered, or accuse me of obsessing or any of the lame excuses you use, to get out of addressing the argument, specifically?
Sconnor asked, Explain how a parent can force their six year old child into prostitution, where old men violate them and abuse them and after several years of this, the child is murdered -- how is that part of god's plan? How do you condone or justify this?
It is justified by that there are people in the world who will not allow themselves be overwhelmed or fall into despair about it. Life refuses to quit, life goes on, life is determined. If everyone were to adopt your philosophy, the world would just give up and die.
Again, it is not my philosophy. The fact is people do give up and succumb to their suffering. Just because one person can be triumphant from their plight does not justify another succumbing to it. Could you sit down with the grandmother of the little girl, in the example, who was horrified to hear what had become of her granddaughter and justify the little girls suffering the same way you just did? Be honest.
Sconnor said, Doesn't matter what we come up with, but god being god should be able to come up with an infinite amount of possibilities, all accomplishing what he wanted to accomplish..
No. God simply cannot do the illogical. Since love is, by definition, the overcoming of evil and suffering, that evil and suffering must exist for love to be manifested. God cannot overcome that logical limitation.
Just because you proclaim it illogical, doesn't make it so. Are you saying god is not omnipotent? The only way god could accomplish what he wanted to accomplish was using egregious suffering as a tool? That's the only thing the creator of the universe could come up with? Really?
Is love not in heaven? Or is there suffering and evil in heaven so love can be manifested. You are painting your self into corners -- no wonder why you want to bail.
love is, by definition, the overcoming of evil and suffering.
Funny that -- I looked up the definition of love and not one dictionary said love is the overcoming of evil and suffering. You are layering mounds of interpretation and stretching the meaning to absurd lengths, to suit your needs.
I explained this in an earlier response. Reality is of two phases – the work of manifestation (this world) and the rest and peace following manifestation (the world to come). The suffering of this world allows the manifestation of eternal life which allows the peace in the world to come.
Yeah, and you know this how and can you substantiate it? Please elaborate, what, exactly, are the mechanics of how suffering allows the manifestation of eternal life which, supposedly, in turn, allows peace in the world to come -- how does it work, and be as specific as you can?
This will be my last response on this blog. I have enjoyed the intellectual stimulation, but will now move on to other threads and other blogs. However, if you feel you want to discuss this further, I can be reached at sophie11@sophiesladder.com.
Riiiiiight -- ummmmmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this blog the place for discussing such matters?
If you want to bail -- see ya' but you know where to find me if you want to address my arguments, specifically.
--S.
God simply cannot do the illogical.
If there is but one God then He certainly can do the illogical. If He was restricted by logics, then there would, in other words, be the godess Logics that is superior to Him so that God is subordinate. God is the author of logics and hence not subject to it.
Post a Comment