25 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseOkay. So lets see if I can sum up your logic here...
[b]the problem with trying to absolve an omniscient, omnipotent (OO) God from moral responsibility is that you simply cannot do it. it doesn't matter what you appeal to (be it human free will or whatever). your argument is still going to end with a conclusion like "hence, OO God is not morally repugnant for allowing evil to exist."
Precisely.
...[text shortened]... ith immediate justice, while you don't notice that the postponement of justice is God's grace.[/b]
1. If God can prevent evil and suffering, He must preempt it, which we'll take to mean: before the act or motive becomes evil or causes suffering.
2. If God is morally perfect He would have preemted it.
no, i do not think this is a very good summary. the point is this: if you want to convincingly claim that an OOMP God exists, then you need to be able to support the claim that ALL evil and suffering that exist are logically necessary for some greater good (an alternative, i guess, would be to entertain the notion of a callous God, but this is a position that most theists seem to shun like the plague; at any rate, i don't really see how indifference toward human suffering and moral perfection are compatible -- but it would depend on the ethical theory being entertained).
i don't think either of your (1) or (2) above are accurate. i am perfectly willing to concede that OOMP God may allow certain instances of evil and suffering to occur if you (or anyone else) can reasonably demonstrate that such instances are logically necessary. therefore, it is not accurate to say that my position is that OOMP God must preempt all suffering. the problem arises, however, that there do seem to exist instances of suffering and evil that are not logically necessary by any reasonable ethical standard. this is the crux of the problem, and this is what we need to be addressing.
I contend that evil and suffering is a necissary ingredient of free will
and i contend that neither you nor anyone else has sufficiently demonstrated this to be the case. again, since free will is independent of the actual outcome of actions undertaken, i completely fail to see how free will necessitates any suffering at all.
at any rate, you must show something much stronger than just free will necessitates suffering in general. you must show that free will necessitates logically necessary suffering in particular. further, it would seem you must show that free will necessitates ONLY logically necessary suffering in practice.
your position seems to be that true love (between God and man) is a good of supreme importance, and free will is a necessary condition for the possibility of true love, and free will necessitates suffering; so suffering is necessary for the greater good, since the greater good must include the possibility of true love. there are however at least a few problems with this argument: 1. it is not clear that free will necessitates any suffering. 2. if free will does necessitate suffering, it is not clear that it necessitates only logically necessary suffering. 3. it seems like God could have granted free will and achieved the same degree of good with less suffering than is present in the world. consider any single example of suffering that results from evil between man and man. if God would have simply altered the transgressor's integral character slightly such that the transgressor would have employed his free will to instead abstain from carrying out the transgression, then the suffering would have been avoided, and it is difficult to see how the same greater good would not be achieved (after all, free will still exists). there are countless examples you could use to make this point, and i think it is a strong point against your case since the negative ramifications on the greater good seem completely indiscernable even within your own framework, particularly since the existence of free will is left intact. 4. i am not really seeing the connection between the freedom to choose to enter into a loving relationship with God and the freedom to choose to do evil. i think such a connection would depend on your definition of evil, which you define to be anything which is unacceptable to God. which would only lead me to the question why would God view it as unacceptable for me to refuse to enter into a loving relationship with Him? He must be freakishly proud. at any rate, i think your definition of evil is complete hogwash, which i expound upon below.
My question is: why should He preempt it? If God is going to judge all evil, and if justice will be served, why preempt it. If God's preemptive strike on evil destroys free will, you have to decide which one takes preference. Freedom and Justice or limited life with limited consequences.
again, the problem is not that God does not preempt ALL evil. the problem is that there does seem to be much evil in the world that is logically unnecessary. an OOMP God would preempt such evils. therefore, the existence of supernatural OOMP God is not compatible with many of our natural observations. many of these seemingly unnecessary evils have nothing to do with free will. Katrina, for example.
Your analogy is very limited in that it doesn't address the fact that I will need to have created both the rapist and the raped. I will not preside as judge over both of them at the end of their lives. Your analogy addresses the present, not the future and all that entails.
so basically you're saying the ends justify the means as far as God is concerned? God can punish the wicked infinitely and reward the good infinitely later on, so it really doesn't matter how he runs his ship today? is that it? i don't think that is how moral perfection operates. rather, i think a morally perfect God would have to act in accordance with morally preferable outcomes each step of the way; otherwise, he is not morally perfect. it would probably depend on your definition of moral perfection.
FYI, there was somebody very dear to me who was raped, and trust me, I've wished many times that I could have been there to intervene; This is definitely the myopic human response; would we need to ascribe that response to God too?
sorry to hear that. there was also someone VERY close to me who was violently raped as well. it is a shame that it is such a small world for certain things. but yes, i do think this response needs to be ascribed to whomever we label as morally perfect, God included.
If we knew there would be no outcome, would we even will it? Choice requires consequence.
who says that we would necessarily know there to be "no outcome?"
If the purpose of you existance was ultimately a relationship with God, then your choice against God would also entail a choice against the essence of God. Therefore you are not being tortured by God, but the absence of God.
the absence of God is what tortures and punishes? it seems you are willing to go to any and all lengths to cling to the claim that your God is not morally responsible for crappy stuff. rest assured that if He is all-knowing and all-powerful, then he has a hand in everything, including punishment and torture. and disease, and starvation, and earthquakes, and floods, etc, etc.
Read my first post carefully.
i have. you are defining evil to be whatever God deems unacceptable. therefore, you are claiming that God dictates morality more or less simply through fiat. this position, however, leads to some absurd conclusions that are unacceptable themselves. for example, based on this position i think it follows that IF (preemptively, i don't think it makes any difference whether or not God would actually act in this way) God did not find rape to be unacceptable, THEN it would follow that we would have no reasons to view rape as evil. this is clearly unacceptable since we have many good reasons to view rape as evil. the problem is that either God has good reasons for claiming that certain acts are evil, or his assigning the term "evil" to certain acts is a completely arbitrary undertaking. but if he does have good reasons for saying certain acts are evil, then it is those reasons that make the acts evil, not the decree of God. there are many good reasons to think that rape is evil. therefore, saying that rape is evil because of these good reasons is much simpler and more plausible than saying rape is evil because God finds rape unacceptable. so i think your definition of evil is hogwash.
No, if evil is whatever God deems unacceptable, He will make sure that Justice will eventually be served. You just have this fascination with immediate justice, while you don't notice that the postponement of justice is God's grace.
the problem with this line of thought is that if i don't see good reason why your God exists in the first place, then i don't see any good reason to think "justice will be served" later on, whatever that means. based on current and past observations, there is good reason to reject the existence of your God. somehow, i think tomorrow will be much the same, but we'll see.
03 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJellono, i do not think this is a very good summary. the point is this: if you want to convincingly claim that an OOMP God exists, then you need to be able to support the claim that ALL evil and suffering that exist are logically necessary for some greater good (an alternative, i guess, would be to entertain the notion of a callous God, but this is a position that most theists seem to shun like the plague; at any rate, i don't really see how indifference toward human suffering and moral perfection are compatible -- but it would depend on the ethical theory being entertained).
[b]Okay. So lets see if I can sum up your logic here...
1. If God can prevent evil and suffering, He must preempt it, which we'll take to mean: before the act or motive becomes evil or causes suffering.
2. If God is morally perfect He would have preemted it.
no, i do not think this is a very good summary. the point is this: if you want to ...[text shortened]... ect the existence of your God. somehow, i think tomorrow will be much the same, but we'll see.[/b]
Well, I disagree. God's omnipotence ends at our choice, our freedom, our free will. Its a paradox: an omnipotent God who chooses to limit His omnipotence to allow His creation the freedom of choice. God will not intervene with our freedom unless He is asked to.
i don't think either of your (1) or (2) above are accurate. i am perfectly willing to concede that OOMP God may allow certain instances of evil and suffering to occur if you (or anyone else) can reasonably demonstrate that such instances are logically necessary. therefore, it is not accurate to say that my position is that OOMP God must preempt all suffering. the problem arises, however, that there do seem to exist instances of suffering and evil that are not logically necessary by any reasonable ethical standard. this is the crux of the problem, and this is what we need to be addressing.
My reasons for logically necissary end at the free will for man. I don't deny that suffering can be used for good, and is probably used by God for that said purpose. As none of us are omniscient, I really doubt we could even know for sure whether any suffering was logically necissary. What criteria do we use to judge "logically necissary"? Whose ethical standard? The question also arises of the goal of suffering. To what end would God allow suffering? Turning a inwardly centered person towards Him?
and i contend that neither you nor anyone else has sufficiently demonstrated this to be the case. again, since free will is independent of the actual outcome of actions undertaken, i completely fail to see how free will necessitates any suffering at all.
In a life consisting only of choice and no consequence, free will could be divorced from its outcome. Unfortunately life is not an event, it is a series of choices that build on each other. True freedom is having consequence to choice. Everything we do is a result of a choice. If a choice rendered no outcome, would we even consider doing it? If our freedom of choice was infringed upon to render bad choices useless, that is no freedom at all. I content that free choice still requires consequence.
your position seems to be that true love (between God and man) is a good of supreme importance, and free will is a necessary condition for the possibility of true love, and free will necessitates suffering; so suffering is necessary for the greater good, since the greater good must include the possibility of true love. there are however at least a few problems with this argument: 1. it is not clear that free will necessitates any suffering.
If you look around you, you'll realise that most of human suffering is caused by at least the indifference of your fellow man; the will not to act.
2. if free will does necessitate suffering, it is not clear that it necessitates only logically necessary suffering.
Logically necessary for true human freedom.
3. it seems like God could have granted free will and achieved the same degree of good with less suffering than is present in the world. consider any single example of suffering that results from evil between man and man. if God would have simply altered the transgressor's integral character slightly such that the transgressor would have employed his free will to instead abstain from carrying out the transgression, then the suffering would have been avoided, and it is difficult to see how the same greater good would not be achieved (after all, free will still exists). there are countless examples you could use to make this point, and i think it is a strong point against your case since the negative ramifications on the greater good seem completely indiscernible even within your own framework, particularly since the existence of free will is left intact.
Simply altered the transgressor's integral character slightly? Huh? Interfere with free will? Unless you are asserting that its God's fault that somebody has an aggressive character. I contend that our character is molded by the choices we make, therefore interfering with our character is an interference of our free will.
4. i am not really seeing the connection between the freedom to choose to enter into a loving relationship with God and the freedom to choose to do evil. i think such a connection would depend on your definition of evil, which you define to be anything which is unacceptable to God. which would only lead me to the question why would God view it as unacceptable for me to refuse to enter into a loving relationship with Him?
If that was the reason you were created for, then I'm sure God would deem it unacceptable if you rebelled against it.
He must be freakishly proud. at any rate, i think your definition of evil is complete hogwash, which i expound upon below.
Proud? We humans are proud when we consider ourselves better than the next, but God is infinitely better and greater. I contend that it is pure arrogance to expect God to stoop to our level as an equal.
again, the problem is not that God does not preempt ALL evil. the problem is that there does seem to be much evil in the world that is logically unnecessary. an OOMP God would preempt such evils. therefore, the existence of supernatural OOMP God is not compatible with many of our natural observations. many of these seemingly unnecessary evils have nothing to do with free will. Katrina, for example.
Yessss. I haven't had the time to work on my next step in the argument which is the fall of man.
so basically you're saying the ends justify the means as far as God is concerned? God can punish the wicked infinitely and reward the good infinitely later on, so it really doesn't matter how he runs his ship today? is that it?
His ship? This is our ship. God gave man dominion over the whole earth. If there is a mess its because we made it. Unfortunately I believe God will ultimately intervene and clean up the mess we’ve made of it.
i don't think that is how moral perfection operates. rather, i think a morally perfect God would have to act in accordance with morally preferable outcomes each step of the way; otherwise, he is not morally perfect. it would probably depend on your definition of moral perfection.
As I said before, if morally perfect by your definition means interfering with our freedom, then God is not morally perfect. It is one of the options that takes precedence: either God allows us complete freedom, or God intervenes to alleviate suffering. Ironically, God can intervene if asked to.
sorry to hear that. there was also someone VERY close to me who was violently raped as well. it is a shame that it is such a small world for certain things. but yes, i do think this response needs to be ascribed to whomever we label as morally perfect, God included.
Also VERY close here.
As I said before, in the perspective of eternity, pain and anguish are fleeting; Justice will still prevail, irrespective of time.
who says that we would necessarily know there to be "no outcome?"
The very moment we willed to do something evil and we couldn't.
the absence of God is what tortures and punishes? it seems you are willing to go to any and all lengths to cling to the claim that your God is not morally responsible for crappy stuff.
And you seem to be willing to go to any to prove it otherwise. So what? We are on different sides here. It’s what we are supposed to do in a debate like this, take everything to the limit. You're making your case, I'm defending mine.
rest assured that if He is all-knowing and all-powerful, then he has a hand in everything, including punishment and torture. and disease, and starvation, and earthquakes, and floods, etc, etc.
Disease? A lot of disease are a result of human perversion of Gods creation. Point in case: Most STD's.
Starvation? Methinks there is enough food on this earth, its just being hoarded.
Earthquakes and floods? Hmmmm... The fall of man?
i have. you are defining evil to be whatever God deems unacceptable. therefore, you are claiming that God dictates morality more or less simply through fiat. this position, however, leads to some absurd conclusions that are unacceptable themselves. for example, based on this position i think it follows that IF (preemptively, i don't think it makes any difference whether or not God would actually act in this way) God did not find rape to be unacceptable, THEN it would follow that we would have no reasons to view rape as evil. this is clearly unacceptable since we have many good reasons to view rape as evil. the problem is that either God has good reasons for claiming that certain acts are evil, or his assigning the term "evil" to certain acts is a completely arbitrary undertaking.
Ah. We've gone over the Divine Command Theory before, but let me state my position. You ask: is evil so because God says so? I contend, that God says so, because it is evil. In the case of rape, it is evil because it is a perversion of God-created sex. I may take the liberal (not very Christian) view and say that you need two consenting parties for it to be good, or I might take the conservative view and say that you need two consenting parties within a marriage for it to be good. Irre...
03 Oct 05
Originally posted by Halitosejeez Hal are you writing the whole book?
[b]no, i do not think this is a very good summary. the point is this: if you want to convincingly claim that an OOMP God exists, then you need to be able to support the claim that ALL evil and suffering that exist are logically necessary for some greater good (an alternative, i guess, would be to entertain the notion of a callous God, but this is a positio ...[text shortened]... e view and say that you need two consenting parties within a marriage for it to be good. Irre...
03 Oct 05
4 edits
Originally posted by Halitose[/b]D@rn! This thread will only take so much of my drivel. Here's the completion of the above sentence posted to LemonJello:
[b]no, i do not think this is a very good summary. the point is this: if you want to convincingly claim that an OOMP God exists, then you need to be able to support the claim that ALL evil and suffering that exist are logically necessary for some greater good (an alternative, i guess, would be to entertain the notion of a callous God, but this is a positio ...[text shortened]... e view and say that you need two consenting parties within a marriage for it to be good. Irre...
Irrespectively, rape is therefore the perversion of God-given sex. Give me any good or evil, and I'll be able to give you its perversion or antithesis. Good is the essense of God's nature and therefore in a world of freewill, evil is the perversion or antithesis thereof.
03 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseLOL. No. Just trying to find answers to a very hard question, rape is therefore the perversion of God-given sex.
D@rn! This thread will only take so much of my drivel. Heres the completion of the above sentence:
Irrespectively, rape is therefore the perversion of God-given sex. Give me any good or evil, and I'll be able to give you its perversion or antithesis.[/b]
????
03 Oct 05
2 edits
Originally posted by frogstomp😕🙄🙄
then stop confusing yourself.
Peace.
That post was a continuation of the my rebuttal to LemonJello. I only noticed after my posting, that for some reason, each time I added the sentence it would get truncated, so I had to make a new post of it. I wasn't in any way directed it at you.
03 Oct 05
Originally posted by HalitoseVery good post but you only touched on part of what GOD plan and purpose for man. And the reason for free will. Very good though.
Okay Tel. I see that other thread, "The Lords Name" has been hijacked beyond repair, therefore I've opened a new thread.
In making my case, there are a few basic assumptions I want to address first.
1. Why did God create humans?
2. Why create a physical dimension? (nature)
3. How did God's objectives fit within this world?
4. What is evil?
...[text shortened]... --------
The assumptions for now.
Just my 2 cents, feel free to bash and rebut as you wish.
04 Oct 05
Originally posted by Halitoseas if I didn't know that.. lmao
😕🙄🙄
Peace.
That post was a continuation of the my rebuttal to LemonJello. I only noticed after my posting, that for some reason, each time I added the sentence it would get truncated, so I had to make a new post of it. I wasn't in any way directed it at you.