Doctrine of the Divine Decree

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You use what as a standard for suffering?

If this is in response to the Down's babies, you are tiresome. Let me quote Sinnott-Armstrong again:

"Many babies each year are born with Down's syndrome. Most of these babies, with normal pediatric care, will grow up healthy. A significant number, however, have intestinal obstructions that will kill them if they do not receive an operation. Without the operation, dehydration and infection will cause these babies to wither and die over a period of hours and days. Today this operation is relatively simple, but not long ago these babies could not be saved. So just think about a baby born with Down's syndrome and an intestinal blockage in 1900. This baby suffers for days and then dies."

Now, my 'standard for suffering' is irrelevant here as long as you are willing to concede the completely obvious: namely, that this baby does suffer. We might need a 'standard' if we were interested in determining the extent to which the baby suffers. We aren't necessarily interested in that, though. All I am trying to show is 1. the baby suffers to at least some degree and 2. the baby's suffering is logically unnecessary for the greater good (use your own lights to shine definition on the greater good).

According to you, your God considered it necessary and certain for these babies to be so afflicted. He decreed it and made it so that it could not be otherwise. How is that indicative of, or even compatible with, moral perfection?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Except, of course, for those people who He did not create because He knew such creation would have ultimately led to their entrance into hell. Unfair to them.

So it's more fair to create them with the singular purpose of tossing them into the eternal flames? So first, He thrusts them into existence; then, He thrusts them into the furnace. All in a day's work, I guess.

Why is hell necessary anyway?

Originally posted by LemonJello
If this is in response to the Down's babies, you are tiresome. Let me quote Sinnott-Armstrong again:

"Many babies each year are born with Down's syndrome. Most of these babies, with normal pediatric care, will grow up healthy. A significant number, however, have intestinal obstructions that will kill them if they do not receive an operation. Withou ...[text shortened]... ... be otherwise. How is that indicative of, or even compatible with, moral perfection?

Although you should be credited for going the emotional route, you fail to answer the question. What is the standard for suffering? Physical pain or discomfort is the standard? Is there any greater suffering than physical pain?

Originally posted by LemonJello
So it's more fair to create them with the singular purpose of tossing them into the eternal flames? So first, He thrusts them into existence; then, He thrusts them into the furnace. All in a day's work, I guess.

Why is hell necessary anyway?

Why should hell be necessary? His desire is that none should perish, and yet some insist on doing just that by flat-out rejecting the gift of salvation. We're not talking about some remote village, far removed from society; we're not talking about hypothetical/nonsensical word equations, we are talking about your decision. Quit acting as though you speak for all the supposed downtrodden and/or disenfranchised. Quit worrying about everyone else and take care of yourself first.

Everytime these forgettable arguments come up, the same tired objections are raised: what about everyone but me? What about the possible non-realities? It is blather.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Although you should be credited for going the emotional route, you fail to answer the question. What is the standard for suffering? Physical pain or discomfort is the standard? Is there any greater suffering than physical pain?

As usual, you dodge the simple questions that I pose. Use your own standard of suffering, for Chrissakes. Use some common sense while you're at it.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Why should hell be necessary? His desire is that none should perish, and yet some insist on doing just that by flat-out rejecting the gift of salvation. We're not talking about some remote village, far removed from society; we're not talking about hypothetical/nonsensical word equations, we are talking about your decision. Quit acting as though you spea ...[text shortened]... re raised: what about everyone but me? What about the possible non-realities? It is blather.

According to your theory, the existence of hell is necessary and certain, right? Further, it is necessary and certain that some will perish therein, right (after all, as you yourself just stated, 'some insist on doing just that'😉? This 'blather' as you call it is merely your own entailment. Do you not desire me to take you at your own words?

Besides, according to you, I myself will perish there one day, since I refuse to worship some despotic megalomaniac. I am thinking about myself, too -- not just the other people He willfully incinerates.

Originally posted by LemonJello
As usual, you dodge the simple questions that I pose. Use your own standard of suffering, for Chrissakes. Use some common sense while you're at it.

No dodging at all, actually. But it appears that your standard of suffering reaches its pinnacle with physical pain experienced by human beings. What (or who) suffers when a lie is told?

Originally posted by LemonJello
According to your theory, the existence of hell is necessary and certain, right? Further, it is necessary and certain that some will perish therein, right (after all, as you yourself just stated, 'some insist on doing just that'😉? This 'blather' as you call it is merely your own entailment. Do you not desire me to take you at your own words?

...[text shortened]... iac. I am thinking about myself, too -- not just the other people He willfully incinerates.

Let's clarify before you get carried away. Hell is a necessary certainty owing to free will agents who prefer it over worshipping God.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No dodging at all, actually. But it appears that your standard of suffering reaches its pinnacle with physical pain experienced by human beings. What (or who) suffers when a lie is told?

It's very confusing how you draw any conclusions about the 'appearances' of my 'standard of suffering' when I explicitly refrained from stating any such standard. Your God is such a silly construction, there are myriad examples to which we can appeal in order to demonstrate His non-existence. I am specifically trying to limit the discussion to only one such example – that of the Down’s baby. Again, use your own definitions of 'suffering' and 'greater good'. The relevant questions here are

Does the baby suffer?
If so, is the suffering logically necessary for the greater good?

Both questions seem like no-brainers to me. However, I am interested in your take on them -- if ever you'll actually answer them, that is.

What (or who) suffers when a lie is told?

Within the context of this discussion, who the hell cares? Keep your eyes on the ball, Freak.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Let's clarify before you get carried away. Hell is a necessary certainty owing to free will agents who prefer it over worshipping God.

If you are using some sort of libertarian notion of free will, then your stance is completely incoherent since you also claim that God is omniscient, and since such omniscience clearly precludes the existence of libertarian free will. If you are talking about compatibilist free will, then you’re still wrong. There is nothing about the existence of free will that logically necessitates the existence of hell. If it is the case that hell exists and that conscious minds scorch there like logs on a fire, it is only contingently so, based on your God’s will and His penchant for inflicting torment on others.

Originally posted by LemonJello
It's very confusing how you draw any conclusions about the 'appearances' of my 'standard of suffering' when I explicitly refrained from stating any such standard. Your God is such a silly construction, there are myriad examples to which we can appeal in order to demonstrate His non-existence. I am specifically trying to limit the discussion to only one ...[text shortened]... he context of this discussion, who the hell cares? Keep your eyes on the ball, Freak.

Here's the ball, LJ. You bring up Down babies (presumably nothing to do with you, so we'll just credit you with a supreme sense of fair play and representation), and specifically, the physical suffering they experience. Remember, you bring up suffering. In order to define a standard of suffering, a level of moral acceptability must be established.

For instance, is it morally acceptable for God to establish the world, if He knew it would result in someone's loss of balance? upset stomach? skinned knee? bulged disc? aortic stenosis?

What if, in viewing the physical as temporary, He determined to use it as the transfer agent of bringing His glory to man? This transfer requires work. Who's suffering (work) is efficacious for His intended result?

You still haven't answered the question relative to who is hurt when a lie is told.

Originally posted by LemonJello
If you are using some sort of libertarian notion of free will, then your stance is completely incoherent since you also claim that God is omniscient, and since such omniscience clearly precludes the existence of libertarian free will. If you are talking about compatibilist free will, then you’re still wrong. There is nothing about the existence of free ...[text shortened]... nly contingently so, based on your God’s will and His penchant for inflicting torment on others.

I am not using any "libertarian notion of free will," I am using the attributes and characteristics of God. Because you cannot fathom how God could know beforehand all thoughts/decisions/actions does not erase the same from reality. The fact that you are able to make decisions right now proves you have free will. The fact that Satan rebelled against God proves that angels have free will.

According to your view, nothing is logically necessary and all items possess the same value. Regardless of your repugnance of hell, to argue against its existence on a moral basis is contradictory to your premise.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[bThe fact that you are able to make decisions right now proves you have free will. [/b]

All he knows is that he perceives that he is able to make decisions. It is possible that it is an illusion.

If you go to a magic show and see somebody cleft in twain, it doesn't prove that he actually was.

If you perceive that you have free will, it doesn't prove that you actually do.

In fact, under your premise that God has foreknowledge, illusory free will is exactly the case: the perception of free will without the actuality of it.

EDIT: I'd like to add that if you think otherwise, you are a gullible idiot.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
All he knows is that he perceives that he is able to make decisions. It is possible that it is an illusion.

If you go to a magic show and see somebody cleft in twain, it doesn't prove that he actually was.

If you perceive that you have free will, it doesn't prove that you actually do.

In fact, under your premise that God has foreknowledge, ...[text shortened]... ality of it.

EDIT: I'd like to add that if you think otherwise, you are a gullible idiot.

Granted. Did you decide that all on your own, or did someone (thing) make you decide it?