God, the schizophrenic?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Are you denying that Eve ate the apple, and it was as a result of that action, irrespective of why, that mankind was to be punished for all eternity?

Dualists have long maintained that God, being perfect, couldn't have created evil--that another, destructive force (akin to Philip K. Dick's Form Destroyer) must exist. How God & the Enemy were created is another mystery entirely.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Dualists have long maintained that God, being perfect, couldn't have created evil--that another, destructive force (akin to Philip K. Dick's Form Destroyer) must exist. How God & the Enemy were created is another mystery entirely.

How can that be correct though?? As we all know, the bible is LITERALLY TRUE - EVERY WORD!

🙄

Originally posted by scottishinnz
How can that be correct though?? As we all know, the bible is LITERALLY TRUE - EVERY WORD!

Oh, I believe that too, don't you know.

The following two posts are a response to The Chess Express's latest post. Thank you again for your patience.

Don’t be too hasty. The choices you gave both have meaning and moral value.

1. The choice of a spouse or a lover.

Fornication is wrong according to the Bible. You may have a different opinion about this, but in reality not having sex before marriage can stop a lot of evil from happening. Example: STDS, kids with broken families, lack of commitment etc.

First, with the exception of STD's, waiting to have sex before marriage does not contribute to stopping the things you list. I have that straight from a xian marriage counselor, a counselor at a xian-based program in fact, not just a marriage counselor who is xian.

But I better get to the point. I was careful with the examples of meaningful choices that I gave. Particularly, I wanted to ensure that none of them necessarily implied an evil action. I have no problems with God allowing only good actions. (You may want to interject here that good ---> evil, but hang on a bit and I'll explain later.). The choice of a spouse need not be evil. You have chosen to consider a particular type of choice of spouse that, in your opinion, is an evil choice. I'm thinking in more general terms. Assuming all the preconditions you want are satisfied, choosing one person to marry over another is a morality-free decision.

2. The choice to donate to a needy family.

This is a good action and is recommended by Jesus. Stealing from a needy family would be evil.

Again, I have no problem with good choices. I want to see if we can eliminate evil ones and keep free will. Yes, donating to a needy family is a good action and is recommeded by most philosophies, and yes, stealing would most likely be evil. The problem here is that you ignore the more complete opposite to giving: not giving.
If I consider donating to a food bank, I don't think, "Well, I've got one of two options. I can either give them some canned goods, or I can steal everything from their shelves." When I consider donating, I can either choose to give or not give. Not giving does not mean that I have to steal from them. Let me point out here that 'not giving' need not be evil. Again, I'll explain later.

3. This choice to read to a child.

Again, a good action. If a parent decides to ignore his/her child what evil will that lead to? In order for choices to have any real meaning they need to have moral value. They need to be good or bad.

And again I have no problem with good actions. The primary question of this discussion was really whether evil actions can be eliminated and leave free will intact. I've proved this quite a while back. These examples show that evil actions can be restricted and the resulting choices do need not to be 'meaningless' ones as you say. Just off hand doesn't it seem odd to you to argue that we need the choice to rape a child in order to have meaning?

In order to counter my examples you implicitly appealed to the idea that an action that is not good is necessarily evil. I shall explain why choosing not to do a good action is not equivalent to choosing to do an evil action. Take my third example, 'read to a child.' You suggest above that not choosing to read to a child is an evil action and therefore the only reason this 'read to a child' is a meaningful choice is because it is a moral decision. The truth is not reading to a child is not generally an evil action.

I will prove this without using sets or reference to formal logic. Instead, I will show a proof by contradiction through an example. Say that a parent, due to time contraints, can only choose two actions to do with her child one evening. First, she can read to her child, or she can discuss how her child's day went. Now I think you would agree that both of these acts can be generally called good, but this is where your good/evil strict seperation leads to a paradox. If the parent chooses to read to her child, then she chooses not to discuss her child's day. Her child's day is a good action and so choosing not to discuss must be evil (by your and DF's view). Therefore by reading to her child the parent has chosen an evil action. But we already said that reading to her child was a good action. Therefore reading to her child is a good and evil action, but this is not possible because an action cannot be both good and evil. Given that both actions the parent could have chosen were good actions, the only logical conclusion is that not choosing a good action is not necessarily choosing an evil action.
Take this to real life and the contradiction becomes even more stark. We usually have many more than just two good actions available. By the strict 'not good choice = evil choice' dichotomy everyone is commiting evil acts all the time. By this standard, even Jesus commited evil acts constantly.

You haven’t convinced me of your third point however. The reason why good/evil has to exist along with free will is because there has to be meaning to our lives. Choosing between identical pencils for all eternity means nothing. Why would God create us to do meaningless things forever? That misses the point of everything. That is not why God created us and put us here.

Given that I have shown that not choosing a good action is not equivalent to choosing an evil action, and therefore we can have free will with meaningful (even good) choices and no evil, I think it is encumbent upon you and DragonFriend to convince us all that evil choices are still necessary or optimal for making meaningful choices. Why is the choice to rape a child necessary for free will to be meaningful? If I have the choice to give to the needy family or not give to them is my world made any less meaningful if I cannot also choose to steal from the family, rape the wife, and burn their shack down? It seems to me that anyone wanting to argue your side has to commit themselves to championing the most rotten behavior possible (e.g. child rape is necessary for life to be meaningful)!

The problem with this is that most of the time not doing the good/right thing leads to evil by default . . . Ignoring the child may lead to developmental problems as I’m sure you’ll agree.

There is certainly no reason to think this. Again if I choose not to read to my child because I want to talk to her about avoiding people looking for meaning through child rape, then certainly my action will still lead to some evil (my child's reading education will have been slightly harmed), but this does not make the action I chose evil.

I agree that the act of raping a child is unnecessary to say the least, but the choice to rape a child is very necessary. If we had no ability to choose to rape children then it would not be good to not rape children.

This does not follow. Of course it would be good not to rape a child; but even assuming that you are correct, who cares? Has our world really been robbed of so much meaning because it no longer makes since to say "not raping a child is good"? Furthermore, why does child rape need to be feasible? Couldn't we all know that it is evil to rape a child (and thus know it is good not to) even if we couldn't do it? For instance, we should all know that extinguishing the sun would be an evil action even though no one on earth can actually do it.

If we did not have the ability to choose between good and evil actions then we would have no free will (at least not any meaningful kind of free will), and if we had no free will then none of our actions would be good or bad. They would simply be what we are forced to do.

I have sufficiently refuted the misnotation that we must be able to choose either good or evil actions to have free will (despite your last sentence here, you've already admitted exactly that in your this post). Moreover, I've shown that we can be restricted to only choosing between doing or not doing good actions without losing either free will or meaning and that these types of choices do not imply the existence of evil choices. It seems obvious that choices restricted to freely choosing to do or not do good actions are far superior to ones where we may also choose expressly evil actions. These expressly evil actions are unnecessary for either free will or meaning and only lead to great pain and suffering.


You miss the point of creation. The point of all of this is the ultimate goal that I’ve mentioned in my previous post. Besides, how can you be so sure of what we cannot do? Science knows less than 1% of what there is to know about human consciousness. Jesus tells us that the goal of Christians is to be like him, and Jesus performed miracles.

You alluded to an 'ultimate goal' though you never actually wrote anything about it. Again, as I have outlined above, allowing expressly evil actions is completely unnecessary for free will. I don't think your bit about future knowledge allowing us to extinguish the sun has any merit. For space considerations, I won't rebut it here, but if you would like me to explain, just let me know. (continued)

Let me summarize for you. God allows evil to exist so that good can exist. He gives us free will so that we can experience both good and evil, and ultimately realize that evil is wrong and good is the only way that leads to our lasting happiness. Once we get to the point where we have free will, and we’ve learned our lessons and choose good all the time (as Jesus does), God brings us back to him and lets us stay in Heaven where we belong. Some go through hell whether it be here on earth or in the afterlife, but all eventually return to God; and God, being omniscient, knows that this will be the end result .. .
Evil is just a necessary part of the equation. Look at it this way, every time we suffer we grow. Usually we suffer as much as we choose to anyway. People have far more control over their lives than they’ll often times admit to

Again, evil does not need to exist in order for good to exist. The "evil is just an absence of good" construct has been refuted above. We can be allowed choices over doing good or not doing good things without having the choice to do evil. Child rape, for example, is an unnecessary choice.

Finally, this quote is "God in a Box" again. First, it presumes that the only (or the best) way for us to learn is by having us commit evil for a while. Moreover, it assumes that the only (or the best) way for us to learn is to have as many evil choices as we do. Do we really need the option rape children in order to get the big picture? Maybe just murder, torture, and stealing would be sufficient to get the point across. The defender of your position must show that not only is some evil choice necessary for free will (I have argued that it is not.), but that every evil choice available is necessary for free will.

Another bit of "God in the Box" when you appeal to suffering as a device for growth. Why is it the case that we must suffer to grow? Did God author this rule? You make it sound like some one or something else authored it, and God just had to go along.

That’s why his plan is perfect. If we suffer through evil for a few years here on earth, how can that compare to eternity?

Except that it can't be perfect, because eternity in heaven with no years of suffering on earth is better than eternity in heaven with some years of suffering on earth. If their is a rule that says that the first case is impossible, then who authored it? If the answer is "God", then, no offense, but I'd say his plan actually sucks.

This post is a response to DragonFriend.

Yes, God created free will and its property of responsibility transfer. And that property is essential to the reason for creating it.

This is circular. The most concise way of expressing it is "Because God said so." There is no justification within such an argument. It is just a divine fiat. Therefore you cannot argue that God is absolved of criticism for allowing evil because he wanted free will (which is your basic argument).

If responsibility ultimately goes back to God, then our choosing to love Him or not (i.e. our being good or evil, as it were) would also be His responsibility. Thus we become automatons, which we clearly aren't, nor were we created to be.

You are correct that by his being the omniscient, omnipotent Creator everything that occurs (including our choices) is ultimately his responsibility. This does not make us automatons, but it does mean that God knew and designed by the way he created free will every choice we make. Yes, despite apologists droning to the contrary, we really are like robots from his perspective. Our free will does not surprise him any more than a computer program surprises its programmer. Despite your claim, it is certainly not generally taken to be obvious that we are not automatons. It is actually a very long-standing philosophical debate.

Free will has to shift responsibility for our actions to us or the love we share with God isn't love at all and the reason for our creation becomes void.

Again this is "God in a Box." You are claiming that God had to do something a certain way, but you are also claiming that he wrote the rule that says he had to do it that way. This is a contradiction. The simply fact is that if he is the omniscient, omnipotent Creator then he didn't "have to do" anything.

Adam and Eve knew that God didn't want them to eat of the tree. And they understood the request. There is no indication in scripture of Adam say, "Huh? What does 'don't' mean?" And Eve understood it as she properly explained it to the snake.

They understood the request, but that doesn't mean that they understood it was wrong to disobey. Again they would understand the command "do not," they just wouldn't see any reason not to do it. The answer "because it's wrong to do it" just wouldn't register.

Of what type of knowledge does it refer? Conceptual? No. They already understand the concept of do and don't. Experiential? Most likely, as that would represent a knowledge they did not currently posses.

I've already addressed this. As far as I can tell, you have no basis, other than convenience here, for claiming that the knowledge of good and evil is not conceptual knowledge. As I pointed out, claiming that it is experiential knowledge means that the trees fruit did not possess the property of endowing the consumer with the knowledge of good and evil, but rather the act of disobeying God did. This is counter-scriptural, which again is fine with me but I wouldn't think you'd be comfortable with that.

I haven't finshed my research on perfect foresight yet, but there is a place in the Bible where God regrets and another where He changes His mind. That would imply a lack of perfect foresight. Now there are also detailed prophesies prophsied 100s of years before the events, so we know He can see into our future. Perhaps it an ability He can use but isn't always "on". I'm still researching...

I presume you're talking about Gen 6, where God regrets that he made man. KellyJay and I had a long discussion about this over a year ago. I agree that the passage means that God changes his mind. I read this as a contradiction between scripture and common xian doctrine.

I do wonder about his foresight being 'on' and 'off.' Does he decide when to turn it on? If so, does he do it randomly? Is there a higher power (e.g. Muffy) that controls his foresight?

Keep the ideas coming. Thanks also for doing some digging before responding. It shows intellectual integrity, and I appreciate that.

St. Thomas Aquinas had great insight into the problem of evil. He said:

"The perfection of the universe requires that there should be inequality in things, so that every grade of goodness may be realized. Now one grade of goodness is that of the good which cannot fail. Another grade of goodness is that of the good which can fail in goodness."

In the Summa Theologica, he gave two reasons why God cannot create a universe with grades of being and then prevent all of its possible evils. First, “‘it belongs to Providence not to destroy, but to save nature’ . . . but it belongs to nature that what may fail should sometimes fail.” He explains this further in the Summa Contra Gentiles when he says, “the best rule in any government is to provide for everything under government according to the mode of its nature.” In other words, Divine Providence is a plan for the governance of things, and it would be unjust if this plan bestowed natures upon things and then prevented the creatures from acting in accordance with them.

Secondly, “‘God is so powerful that He can even make good out of evil.’ Hence many good things would be taken away if God permitted no evil to exist.” Once again, the Summa Contra Gentiles sheds further light on this question. First of all, St. Thomas points out that “good is more vigorous in goodness than evil is in badness.” Thus, when God permits an evil to a part He thereby makes a greater good possible for the whole. Further, good appears greater in contrast to evil, “as an interval of silence makes music sweet.” For man in particular, this is very important, for the contrast helps him to understand and desire goodness, “as sick men best know what a blessing health is.” Further, when moral evil does occur, “a return to the order of justice is effected by punishment, whereby some good is withdrawn from the sinner’s will,” and the punishment also serves as a deterrent to sin. Thus, what appears an evil is in fact a kind of good.

With regard to moral evil(as opposed to ontological evil), in particular, Jacques Maritain said:
"Without fallible freedom there can be no created freedom; without created freedom there can be no love in mutual friendship between God and creature; without love in mutual friendship between God and creature, there can be no supernatural transformation of the creature into God, no entering of the creature into the joy of his Lord."

I can give specific references if anyone is interested. Btw, I apologize for just throwing out quotes w/out a great deal of explanation. However, this forum seems ill-suited for discussion of topics so complicated and so important. I personally found Jacques Maritain (St. Thomas and the Problem of Evil ) very helpful.

Originally posted by telerion

The simply fact is that if he is the omniscient, omnipotent Creator then he didn't "have to do" anything.
On this we agree. God didn't HAVE to build the world in any particular way, He CHOSE to build it as it is. Yes. And as it is, free will shifts responsibility to us for our actions. We can rebel against the responsibility God has given us if we choose, but come judegement day we will still be accountable for it anyway.

As far as I can tell, you have no basis, other than convenience here, for claiming that the knowledge of good and evil is not conceptual knowledge. As I pointed out, claiming that it is experiential knowledge means that the trees fruit did not possess the property of endowing the consumer with the knowledge of good and evil, but rather the act of disobeying God did. This is counter-scriptural, which again is fine with me but I wouldn't think you'd be comfortable with that.

If they already understood the concept of do and don't, how can the Tree imbue them with that which they already possess?
Gen 2:17 but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
The passage doesn't mention anything about what type of knowledge the eater will acquire. I don't see how my position is counter-scriptural.

I read this as a contradiction between scripture and common xian doctrine.
I would agree.

I do wonder about his foresight being 'on' and 'off.' Does he decide when to turn it on? If so, does he do it randomly? Is there a higher power (e.g. Muffy) that controls his foresight?
I have similar thoughts. Is God one of a race of his type? I don't know. I'll have to ask Him when I get there. It still doesn't make Him any less the God of this universe.

Keep the ideas coming. Thanks also for doing some digging before responding. It shows intellectual integrity, and I appreciate that.
My goal is the truth, plain and simple. I started with faith and have moved on to evidence (personal experience). Most skeptics start with evidence and move on to faith (in science, for example). Personally, I'd rather end with concrete experiential knowledge than faith.
People ask me if I believe in God. I don't. I know God, much like I don't believe in my wife, I know my wife. I wish I could share that depth of knowlege with everybody.

DF

Originally posted by telerion
The following two posts are a response to The Chess Express's latest post. Thank you again for your patience.

Don’t be too hasty. The choices you gave both have meaning and moral value.

1. The choice of a spouse or a lover.

Fornication is wrong according to the Bible. You may have a different opinion about this, but in reality not having sex you would like me to explain, just let me know. (continued)

First, with the exception of STD's, waiting to have sex before marriage does not contribute to stopping the things you list. I have that straight from a xian marriage counselor, a counselor at a xian-based program in fact, not just a marriage counselor who is xian.

[/b]I’m not sure what your “Christian” counselor said, but as I understand it the majority of the experts, whether Christian or not, agree that avoiding sex before marriage helps to build a stronger relationship.

“Virginity has proven to be a sound answer throughout the ages because it builds mutual respect and trust in a relationship. Virginity is a very viable solution, despite the messages from contraceptive manufacturers and health professionals that young people must be involved in permissive sex.”

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0865_Virginity_in_Vogue.html

Here is a non-Christian source.
“The lifetime divorce rate such as it is appears to be falling -- to roughly 43%, according to the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. Tim Heaton of Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, is among researchers who see a decline. He believes two factors are at work: The rising average age at marriage, and increased education levels. These two trends are more than offsetting other forces that are linked to failed marriages, including more premarital sex and more marriages between partners from different racial and religious backgrounds, Dr. Heaton says in a study published in April 2002 in the Journal of Family Issues.”
http://www.careerjournal.com/columnists/workfamily/20040423-workfamily.html
In any case, we can both agree that STD’s is a serious problem and is more likely to be avoided by avoiding premarital sex.

But I better get to the point. I was careful with the examples of meaningful choices that I gave. Particularly, I wanted to ensure that none of them necessarily implied an evil action. I have no problems with God allowing only good actions. (You may want to interject here that good ---> evil, but hang on a bit and I'll explain later.). The choice of a spouse need not be evil. You have chosen to consider a particular type of choice of spouse that, in your opinion, is an evil choice. I'm thinking in more general terms. Assuming all the preconditions you want are satisfied, choosing one person to marry over another is a morality-free decision.

Actually I was referring to a lover vs. a husband/wife. Even if everybody in the world was good, your question may be loaded. Are there such things as soul mates? Just because two people are good and are attracted to each other does not necessarily mean that they are compatible.

Again, I have no problem with good choices. I want to see if we can eliminate evil ones and keep free will. Yes, donating to a needy family is a good action and is recommeded by most philosophies, and yes, stealing would most likely be evil. The problem here is that you ignore the more complete opposite to giving: not giving.
If I consider donating to a food bank, I don't think, "Well, I've got one of two options. I can either give them some canned goods, or I can steal everything from their shelves." When I consider donating, I can either choose to give or not give. Not giving does not mean that I have to steal from them. Let me point out here that 'not giving' need not be evil. Again, I'll explain later.

I agree that deciding to not give to a charity does not obligate one to steal from it, but let me ask you this. How can an action that is supposed to be neutral lead to so much evil? Suppose nobody gave anything to anybody. No government grants, scholarships, social security, homeless shelters, foreign aid, etc, suppose the world was like this. How much evil would that lead to? I’m not saying that everybody should give all the time to charity, but to not give at all is evil in as much as it contributes to a world that doesn’t give.

It’s like I said, often times the choice not to do good leads to evil by default.

And again I have no problem with good actions. The primary question of this discussion was really whether evil actions can be eliminated and leave free will intact. I've proved this quite a while back. These examples show that evil actions can be restricted and the resulting choices do need not to be 'meaningless' ones as you say.

I’m not convinced by your examples. All of the examples that you gave affect people for better or worse. The example that I gave about deciding between multiple #2 pencils to take a test with was a better example of a truly neutral choice, and it was also quite meaningless. This is why our existence would be meaningless if our actions had no moral value.

Just off hand doesn't it seem odd to you to argue that we need the choice to rape a child in order to have meaning?

What’s the alternative? No free will would lead to mindless robots, and if we can’t make that choice then we have no free will. It is necessary for evil to exist in order for us to know evil. It is necessary for us to know evil to know what good is. Raping a child is just one example of an evil action. There are plenty to choose from.

In order to counter my examples you implicitly appealed to the idea that an action that is not good is necessarily evil. I shall explain why choosing not to do a good action is not equivalent to choosing to do an evil action. Take my third example, 'read to a child.' You suggest above that not choosing to read to a child is an evil action and therefore the only reason this 'read to a child' is a meaningful choice is because it is a moral decision. The truth is not reading to a child is not generally an evil action.

I will prove this without using sets or reference to formal logic. Instead, I will show a proof by contradiction through an example. Say that a parent, due to time contraints, can only choose two actions to do with her child one evening. First, she can read to her child, or she can discuss how her child's day went. Now I think you would agree that both of these acts can be generally called good, but this is where your good/evil strict seperation leads to a paradox. If the parent chooses to read to her child, then she chooses not to discuss her child's day. Her child's day is a good action and so choosing not to discuss must be evil (by your and DF's view). Therefore by reading to her child the parent has chosen an evil action. But we already said that reading to her child was a good action. Therefore reading to her child is a good and evil action, but this is not possible because an action cannot be both good and evil. Given that both actions the parent could have chosen were good actions, the only logical conclusion is that not choosing a good action is not necessarily choosing an evil action.

I agree that both reading to a child and discussing the child’s day with him/her are good actions for the same underlying reason, the parent is spending time with their child. This is what gives both choices moral value and makes them good. If we ask ourselves what is the reverse of this, the answer is to not spend time with the child, or possibly to not spend enough time with the child. We would both agree I think that it is evil for a parent to not spend enough time with there children as this will probably lead to developmental problems.

The point is simply that without the reason that gives the choice moral value, the choice is meaningless. It would be meaningless for a person to sit and discuss the day’s events with an inanimate object. A rock has no free will, does not know good or evil, and will develop the same way regardless. Without free will we would be like rocks. Without good and evil we would know neither and thus our existence would be meaningless.

Take this to real life and the contradiction becomes even more stark. We usually have many more than just two good actions available. By the strict 'not good choice = evil choice' dichotomy everyone is commiting evil acts all the time. By this standard, even Jesus commited evil acts constantly.

As I have said I agree with you that some choices are not good or evil. Where we differ is that you think these types of choices have meaning and I do not. Jesus did things that had meaning and lead to the greater good.

Example: Vaccines, a child gets pricked by a needle (evil) to avoid a horrible disease (good), thus vaccines lead to the greater good. Confusing? Nobody ever said it was going to be easy. 🙂

Continued...

Originally posted by telerion
The following two posts are a response to The Chess Express's latest post. Thank you again for your patience.

Don’t be too hasty. The choices you gave both have meaning and moral value.

1. The choice of a spouse or a lover.

Fornication is wrong according to the Bible. You may have a different opinion about this, but in reality not having sex you would like me to explain, just let me know. (continued)

Given that I have shown that not choosing a good action is not equivalent to choosing an evil action, and therefore we can have free will with meaningful (even good) choices and no evil,

[/b]You haven’t.

I think it is encumbent upon you and DragonFriend to convince us all that evil choices are still necessary or optimal for making meaningful choices. Why is the choice to rape a child necessary for free will to be meaningful?

So that we can choose not to rape the child and thereby choose good over evil. If it were impossible to rape a child then that evil action would not exist. If you eliminated all evil actions then there could be no good. An action is good if it has meaning and is not evil. Nobody would ever experience evil, nobody would learn why evil is wrong, or why good is in fact good, and our actions would not have moral value. If we had no free will, we would be mindless robots, if we had free will, it would be like choosing between identical pencils to take a test with, meaningless.

If I have the choice to give to the needy family or not give to them is my world made any less meaningful if I cannot also choose to steal from the family, rape the wife, and burn their shack down?

As I have mentioned this is really just the choice between lesser evils. You’re a part of this world, and by not giving to those in need you make the world a little more that way. A world that never gave would be evil (at least, more evil then it already is), so you would be contributing to an evil world.

Give me an example of an action that has meaning, is good, and if the action was not done it would not be evil. Please remember to take into consideration the underlying reasons behind the action.

It seems to me that anyone wanting to argue your side has to commit themselves to championing the most rotten behavior possible (e.g. child rape is necessary for life to be meaningful)!

Nothing could be farther from the truth. The point of creation (as I have twice noted now) is to learn what evil is, what it leads to and why it is a poor choice, and to choose good. Jesus is the best example of this. He has free will, he knows good and evil, and he always chooses good. I don’t “champion” evil, I simply said that the choice to do evil is necessary for three reasons. 1. for there to be free will, 2. for there to be good, 3. For our actions to have meaning.

Originally posted by The Chess Express

I agree that the act of raping a child is unnecessary to say the least, but the [i]choice to rape a child is very necessary. If we had no ability to choose to rape children then it would not be good to not rape children.[/i]

This does not follow. Of course it would be good not to rape a child; but even assuming that you are correct, who cares? Has our world really been robbed of so much meaning because it no longer makes since to say "not raping a child is good"?

Well, lets put it this way, you’re not good if you rape children. The point is simply that the option exists, and people know what it is. They know why it’s wrong. If there was no evil, our actions would be neither good nor evil, they would just be our actions. If you try to write with chalk on a “white” blackboard you get nothing. You need that contrast.

Furthermore, why does child rape need to be feasible? Couldn't we all know that it is evil to rape a child (and thus know it is good not to) even if we couldn't do it?

For all the reasons that I gave. If we couldn’t rape children we would have 1. no free will, 2. … 3… etc (see above) The act of raping children is evil, so why do you just take this one example? There are any number of good and evil actions that we can do. We need to have the choice.

For instance, we should all know that extinguishing the sun would be an evil action even though no one on earth can actually do it.

Simply knowing that an action is evil is only half of it. Understanding why we shouldn’t choose evil is the other half. This part of the equation requires experience. Do you think that there are no madmen on earth who would extinguish the sun (or perhaps start a nuclear holocaust) if they could? Simply knowing that evil exists just teaches us that there is evil. Experiencing evil, and the consequences of evil, teaches us why it is wrong. Again, I’m not saying that we should indulge in evil, I’m saying that we should understand why we shouldn’t indulge in evil.

Originally posted by telerion
Let me summarize for you. God allows evil to exist so that good can exist. He gives us free will so that we can experience both good and evil, and ultimately realize that evil is wrong and good is the only way that leads to our lasting happiness. Once we get to the point where we have free will, and we’ve learned our lessons and choose good all the time thored it? If the answer is "God", then, no offense, but I'd say his plan actually sucks.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
Let me summarize for you. God allows evil to exist so that good can exist. He gives us free will so that we can experience both good and evil, and ultimately realize that evil is wrong and good is the only way that leads to our lasting happiness. Once we get to the point where we have free will, and we’ve learned our lessons and choose good all the time (as Jesus does), God brings us back to him and lets us stay in Heaven where we belong. Some go through hell whether it be here on earth or in the afterlife, but all eventually return to God; and God, being omniscient, knows that this will be the end result. Amen.

Evil is just a necessary part of the equation. Look at it this way, every time we suffer we grow. Usually we suffer as much as we choose to anyway. People have far more control over their lives than they’ll often times admit to.

Originally posted by telerion
this quote is "God in a Box" again.

God wasn’t forced to do anything so how can this be your “God in the box” argument? Isn’t this label just a cop out in itself?

First, it presumes that the only (or the best) way for us to learn is by having us commit evil for a while.

The best way to know something is to experience it would you agree? The taste of an orange is not understood by knowing it’s molecular formula, it is necessary to taste it. Experience is necessary. Creation is necessary. It is necessary to experience both good and evil to know why good is good and evil is wrong.

Moreover, it assumes that the only (or the best) way for us to learn is to have as many evil choices as we do. Do we really need the option rape children in order to get the big picture? Maybe just murder, torture, and stealing would be sufficient to get the point across. The defender of your position must show that not only is some evil choice necessary for free will (I have argued that it is not.), but that every evil choice available is necessary for free will.

First of all, as you have pointed out yourself there are plenty of evil choices that we do not have. Secondly, where are you going with this? Have only one or two evil choices? How? Should we live in a world that is perfect except that God gives us guns to shoot each other with? Again how? Should we all be tied to trees and the triggers would be operated by our noses? Free will is necessary. Every thought and action whether they be good or evil teaches us something.

Another bit of "God in the Box" when you appeal to suffering as a device for growth. Why is it the case that we must suffer to grow?

Because that is how we learn that evil is wrong. Often times it is when people are in trouble that they turn to God.

Did God author this rule?

Yes, which is why this argument it is not God in the box.

You make it sound like some one or something else authored it, and God just had to go along.
No, I simply said that God chose to do it this way because it is the best way.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
In spite of all the evil that people do, God forgives us time and time again, and often times saves us from the consequences of our own evil actions. God does this because he loves us, and despite all the evil that has to happen, God knows what the end result will be, a perfect creation. That’s why his plan is perfect. If we suffer through evil for a few years here on earth, how can that compare to eternity?

Except that it can't be perfect, because eternity in heaven with no years of suffering on earth is better than eternity in heaven with some years of suffering on earth.

Instead of focusing on “God in the box,” try to “Think outside of the box.” If Heaven was full of souls who didn’t know right from wrong it wouldn’t be Heaven for long.

If their is a rule that says that the first case is impossible, then who authored it? If the answer is "God", then, no offense, but I'd say his plan actually sucks.

You have yet to demonstrate a better way.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]First, with the exception of STD's, waiting to have sex before marriage does not contribute to stopping the things you list. I have that straight from a xian marriage counselor, a counselor at a xian-based program in fact, not just a marriage counselor who is xian.

[/b]I’m not sure what your “Christian” counselor said, but as I understan ...[text shortened]... fusing? Nobody ever said it was going to be easy. 🙂

Continued...[/b][/b]

I'll try to keep this to one post. I must say that along with your not understanding sets, your lack of knowledge of the construction of proofs is unfortunate. You often confuse "there exists a" with "for each and every." As a consequence your counterarguments are often irrelevant.

Premarital Sex

Your first reference is obviously a website trying to sell virginity. The phrase "sound answer through out the ages" and the obvious farce "health professionals [encourage] young people [to] be involved in permissive sex" are a give away that you've dredged the bottom of the net for somebody with a serious axe to grind. Funny that the quote actually contradicts your claims when it claims health professionals encourage kids to have premarital sex. Oh well, it's obviously a joke site anyway.

Your non-xian source isn't quite as bad. Besides premarital sex the BYU guy slips in the other things Mormons don't like: interracial marriage and different religions. Funny, eh? You've got to know how to read social scientists. He's got an axe to grind too. If you read the entire article you find that the scientist from WWU slightly contradicts him.
Anyway, all you have is correlation at best from that article. I denied causality.
Of course, you are also assuming that you also are assuming that divorce is evil. Clearly, it is not. It is a incredibly important social institution that protects families. Even Jesus condones divorce in the right circumstances. He also condemns it (a contradiction, go figure).

STD's

Just because not engaging in premarital sex reduces your likelihood of contracting an STD does not mean that having premartial sex is evil. There is no logic here. Consider a similarly poor piece of logic: Not going to elementary school drastically reduces your likelihood of getting the flu. We all agree that the flu is a serious problem. Going to elementary school is evil. All you have are special pleadings. I want to see some real evidence.

Choosing a Mate: Evil?

Let me make this simple for you so that we can get away from these silly diversions. Choosing one person to marry instead of another is not necessarily a moral decision. It is almost always a 'meaningful' decision. Take such a situation. Ammoral, meaningful action. QED.
In logical terminology, you have made the claim amounting to only choices over good/evil acts are meaningful. That is to say that 'there does not exist an ammoral action that is meaningful.' The counter that obliterates that claim is 'there is at least one ammoral action that is meaningful.' I have shown it. Again. QED.

Stinginess: Evil, Evil, Evil

First, you have shifted the decision from a decision not to give in one case to a decision never to give ever. Already your argument fails.

Second, you fail to show anything. You just keep repeating 'How much evil would [nobody ever giving] lead to?' and then tie up a nice circle at the end by saying that not giving at all is evil because it would contribute to a world where nobody gives. You want me to fill in the blanks in your argument and concede to it at the same time!

"It’s like I said, often times the choice not to do good leads to evil by default."

This flatly ignores my whole point. I feel like I wasted my time.

Neutral Choices

You do not accept my examples because once again you've tied a little circle. You want examples of choices that are ammoral and meaningful, but you will only accept examples that do not make people 'better' in any sense. That's silly and obdurate. I choose a song I want to listen to because I really like that song. It is a meaningful choice, and I'm glad I can make it. It does affect for the better though because it makes me happy, so I guess that doesn't count right? Just because a choice affects at least one person for 'better' in any way does not make it a moral choice. You are just way to loose with your words.

Why TCE Believes in the Efficacy of Child Rape

This passage shows that I have wasted my time. Your mind is incredibly partitioned. Just a couple posts ago, you admit that we do not need to choices over good/evil (and thus we do not need evil) for free will. Now you contradict this with the same tired stuff your pastor (or whatever leader) told you. You've retreated back into that partition. I will not rebutt this section here. All I can say is go back and re-read my posts which convinced you before and departition your mind.

TCE Claims "spending time with a child" is a basic good

Scary, given the previous section, wouldn't you say? You are once again trying to change the example. They are not both good because you are 'spending time with the child.' 'Spending time with the child' may not always be a good thing. If you are beating or, as you believe is best to occur somewhere in the world once in a while, raping the child, then 'spending time with the child' is actually a bad.

Really, 'spending time with a child' should be considered neutral. Good/bad can only be applied to what you are doing to the child in that time. That said, your counterargument is off point.

Why it is Meaningless to Engage with Non-human Animals and Other Things that Lack Free Will

A dog does not know good and evil. Therefore it is meaningless to spend time with your dog. Besides the absurdity of what you say in this section, you have done nothing to support your argument. I have disproven most of what you say already. Choices do not need to be either good or evil to have meaning. Repeating that they do is not an argument. Follow my example and use logic to support your case. Quite simple a person's choice can have meaning to them (maybe choosing their favorite #2 pencil). Meaningful choice, ammoral by your own confession. QED.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]Given that I have shown that not choosing a good action is not equivalent to choosing an evil action, and therefore we can have free will with meaningful (even good) choices and no evil,

[/b]You haven’t.

I think it is encumbent upon you and DragonFriend to convince us all that evil choices are still necessary or optimal for making ould indulge in evil, I’m saying that we should understand why we shouldn’t indulge in evil.

[b]Given that I have shown that not choosing a good action is not equivalent to choosing an evil action, and therefore we can have free will with meaningful (even good) choices and no evil,

[/b]You haven’t.[/b]

I have. You just keep changing your standards to ensure that you don't have to accept the truth. You apply good and evil so liberally it makes me dizzy. Go back. Try to understand. If that doesn't help, study logic.

So that we can choose not to rape the child and thereby choose good over evil. If it were impossible to rape a child then that evil action would not exist. If you eliminated all evil actions then there could be no good.

Again a confusion on your part concerning logic. Child rape is necessary because if there were no evil actions there would be no good. If you can't see why your argument is a non-sequitor then I'm afraid I have much better things to do.


I'll come back later. I've already read through your posts and you fail to make a single good point. Just drivel through and through. It's frustrating and disappointing. Damn, I should really get back to publishing stuff intelligent people understand.

Edit: You know what? I won't come back to it. If some one else, can raise a reasonable point that shows that they understand and have an objection that I have not already covered, then I'll entertain them. Discussing with you is like arguing with a person that has lost their short term memory.

Edit2: I'm just frustrated. I won't erase what I said. It's there for everyone to read. You worn my patience then. Better that I don't try to explain things to you.

Originally posted by telerion
I'll try to keep this to one post. I must say that along with your not understanding sets, your lack of knowledge of the construction of proofs is unfortunate. You often confuse "there exists a" with "for each and every." As a consequence your counterarguments are often irrelevant.

Premarital Sex

Your first reference is obviously a website try ful choice, ammoral by your own confession. QED.[/b]

Originally posted by telerion
I'll try to keep this to one post. I must say that along with your not understanding sets, your lack of knowledge of the construction of proofs is unfortunate. You often confuse "there exists a" with "for each and every." As a consequence your counterarguments are often irrelevant.

[b]Premarital Sex. Your first reference is obviously a website trying to sell virginity. The phrase "sound answer through out the ages" and the obvious farce "health professionals [encourage] young people [to] be involved in permissive sex" are a give away that you've dredged the bottom of the net for somebody with a serious axe to grind. Funny that the quote actually contradicts your claims when it claims health professionals encourage kids to have premarital sex. Oh well, it's obviously a joke site anyway.

Your non-xian source isn't quite as bad. Besides premarital sex the BYU guy slips in the other things Mormons don't like: interracial marriage and different religions. Funny, eh? You've got to know how to read social scientists. He's got an axe to grind too. If you read the entire article you find that the scientist from WWU slightly contradicts him. Anyway, all you have is correlation at best from that article. I denied causality. Of course, you are also assuming that you also are assuming that divorce is evil. Clearly, it is not. It is a incredibly important social institution that protects families. Even Jesus condones divorce in the right circumstances. He also condemns it (a contradiction, go figure).

STD's, Just because not engaging in premarital sex reduces your likelihood of contracting an STD does not mean that having premartial sex is evil. There is no logic here. Consider a similarly poor piece of logic: Not going to elementary school drastically reduces your likelihood of getting the flu. We all agree that the flu is a serious problem. Going to elementary school is evil. All you have are special pleadings. I want to see some real evidence.

[/b]Do some research. I could list all sorts of evils ranging from teen pregnancy and STD’s to abortions and orphans that could be avoided by avoiding premarital sex. BTW, that flu example you gave is a pretty bad one. Like I mentioned with the example of the vaccines, sometimes the greater good is important.

Choosing a Mate: Evil? Let me make this simple for you so that we can get away from these silly diversions. Choosing one person to marry instead of another is not necessarily a moral decision. It is almost always a 'meaningful' decision. Take such a situation. Ammoral, meaningful action. QED.
In logical terminology, you have made the claim amounting to only choices over good/evil acts are meaningful. That is to say that 'there does not exist an ammoral action that is meaningful.' The counter that obliterates that claim is 'there is at least one ammoral action that is meaningful.' I have shown it. Again. QED.

Again you’ve shown nothing. To consider marriage amoral and thereby totally neutral is ridiculous. Marriage affects the rest of our lives for better or for worse. Many people marry for the wrong reasons which is why the divorce rate is so high. The ones who choose wisely make a “good” choice because marriage can enrich a persons life. Much good will come from a good marriage and vice versa.

Stinginess: Evil, Evil, Evil First, you have shifted the decision from a decision not to give in one case to a decision never to give ever. Already your argument fails. Second, you fail to show anything. You just keep repeating 'How much evil would [nobody ever giving] lead to?' and then tie up a nice circle at the end by saying that not giving at all is evil because it would contribute to a world where nobody gives.

Do you believe that you are a part of this world? If yes then you believe that your actions contribute to this world for better or worse. If you go back and read what I posted you’ll see that I never said it was necessary to always give at every possible opportunity, but once in a while it is necessary and good.

Neutral Choices You want examples of choices that are amoral and meaningful, but you will only accept examples that do not make people 'better' in any sense. That's silly and obdurate. I choose a song I want to listen to because I really like that song. It is a meaningful choice, and I'm glad I can make it. It does affect for the better though because it makes me happy, so I guess that doesn't count right? Just because a choice affects at least one person for 'better' in any way does not make it a moral choice. You are just way to loose with your words.

I would say you are way to loose with your examples. Listening to classical music has been shown to have a positive physiological effect on the body. Listening to hard core rap may get somebody to do something that they shouldn’t. This is a case of good and evil.

Why TCE Believes in the Efficacy of Child Rape

This is wrong. What I said was that I believe that the CHOICE is necessary, not the action.

Your mind is incredibly partitioned. Just a couple posts ago, you admit that we do not need to choices over good/evil (and thus we do not need evil) for free will. The point of us being h Now you contradict this with the same tired stuff your pastor (or whatever leader) told you.

As usual you misinterpret me. What I said a couple of posts ago was that it is possible for us to choose between meaningless options. Remember the example that I brought up with the identical #2 pencils and the test? Meaningless, and yet we have the choice to choose which ever pencil we like. I’ll say it again, the point of us being here is NOT to do meaningless things for all eternity. This would get us no where and be a big waste of time. We are here to learn the nature of good and evil, and then go back to God. This is not going to happen if we waste all eternity doing meaningless things, and it is not going to happen if we do evil things. Everybody learns eventually.

You say that we should somehow know evil without being able to experience it. I say this is not possible. You can’t know an orange by its molecular formula, you have to taste it. Experience is necessary and it is the best way. This is why God chose the best way, and why this is not a God in the box argument.

BTW, this is mostly my theory, or at least what I’ve managed to piece together from my experience. If you reject it that's fine, but you probably shouldn’t hold it against Christianity, many Christians would disagree with my beliefs as well. For example, not many Christians believe that all souls eventually go back to God. Most assume that an evil soul can somehow be lost in hell forever. Rubbish…

TCE Claims "spending time with a child" is a basic good. You are once again trying to change the example. They are not both good because you are 'spending time with the child.' 'Spending time with the child' may not always be a good thing. If you are beating or, as you believe is best to occur somewhere in the world once in a while, raping the child, then 'spending time with the child' is actually a bad.

Come on man! You know exactly the context that I put it in. The underlying reason why spending time with a child is good is because children need attention growing up. Do you need a psychologist to tell you this? A parent who ignores their child does bad. Whether the parent and child read together, or play ball, or go to the beach makes no difference. The point is they are spending time together.

Really, 'spending time with a child' should be considered neutral. Good/bad can only be applied to what you are doing to the child in that time.

Sure, abusing the child is bad. My point to all of this is that spending time with a child is probably not neutral. What are you going to do, sit there and stare at the kid for a couple of hours?

Why it is Meaningless to Engage with Non-human Animals and Other Things that Lack Free Will

Again, this is not what I said. I said it was meaningless to spend time with a rock.

A dog does not know good and evil. Therefore it is meaningless to spend time with your dog. Quite simple a person's choice can have meaning to them (maybe choosing their favorite #2 pencil).

You assume too much. Too much Christian background I think. Animals are alive and do have souls. I know what the church says, but animals are as alive as we are, they just have a different sort of consciousness.

Example: A dog knows right from wrong. A dog can know that it is bad to crap in the house, or eat from a persons plate. If a dog loves you (yes, they can) then the dog won’t want to bite you. Let’s say your house gets burglarized and the burglars confront you. The dog would have no previous experience with this situation. Now lets say the burglars attack you and the dog attacks them, why? Because the dog is trying to protect you, why? Because the dog loves you and knows that the burglars are doing evil to you.

Also, if the #2 pencils are identical, then the choice is meaningless.

Originally posted by telerion
[b][b]Given that I have shown that not choosing a good action is not equivalent to choosing an evil action, and therefore we can have free will with meaningful (even good) choices and no evil,

[/b]You haven’t.[/b]

I have. You just keep changing your standards to ensure that you don't have to accept the truth. You apply good and evil so li ...[text shortened]... ead. You worn my patience then. Better that I don't try to explain things to you.[/b]

STUPID LOUSEY ************ GOOD FOR NOTHING FORUM!!! 😠😠😳😳:'(:'(🙄😏