Spirituality
11 Feb 06
24 Feb 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloWord.
I will reference you to a former RHP thread that deals with this very topic. I recommend it as an instructive and engaging (at least at times -- it's a long thread) introduction to the Problem of Evil:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=21886
Essentially, the Problem of Evil is designed to show that the existence of OOO God do ...[text shortened]... out said evil, it would be impossible for the greater good to obtain). Take care, Freaky.
24 Feb 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloAlthough in Critique of Pure Reason he denies the point of discussing metaphysics, he associates the phenomena with noumena.
One question that I think is very interesting is the one you posed asking, essentially, whether God is of the noumenal or the phenomenal. I am going to have to do some more research to calibrate my understanding of what is meant by the 'noumenal', but am I right in interpreting your question as equivalent to the following: is it possible to know anything ...[text shortened]... o the agent.
Not sure if any of this makes sense -- like I said, under construction.
To my knowledge he claims that only the noumena which have associated phenomena can be partially known but not in themselves as we're limited by the knowledge of its manifestations.
There is no complete separation between the noumenal and the phenomenal, but a link of causality. From the effect you can learn something about the cause, but only that which relates to the effect.
He then denies the possibility of knowledge through metaphysical discussion because these are noumena with no associated phenomena (hence nothing can be known about them).
If so, God would be noumenal (if he exists) and the question would be "Does he have associated phenomena"?
Following this logic knowing God as he really would be impossible, no matter what. But the question would then be
"Is it possible to know anything about God?"
24 Feb 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloLet's see if I have this straight. You assert that the God of the Bible could not exist because of evil in the world? Because of physical suffering?
Take care, Freaky.
Clearly, you have no idea what the Bible says about evil, and the cost that God paid for its existence. As has been stated before, you attempt to refute aspects of God's essence by ignoring the integrity of the same. Your position demands three aspects to stand isolated from the rest of His essence, and answer to your standards of good and evil.
This is akin to demanding to know how "2=5," while ignoring the first part of the equation, namely, "3+." You demand to know the whole, but refuse to consider anything other than the parts.
In your mind, God's righteousness means nothing, as (what you observe) His policies allow suffering. However, in ignorance of His absolute righteousness, everything becomes meaningless. In ignorance of any of His attributes, all is meaningless. That is not a mystery, that is, well, ignorance.
25 Feb 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt is not a case of my having "no idea what the Bible says about evil, and the cost that God paid for its existence". I am aware of the claims that the Bible posits on the subject. However, unlike you, I do not consider the Bible to be some infinite well of propositional truths -- a deep well of unsubstantiated claims is a better characterization.
Let's see if I have this straight. You assert that the God of the Bible could not exist because of evil in the world? Because of physical suffering?
Clearly, you have no idea what the Bible says about evil, and the cost that God paid for its existence. As has been stated before, you attempt to refute aspects of God's essence by ignoring the integrity o ...[text shortened]... of His attributes, all is meaningless. That is not a mystery, that is, well, ignorance.
Freaky, you already stated before that if OOO God exists, then every event that happens is in accordance (or at least not contrary) to His will, or greater plan. Now let us return to the example that I already posted. If your OOO God exists, then He must have had adequate reasons for "planning" and allowing the pain, suffering, and eventual death of those babies. So I will ask you again and please try not to dodge the question this time: what do you suppose those adequate reasons were?
25 Feb 06
Originally posted by PalynkaThanks for this summary, Palynka. I have been doing some research on the topic over the last few days, and your summary seems to align with my interpretations, although I need to think some more to figure out if I agree with Kant.
Although in Critique of Pure Reason he denies the point of discussing metaphysics, he associates the phenomena with noumena.
To my knowledge he claims that only the noumena which have associated phenomena can be partially known but not in themselves as we're limited by the knowledge of its manifestations.
There is no complete separation between the nou ...[text shortened]... matter what. But the question would then be
"Is it possible to know anything about God?"
25 Feb 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloBefore I answer your question, it is you who must stop the dodging. You've been asked a few point blank questions, and you have yet to answer the same. Until you do answer the questions, it can only be assumed you are not answering because your 'reasoned rejection' of God will be exposed for what it is: illogical conclusions based on false presumptions.
So I will ask you again and please try not to dodge the question this time: what do you suppose those adequate reasons were?
Just in case you missed them before, here they are, one last time.
Do you reject the notion of an OOO God based on evil and/or physical suffering in the world?
If so, what is your definition of evil?
If so, what is your definition of suffering?
BTW, I do not consider the Bible an "infinite" well of truth; it is the only source of the category of truth known as the wisdom of God. It's topics and depth are both limited to what is required for man in this thing we call life. Like the edge of the universe, we 'see' its limits, but we have yet to cover and conquer its space, yet to plumb its depths, yet to unravel its myriad mysteries.
25 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDo you reject the notion of an OOO God based on evil and/or physical suffering in the world?
Before I answer your question, it is you who must stop the dodging. You've been asked a few point blank questions, and you have yet to answer the same. Until you do answer the questions, it can only be assumed you are not answering because your 'reasoned rejection' of God will be exposed for what it is: illogical conclusions based on false presumptions.
ver and conquer its space, yet to plumb its depths, yet to unravel its myriad mysteries.
I reject the existence of OOO God based on my conclusion that logically unnecessary suffering and evil exist.
If so, what is your definition of evil?
If so, what is your definition of suffering?
Irrelevant to this discussion, and irrelevant to this discussion. Put in your own definitions.
If you think that the Problem of Evil is based on "false presumptions", then please go to the thread that I referenced earlier and point out exactly which premise(s) of that logically valid argument is(are) false and why.
Freaky, now that I have answered your questions, please answer mine: what, in your estimation, were OOO God's reasons for allowing the pain, suffering, and death of those babies?
25 Feb 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBTW, I do not consider the Bible an "infinite" well of truth; it is the only source of the category of truth known as the wisdom of God.
Before I answer your question, it is you who must stop the dodging. You've been asked a few point blank questions, and you have yet to answer the same. Until you do answer the questions, it can only be assumed you are not answering because your 'reasoned rejection' of God will be exposed for what it is: illogical conclusions based on false presumptions. ...[text shortened]... ver and conquer its space, yet to plumb its depths, yet to unravel its myriad mysteries.
Actually, to first order, it is just some crusty pages compiled together -- a "book" as it were.
26 Feb 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloI reject the existence of OOO God based on my conclusion that logically unnecessary suffering and evil exist.
Now that's a loaded sentence! What, in your judgment, would be a necessary (acceptable) amount of suffering and evil?
Irrelevant to this discussion, and irrelevant to this discussion. Put in your own definitions.
Totally relevant, I'm afraid. Your basis for rejection is based upon the nouns, therefore, your definitions of the nouns are tantamount to validating (or invalidating) said rejection. You are not being asked the 'why' of suffering and evil, just the 'what is.' Shouldn't be too hard a task.
26 Feb 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou should be thankful that blasphemy against the Word of God is forgivable. It will be your judge, nonetheless.
[b]BTW, I do not consider the Bible an "infinite" well of truth; it is the only source of the category of truth known as the wisdom of God.
Actually, to first order, it is just some crusty pages compiled together -- a "book" as it were.[/b]
26 Feb 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHRead through that thread he cites, if you want to understand the argument he's making. The answers to your questions are located in that thread; they've been explicitly addressed there. Why not just go to the thread and read it, rather than mandating that LJ cut and paste parts of that thread into this one? Jeesh!
[b]I reject the existence of OOO God based on my conclusion that logically unnecessary suffering and evil exist.
Now that's a loaded sentence! What, in your judgment, would be a necessary (acceptable) amount of suffering and evil?
Irrelevant to this discussion, and irrelevant to this discussion. Put in your own definitions.
Totally releva ...[text shortened]... asked the 'why' of suffering and evil, just the 'what is.' Shouldn't be too hard a task.[/b]
26 Feb 06
Originally posted by bbarrSay, now there's a novel idea: read through 36 pages of drivel that could have been totally avoided with a proper refutation of the very first post. In a word: unnecessary.
Why not just go to the thread and read it, rather than mandating that LJ cut and paste parts of that thread into this one? Jeesh!
You deem creation of anything outside of God as unnecessary, and thereby, 'proof' of His deficiency. Thus, the need to know the totality of God's character, as part does not constitute the whole. Integrity is completeness, not another word for honesty.
Instead of arguing against the omniscience/ominpresence/omni-benevolence of God, why not argue the veracity of His justice? Jeesh.
26 Feb 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnd, again, the objections you raise conerning the notion of 'evil' and 'suffering' as used in the argument were answered explicitly in that thread. Throwing a little tantrum because you don't want to do your homework just makes you look silly.
Say, now there's a novel idea: read through 36 pages of drivel that could have been totally avoided with a proper refutation of the very first post. In a word: unnecessary.
You deem creation of anything outside of God as unnecessary, and thereby, 'proof' of His deficiency. Thus, the need to know the totality of God's character, as part does not ...[text shortened]... nce/ominpresence/omni-benevolence of God, why not argue the veracity of His justice? Jeesh.
Cheers!