Just read a cute explanation as to why God allows suffering etc
A conversation between two people:-
Why does God allow hurting in the world.
God acts like a father.
Whats that got to do with anything?
As a father would you allow your son or daughter to learn to skateboard?
Yes came the reply
But you are well aware that your son will fall off and skin his knees, and yet you still allow it to happen.
Well we all have to learn some time and a little hurt makes us learn and remember.
So you allow your offspring to learn through experiance which sometimes is painful. Thats just what God the Father is doing with his "offspring".
Oh I see now. Hmm.. try the less cute dialogue.
God acts like a father
What's that got to do with anything
As a father would you subject your son or daughter to possible death by a hurricane, earthquake, tsunami or other natural disaster?
No, of course not.
Oops. What exactly is being learned when someone dies of disease or natural disaster? Or an entire city is destroyed by flood or earthquake? The analogy between skateboarding and the other terrible things that occur on this planet is pretty darn absurd.
You can put whatever spin on it you want and add cute little ideas, but none of it adds up in the end because there is nothing to add up.
| Quote: |
| The analogy between skateboarding and the other terrible things that occur on this planet is pretty darn absurd. |
It depends on whether you are looking looking at the human kind as individuals, or the "race" as one single substance. It's just a way of thinking, that's all. | Shewolf wrote: |
| It's just a way of thinking, that's all. |
"Thinking"? ^_^; Is that what is supposed to be happening here? ^_^
Alright, then. Let's give that a try.
Why does God allow hurting in the world.
God acts like a father.
Whats that got to do with anything?
As a father would you allow your son or daughter to learn to skateboard?
Yes came the reply
But you are well aware that your son will fall off and skin his knees, and yet you still allow it to happen.
Well we all have to learn some time and a little hurt makes us learn and remember.
So you allow your offspring to learn through experiance which sometimes is painful. Thats just what God the Father is doing with his "offspring".
Oh I see n- ... wait a minute! You say God acts like a father, right?
Yes, he does.
As a father, would you deliberately do something to your child that will cause them pain and suffering in the future for no good reason?
No, of course not.
So why would you make them vulnerable to skateboarding injury?
What?
Look, my father didn't choose to make my bones breakable, did he? That's kinda what he had to deal with because of the way i was born. If he could have chosen, wouldn't he have made me virtually invincible, like Superman or something?
Uh,... well....
But God does have that choice. When he created me, he could have made me invulnerable to skateboarding. If he really loves me like a father, and a father would want that, why didn't God?
Well, he must have had his ~m~y~s~t~e~r~i~o~u~s~ ~r~e~a~s~o~n~s~ that are beyond human understanding....
Riiiiiight. (Not impressed.) And i'm not finished. Even if skateboarding has to be dangerous, for whatever "mysterious reasons", it doesn't have to be true that we have to want to do it. Do you have any hungering urge to eat live poisonous snakes whole? Or light yourself on fire? No, probably not - most humans don't. But you do have an urge to go out and try adventurous and dangerous things like skateboarding, don't you?
Well....
So if God created us without a desire to completely self-destruct and drink Draino 24/7... why didn't he create us without a desire to do dangerous things, like skateboarding, or sleeping around? If i was this God-father, and i was creating humans, and i knew that skateboarding would hurt them but could not do anything to make skateboarding less dangerous... well then the obvious thing to do would be to make humans who didn't want to do dangerous things like skateboarding.
But God had to give us free choice-!
Ah-ah-ah! Nice try! You see, we can freely choose to drink Draino right now... but we have been created without the inclination. On the other hand, we can freely choose to have sex with multiple partners, skydive, skateboard, and a whole host of other dangerous things... and we have been created with the inclination. God did that. Why? A loving father would not. He would either prevent these things from being harmful, or make us not inclined to do them. God did neither.
Well... uh... God is God and he's beyond human understanding and reasoning!
Then why did you try to explain him to me using human understanding and reasoning?
....I bow in deference
Much better than mine 
| Shewolf wrote: |
| Quote: | | The analogy between skateboarding and the other terrible things that occur on this planet is pretty darn absurd. |
It depends on whether you are looking looking at the human kind as individuals, or the "race" as one single substance. It's just a way of thinking, that's all. |
The human rase (us) learn indeed certain things about vulcano erruptions, tornado's, some dangerous virus(smallpox) etc. And prevent future fatalyties with what we learn, however if they weren't there we didn't need that information. So what do we learn as a race from other people getting killed because of some natural disaster or rampaging virus? What we can use for other purposes (exept preventing people get killed)?
So wouldn't we better of WITHOUT all those things?
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:12 pm; edited 1 time in totalHonestly, I think this argument is a ridiculous one. For both believers and non-believers. Accidents and death and suffering are unfortunate, but it has nothing to do with God. This would be a pretty crappy world if we didn't respect life. You can't respect life if you're not afraid of dying. Yes, people suffer. Yes, it's horrible. But if God set us down on earth and made every decision for us and protected us from every incident, would you want to live in it? I wouldn't. Then I wouldn't be in control of my life. Or mankind, in general, wouldn't be in control. We need to learn for ourselves.
If you don't believe in God, then it doesn't matter anyway. If you do believe in God, then your belief says you die and go to heaven. How you arrive at your final destination, whatever it may be, is controlled by nobody but you and people near you. Natural disasters are just that. Natural. If you're a believer, then realize that this world is based on a set of rules. If you're a nonbeliever who considers himself a scientist, you already know this. Disasters occur because that's how things work. God isn't a sadist, if He exists. He just gave us freedom.
I think you miss the point.
To say that accidents and death have nothing to do with God is to deny that God is omnipotent.
God could quite easily have left us free-will without allowing children and babies to be killed in 'natural' accidents - simply put us on a planet where those things do not happen. If you are Christian you believe that God put us here, on this particular planet. That was a choice he made. He therefore chose to put us in a situation where 'evil' things would happen that would kill innocent people - that has nothing to do with free-will. Does a baby killed in a tsunami believe in God? Does it die as a result of human choices?
As Indi has pointed out - free will is a relative term. We have 'urges' and 'desires' to do some things and we do not have the same desires to do others. Most people have no desire to set themselves on fire. Does that mean that God denied us free-will? No of course not - we just don't exercise the free-will in that instance. In that case why give us urges and desires to do things which are potentially harmful or even fatal? That could rightly be defined as sadistic.
If you are not religious, like me, then of course you would say that natural disasters are just a part of life - shit happens. If you are religious, however, I cannot see how you can say that, since you surely believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient...
| Bikerman wrote: |
I bow in deference
Much better than mine |
Oh, i don't know about that. The saying is "short and sweet", after all, not "verbose and sweet". ^_^;Saying that shit happens doesn't mean that I deny the fact that God is omnipotent nor omniscient. You do bring up a good point, though. The only thing that comes to mind is the idea that perhaps you have to have these things to truly understand the good. Even that could be wrong. It's difficult to speculate on what a being that may or may not exist would or would not do. And if someone truly believes that He is omnipotent and omniscient... one would have to believe what He did was in somebody's best interests. It is a circular argument both ways. It's the same idea as manipulating a philosophy to best suit a person's beliefs. When you hear a situation, normally you develop a gut reaction right away as to the correct solution to a puzzle. Then, you try to come up with reasons to support your claim.
In the case of Utilitarianism, we could say: The greatest good is no suffering. Or the greatest good is people with knowledge and brilliance to overcome suffering. Or... really, anything.
So for non believers: God is omniscient and omnipotent. Everything that happens is because of Him. He intended suffering, then, because it exists and He is omniscient and omnipotent. Answer: He can't exist then.
For believers: God is omniscient and omnipotent. Everything that happens is because of Him. He intended suffering then because it exists. But He is omniscient and omnipotent. Therefore, he knows what He's doing. Answer: This person is perfectly content.
The problem is that if you take the premise: God is omniscient and omnipotent. Then try to apply it to problems that affect your personal experiences, the outcome would be different. This is what I mean by... this is a non issue.
| ericf wrote: |
| Saying that shit happens doesn't mean that I deny the fact that God is omnipotent nor omniscient. You do bring up a good point, though. The only thing that comes to mind is the idea that perhaps you have to have these things to truly understand the good. Even that could be wrong. It's difficult to speculate on what a being that may or may not exist would or would not do. And if someone truly believes that He is omnipotent and omniscient... one would have to believe what He did was in somebody's best interests. It is a circular argument both ways. It's the same idea as manipulating a philosophy to best suit a person's beliefs. When you hear a situation, normally you develop a gut reaction right away as to the correct solution to a puzzle. Then, you try to come up with reasons to support your claim. |
Well it is difficult to see how it could be in the best interest of an infant to die in a disaster isn't it?
| Quote: |
| In the case of Utilitarianism, we could say: The greatest good is no suffering. Or the greatest good is people with knowledge and brilliance to overcome suffering. Or... really, anything. |
No. In utilitarianism the morality of an action is dependant solely on its contribution to the general happiness
| Quote: |
| So for non believers: God is omniscient and omnipotent. Everything that happens is because of Him. He intended suffering, then, because it exists and He is omniscient and omnipotent. Answer: He can't exist then. |
No that does not follow. God could be a sadist, or he might not give a monkeys.
| Quote: |
| For believers: God is omniscient and omnipotent. Everything that happens is because of Him. He intended suffering then because it exists. But He is omniscient and omnipotent. Therefore, he knows what He's doing. Answer: This person is perfectly content. |
Still doesn't explain how the infant benefits from the deal, or how God's decision to let the infant die is morally just, unless you posit that the death of innocents is simply a way to make the rest of us better in some way - which seems a rather immoral approach to me...Erm. Just thought I'd say the conversation in the first post is taken almost directly from a chapter of Angels & Demons (prequel to the Da Vinci Code). | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Erm. Just thought I'd say the conversation in the first post is taken almost directly from a chapter of Angels & Demons (prequel to the Da Vinci Code). |
Ahh...that's strangely fitting... | Quote: |
| Well it is difficult to see how it could be in the best interest of an infant to die in a disaster isn't it? |
Exactly. The point was that if He's omniscient and you're not, then he must have some other motive that you simply don't understand.
| Quote: |
No. In utilitarianism the morality of an action is dependant solely on its contribution to the general happiness |
I realize. I've read Mill's Utilitarianism. But this is an example and you're arguing semantics rather than trying to understand what I'm saying. An argument for the sake of arguing. The point is that you can take any philosophy and twist it into what you want. According to your definition, my point still stands. You can argue that the greatest happiness will result from no suffering. But you can also argue that the greatest happiness will result from the satisfaction that people feel when working together through hardship. The problem is that none of this is quantitative and so ridiculous claims can be made in either direction and when done appropriately, both sound plausible. I may have not, with my example, given my argument justice but you get the gist.
Probably a better example would be... You're an ambulance driver who always lives by Utilitarianism. You get a call. There are 5 bums you are sure to save on the west side of town and 1 doctor on the east side of town. You are the only person who can get to either. You can either say, "I follow Utilitarianism! I will save the 5 since 5 people achieving higher happiness will be greater than the 1 person." Or you could say, "I follow Utilitarianism! I will save the doctor since he has the potential to save many more people than the 5 bums." Same premise: different outcomes. The reason is that the metric is undefined.
| Quote: |
| No that does not follow. God could be a sadist, or he might not give a monkeys. |
What? Again, that has no bearing on what I was trying to say. I was remarking on the idea that premises cannot rely on conclusions and vice versa. Arguments cannot be a two-way street. A novel is a bunch of papers with words on them, but a bunch of papers with words on them is not necessarily a novel. The conclusion of those statements were irrelevant.
| Quote: |
| Still doesn't explain how the infant benefits from the deal, or how God's decision to let the infant die is morally just, unless you posit that the death of innocents is simply a way to make the rest of us better in some way - which seems a rather immoral approach to me... |
Again, if you concede to the fact that he's omnipotent and omniscient, then you must realize you're not and thus, cannot be certain that there is no benefit which outweighs the morals. If you think about it, Christians believe in heaven. An afterlife which is much better, presumably, than life on earth. Isn't the death of an infant, then, better for the child? (I'm waiting for you to retort that I'm advocating the death of everyone to enter into the afterlife prematurely and thus, be happier and I'm not. I'm saying that it is not outside the realm of possibility that God actually does have a reason for what He does, if He exists.) | ericf wrote: |
| Quote: | | Well it is difficult to see how it could be in the best interest of an infant to die in a disaster isn't it? |
Exactly. The point was that if He's omniscient and you're not, then he must have some other motive that you simply don't understand. |
Well this sounds familiar. ^_^;
Well... uh... God is God and he's beyond human understanding and reasoning!
Then why did you try to explain him to me using human understanding and reasoning?
But in all seriousness, if you claim that God is both omnipotent and omniscient, then there can be no possible reason for suffering. No, not "no reason that we can see or understand" - no reason at all. None.
Why? If God really is omnipotent, then he can theoretically do anything (you can decide whether you want to allow him to be able to illogical things or not - it doesn't matter for this argument), and no one or nothing can stop him. Moral frameworks that we - humans - have developed (like utilitarianism, if that's what you're into) are implicitly defined with human limitations in mind: "the greatest good for the greatest number" is actually "the greatest good for the greatest number that we can manage given our capabilities."
See the problem now? Our capabilities are limited, so we cannot give the greatest good to all. In your ambulance driver case, we can only save the five bums or the one doctor - not both. Our capabilities are limited by the speed of the ambulance and the limit of medical technology. But God is - you say - omnipotent. His capabilities are most certainly not limited, by definition. He could save all six people. There is no reason for any of them to suffer at all.
If there is something that force God to choose who must suffer and who must not, then God is not omnipotent - he is subservient to that greater law. It's not a matter of whether we can see the reason or not - if the reason exists at all, then God is not omnipotent.
But really, it wouldn't even take omnipotence to eliminate all human suffering at all. Seriously, it wouldn't be that hard. We humans could theoretically manage it if we increased our technology - and not by that much, really. If we could build a Dyson Sphere and decent farming robots - bam! - hunger and over-population... solved. If we could develop technological replacements for our bodies that don't feel pain or suffer illness - bam! - no more hurting or disease, or death. We can't do these things now, but it is not that crazy to suggest we will be capable of it some day. So... why couldn't God do it from the start? If he's at least as powerful as we humans will be in two or three hundred years, he has the capability. If he's omniscient, and i can figure it out, then why couldn't he? | ericf wrote: |
| Honestly, I think this argument is a ridiculous one. For both believers and non-believers. Accidents and death and suffering are unfortunate, but it has nothing to do with God. |
WhaTF? god supposedly loves us all, and preventing us from getting killed is pretty easy for an omnipotent being. If ayou're wife is going to die, all you have to do is push a button and she lives, well god has that button and doesn't use it. Yes he really loves us...
| ericf wrote: |
| This would be a pretty crappy world if we didn't respect life. You can't respect life if you're not afraid of dying. Yes, people suffer. Yes, it's horrible. But if God set us down on earth and made every decision for us and protected us from every incident, would you want to live in it? I wouldn't. |
Firstly how do you know it would be bad if we still respected life. HE MAKES decisions for us by starting a vulcano erruption in our face. Also we all die eventually you don't need natural disaster to do that for us, it is "random" or grosly unfair by god.
| ericf wrote: |
| Then I wouldn't be in control of my life. Or mankind, in general, wouldn't be in control. We need to learn for ourselves. |
Still with "random" natural disasters we could make more choises ourselves.
| ericf wrote: |
| If you don't believe in God, then it doesn't matter anyway. If you do believe in God, then your belief says you die and go to heaven. How you arrive at your final destination, whatever it may be, is controlled by nobody but you and people near you. |
Hmm you mean that when we we "go" to somewhere if we believed in it? So when I die I don't exist anymore and when you die you go to heaven/hell?
| ericf wrote: |
| Natural disasters are just that. Natural. If you're a believer, then realize that this world is based on a set of rules. If you're a nonbeliever who considers himself a scientist, you already know this. Disasters occur because that's how things work. God isn't a sadist, if He exists. He just gave us freedom. |
I'm not a scientist but I do know that there are rules this earth goes by tectonicplatesetc. explaines why there are vulcanoes, earthquakes etc.etc.etc. However a god could have easily created an earth without those things.
| ericf wrote: |
| Quote: | | Well it is difficult to see how it could be in the best interest of an infant to die in a disaster isn't it? |
Exactly. The point was that if He's omniscient and you're not, then he must have some other motive that you simply don't understand. |
Aside that this argument is totaly lame and the usually the "last stand" of people who advocate a god who is omnipotent etc.
WHY don't we understand god's motives, couldn't he let us understand? How hard is it, if I do something to someone and he/she doesn't understand why, I'll try to explain why I do that
Unless I am a sadist and try to do some bad things to them. Example like when I try to kill them because I am a psycho I wouldn't bother why i did that. | ericf wrote: |
| Quote: | | No that does not follow. God could be a sadist, or he might not give a monkeys. |
What? Again, that has no bearing on what I was trying to say. I was remarking on the idea that premises cannot rely on conclusions and vice versa. Arguments cannot be a two-way street. A novel is a bunch of papers with words on them, but a bunch of papers with words on them is not necessarily a novel. The conclusion of those statements were irrelevant. |
No it wasn't. There are metrics which apply to the statement which mean that it is plain wrong (it is logically flawed). If you wanted to give an example then you should have used a defensible argument.
| Quote: |
| Again, if you concede to the fact that he's omnipotent and omniscient, then you must realize you're not and thus, cannot be certain that there is no benefit which outweighs the morals. If you think about it, Christians believe in heaven. An afterlife which is much better, presumably, than life on earth. Isn't the death of an infant, then, better for the child? (I'm waiting for you to retort that I'm advocating the death of everyone to enter into the afterlife prematurely and thus, be happier and I'm not. I'm saying that it is not outside the realm of possibility that God actually does have a reason for what He does, if He exists.) |
Well, presuming the infant is not baptised then this would be a grey area wouldn't it? Would the infant actually go to heaven with the stain of original sin unwashed? Most Christians dilly-dally around this issue. One version of Catholic theology is that such infants go to Limbo (on the outskirts of hell). Obviously this is distasteful to many believers so they tend to sweep the matter under the carpet as much as possible and you don't see much mention of Limbo nowadays. The 'hardline' interpretation is that these infants are damned and go to hell. Obviously this is even more distasteful to believers so this doesn't get mentioned at all from the pulpit. Various theologians have tried to make a case for such infants eventually attaining a state of grace and going to heaven but the reasoning is a classic example of theological double-speak and gibberish... | Quote: |
Well this sounds familiar. ^_^;
Cool Well... uh... God is God and he's beyond human understanding and reasoning!
Confused Then why did you try to explain him to me using human understanding and reasoning?
...
Aside that this argument is totaly lame and the usually the "last stand" of people who advocate a god who is omnipotent etc.
WHY don't we understand god's motives, couldn't he let us understand? How hard is it, if I do something to someone and he/she doesn't understand why, I'll try to explain why I do that
Unless I am a sadist and try to do some bad things to them. Example like when I try to kill them because I am a psycho I wouldn't bother why i did that.
|
This is true. It is a cop-out, but just that doesn't mean it is untrue. I've never once said in this discussion whether or not I believe in God. I'm just open to the possibility. The fact that we, as humans, are so limited even if we are the most advanced animals we've heard about leaves me open to the idea that as brilliant as we think we are, we can't reason ourselves out of everything. We can try damn hard. I'm open to that as well and I do try, but chances are likely we won't find anything out regarding this discussion within our lifetimes.
When you think about the way the brain works and how it can be influenced by chemicals or damage and the person can believe a whole different reality to the core of their being, you realize how imperfect we are and how skewed our reality can become. Like the idea of an observer altering the state of an object by observing it. For all the observer knows, they are observing the object in its natural state, but simply by observing it, the object has changed and the observer is incorrect. That's why I'm open to the possibility.
| Quote: |
| Why? If God really is omnipotent, then he can theoretically do anything (you can decide whether you want to allow him to be able to illogical things or not - it doesn't matter for this argument), and no one or nothing can stop him. Moral frameworks that we - humans - have developed (like utilitarianism, if that's what you're into) are implicitly defined with human limitations in mind: "the greatest good for the greatest number" is actually "the greatest good for the greatest number that we can manage given our capabilities. |
| Quote: |
| WhaTF? god supposedly loves us all, and preventing us from getting killed is pretty easy for an omnipotent being. If ayou're wife is going to die, all you have to do is push a button and she lives, well god has that button and doesn't use it. Yes he really loves us... |
I'm just going to quote a snippet, but refer to this and the paragraphs below as well. So now we say, "Ok, He's omnipotent." Why doesn't he do this? Why doesn't he do that? Eliminate suffering altogether? Again, this is questioning the motives of something we know nothing about. This is where the Christian fails to give a good answer. This is the 'cop-out' I referred to earlier. Because a believer doesn't know the answer to the question, "Why are things the way they are?" besides saying this. When they try to answer, they say "God works in mysterious ways" or "He is beyond our understanding." The problem is those arguments rely on the assumption that God exists. That is where faith sets in. Personally, I don't know for sure and I don't claim to.
--
| Quote: |
Firstly how do you know it would be bad if we still respected life. HE MAKES decisions for us by starting a vulcano erruption in our face. Also we all die eventually you don't need natural disaster to do that for us, it is "random" or grosly unfair by god.
Still with "random" natural disasters we could make more choises ourselves. |
I'm sorry, can you clarify your meaning? Are you saying that since we all die anyway, it doesn't matter whether it's a natural disaster or not? If so, I think I addressed that above.
| Quote: |
| Hmm you mean that when we we "go" to somewhere if we believed in it? So when I die I don't exist anymore and when you die you go to heaven/hell? |
??? I'm saying that's what people's BELIEF is. A believer says you go to heaven or hell and a nonbeliever says life ends when you die here. I hope we're not disputing that fact?
| Quote: |
| No it wasn't. There are metrics which apply to the statement which mean that it is plain wrong (it is logically flawed). If you wanted to give an example then you should have used a defensible argument. |
Yes it was. Maybe I'm unable to properly convey my meaning and if that's the case, I apologize. I'm pretty sure we're saying the same thing. I am agreeing that it is logically flawed which is why the conclusion to the statements are irrelevant. The whole point of what I said was that you could arrive at different conclusions through the use of flawed logic in the intermediary steps between proposition and conclusion.
| Quote: |
| Well, presuming the infant is not baptised then this would be a grey area wouldn't it? Would the infant actually go to heaven with the stain of original sin unwashed? Most Christians dilly-dally around this issue. One version of Catholic theology is that such infants go to Limbo (on the outskirts of hell). Obviously this is distasteful to many believers so they tend to sweep the matter under the carpet as much as possible and you don't see much mention of Limbo nowadays. The 'hardline' interpretation is that these infants are damned and go to hell. Obviously this is even more distasteful to believers so this doesn't get mentioned at all from the pulpit. Various theologians have tried to make a case for such infants eventually attaining a state of grace and going to heaven but the reasoning is a classic example of theological double-speak and gibberish... |
It feels like we're going around in circles. But, I agree. It is a gray area. This is again trying to question the motives for something we know nothing about. I'm not going to argue for a specific sect that believes one thing about a certain aspect of belief. I wanted a discussion on the broader question, "is there a God? - a higher power?" Still, the point of what I was saying was there is a possibility that what happens to these infants is 'for the best.' And there still is that possibility. The idea that these theologians came up with double-speak and gibberish proves it. It may be double-speak and it may be gibberish and they absolutely don't have any data to back up their claims... but who's to say if God exists that He doesn't work that way? We can't be sure unless the believers are right, then we die. If the believers are wrong, we'll die and that'll be it and we'll never know. | ericf wrote: |
| Quote: | | No it wasn't. There are metrics which apply to the statement which mean that it is plain wrong (it is logically flawed). If you wanted to give an example then you should have used a defensible argument. |
Yes it was. Maybe I'm unable to properly convey my meaning and if that's the case, I apologize. I'm pretty sure we're saying the same thing. I am agreeing that it is logically flawed which is why the conclusion to the statements are irrelevant. The whole point of what I said was that you could arrive at different conclusions through the use of flawed logic in the intermediary steps between proposition and conclusion. |
No apology necessary or required. The point is that it is possible to construct a system of logic from scripture that is not fundamentally flawed. It is difficult, for sure, since scripture contains much that is apocryphyl or at least wildely inaccurate.* The only honest approach is to treat scripture literally and interpret parables where they are clearly meant as such. This leads to certain conclusions which are ridiculous in the face of modern science and unacceptible in the face of modern ethics/morality...them's the breaks..
| Quote: |
| It feels like we're going around in circles. But, I agree. It is a gray area. This is again trying to question the motives for something we know nothing about. I'm not going to argue for a specific sect that believes one thing about a certain aspect of belief. I wanted a discussion on the broader question, "is there a God? - a higher power?" Still, the point of what I was saying was there is a possibility that what happens to these infants is 'for the best.' And there still is that possibility. The idea that these theologians came up with double-speak and gibberish proves it. It may be double-speak and it may be gibberish and they absolutely don't have any data to back up their claims... but who's to say if God exists that He doesn't work that way? We can't be sure unless the believers are right, then we die. If the believers are wrong, we'll die and that'll be it and we'll never know. |
I see no such possibility. They (unbaptised infants) either go to hell or they go to limbo. Neither of those options is 'for the best'. The double-speak of theologians is used to try and avoid that conclusion - the bible is pretty clear on the matter.
If you can think of a way in which this 'is for the best' then please ellucidate it. The notion that 'we cannot know therefore it is still possible' does not wash. The bible prescribes certain actions which are supposed to lead to the ultimate reward in heaven. If infants are to be denied that reward through no fault and because of something beyond human control then I would wish to know what possible morality applies here....
*apologies to Douglas Adams (though I am sure he would have approved in the context).You are all looking far to deep into this...very simple answer
a) God does not exist
b) God could really care less
| Bikerman wrote: |
| ericf wrote: | | Quote: | | No it wasn't. There are metrics which apply to the statement which mean that it is plain wrong (it is logically flawed). If you wanted to give an example then you should have used a defensible argument. |
Yes it was. Maybe I'm unable to properly convey my meaning and if that's the case, I apologize. I'm pretty sure we're saying the same thing. I am agreeing that it is logically flawed which is why the conclusion to the statements are irrelevant. The whole point of what I said was that you could arrive at different conclusions through the use of flawed logic in the intermediary steps between proposition and conclusion. |
No apology necessary or required. The point is that it is possible to construct a system of logic from scripture that is not fundamentally flawed. It is difficult, for sure, since scripture contains much that is apocryphyl or at least wildely inaccurate.* The only honest approach is to treat scripture literally and interpret parables where they are clearly meant as such. This leads to certain conclusions which are ridiculous in the face of modern science and unacceptible in the face of modern ethics/morality...them's the breaks.. |
I don't quite understand why the only honest approach is to treat scriptures literally and interpret parables where clearly meant. The problem with that is the hand of God didn't come down to write down the scripture. And even if, at some point, he decided to guide the hand of man to write... the Bible has been edited by the church several times. I would imagine the only honest approach is to try to do as we're doing and discuss and refine our own ideas through discussion and analysis.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | It feels like we're going around in circles. But, I agree. It is a gray area. This is again trying to question the motives for something we know nothing about. I'm not going to argue for a specific sect that believes one thing about a certain aspect of belief. I wanted a discussion on the broader question, "is there a God? - a higher power?" Still, the point of what I was saying was there is a possibility that what happens to these infants is 'for the best.' And there still is that possibility. The idea that these theologians came up with double-speak and gibberish proves it. It may be double-speak and it may be gibberish and they absolutely don't have any data to back up their claims... but who's to say if God exists that He doesn't work that way? We can't be sure unless the believers are right, then we die. If the believers are wrong, we'll die and that'll be it and we'll never know. |
I see no such possibility. They (unbaptised infants) either go to hell or they go to limbo. Neither of those options is 'for the best'. The double-speak of theologians is used to try and avoid that conclusion - the bible is pretty clear on the matter.
If you can think of a way in which this 'is for the best' then please ellucidate it. The notion that 'we cannot know therefore it is still possible' does not wash. The bible prescribes certain actions which are supposed to lead to the ultimate reward in heaven. If infants are to be denied that reward through no fault and because of something beyond human control then I would wish to know what possible morality applies here....
*apologies to Douglas Adams (though I am sure he would have approved in the context). |
Is the idea that they'd go to heaven ruled out? We've been acting so far as if God were a rulebook with no mind. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be difficult for Him to realize that a baby wouldn't deserve hell or even limbo. He is God, after all. He's probably not stupid. If you're saying the Bible is pretty clear on the matter that an unbaptized child would go to hell, I'm not sure I buy that. Isn't baptism supposed to be a spiritual cleansing? If the child is unmarred, how can it be that big of a problem?
Ahh, a Douglas Adams fan, eh? Have you read So Long and Thanks for all the Fish: a tribute to Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy author Douglas Adams by Helen Stringer? If not, you should. She gathered a ton of his unpublished and obscure published works in that book, including a lot of his ideas of God and his arrival at atheism.
___
| Quote: |
You are all looking far to deep into this...very simple answer
a) God does not exist
b) God could really care less |
Oh snap! It's so simple! He doesn't exist and He also cares because He can care less! Look, again, I'm totally open to debate and to different points of view... but the reason we're having this discussion is to find out more about things. I'm taking everything everyone says and mulling over it for a long time. I've come into this discussion willing to be swayed by arguments. If you feel like elaborating on your nonsensical claims, feel free and I'll pay attention. | ericf wrote: |
| I don't quite understand why the only honest approach is to treat scriptures literally and interpret parables where clearly meant. The problem with that is the hand of God didn't come down to write down the scripture. And even if, at some point, he decided to guide the hand of man to write... the Bible has been edited by the church several times. I would imagine the only honest approach is to try to do as we're doing and discuss and refine our own ideas through discussion and analysis. |
Christians believe that the bible is the inspired word of God and therefore the only honest approach is the one I gave. For me, as an atheist, I don't think anything of the sort and so I can take a variety of approaches.
| Quote: |
| Is the idea that they'd go to heaven ruled out? We've been acting so far as if God were a rulebook with no mind. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be difficult for Him to realize that a baby wouldn't deserve hell or even limbo. He is God, after all. He's probably not stupid. If you're saying the Bible is pretty clear on the matter that an unbaptized child would go to hell, I'm not sure I buy that. Isn't baptism supposed to be a spiritual cleansing? If the child is unmarred, how can it be that big of a problem? |
If you read the bible you will see repeated references to salvation through knowing the Lord/accepting the Lord. You can only be 'saved' according to Christian scripture (NT), by accepting Christ as your saviour. Since babies cannot make that 'acceptance' then......
According to Catholicism (the 'original Christianity' - or at least one of them ) | wiki wrote: |
| The liturgy of baptism in the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, and Methodist traditions makes clear reference to baptism as not only a symbolic burial and resurrection, but an actual supernatural transformation, one that draws parallels to the experience of Noah and the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea divided by Moses. Thus, baptism is literally and symbolically not only cleansing, but also dying and rising again with Christ. Catholics believe that baptism is necessary for the cleansing of the taint of original sin, and for that reason infant baptism is a common practice. |
I agree that this is a horrible view - I find it repulsive. That is, however, what they believe (or at least what they sign-up to when they say they are Catholic). | Quote: |
| Ahh, a Douglas Adams fan, eh? Have you read So Long and Thanks for all the Fish: a tribute to Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy author Douglas Adams by Helen Stringer? If not, you should. She gathered a ton of his unpublished and obscure published works in that book, including a lot of his ideas of God and his arrival at atheism. |
No but I will look out for it... | ericf wrote: |
| Quote: | Firstly how do you know it would be bad if we still respected life. HE MAKES decisions for us by starting a vulcano erruption in our face. Also we all die eventually you don't need natural disaster to do that for us, it is "random" or grosly unfair by god.
Still with "random" natural disasters we could make more choises ourselves. |
I'm sorry, can you clarify your meaning? Are you saying that since we all die anyway, it doesn't matter whether it's a natural disaster or not? If so, I think I addressed that above. |
You said something like we need to value life, people already do, they don't need a natural disaster to kill somerandom people to make clear that life can stop. We already die anyway because we get old or by the hands of others. Natural disasters don't make a lot of sense for the sake of that argument:
| ericf wrote: |
| This would be a pretty crappy world if we didn't respect life. You can't respect life if you're not afraid of dying. Yes, people suffer. Yes, it's horrible. But if God set us down on earth and made every decision for us and protected us from every incident, would you want to live in it? I wouldn't. |
And why do a few random people suffer for the sake of others?
--
| ericf wrote: |
| Quote: | | Hmm you mean that when we we "go" to somewhere if we believed in it? So when I die I don't exist anymore and when you die you go to heaven/hell? |
??? I'm saying that's what people's BELIEF is. A believer says you go to heaven or hell and a nonbeliever says life ends when you die here. I hope we're not disputing that fact? |
I said that because you said:
| ericf wrote: |
| If you don't believe in God, then it doesn't matter anyway. If you do believe in God, then your belief says you die and go to heaven. How you arrive at your final destination, whatever it may be, is controlled by nobody but you and people near you. |
How it doesn't matter? Creationists try to explain everything to us and then it doesn't matter?
And every one has the same final destination, either nothing, heaven/hell or reincarnation etc. | ericf wrote: |
| The fact that we, as humans, are so limited even if we are the most advanced animals we've heard about leaves me open to the idea that as brilliant as we think we are, we can't reason ourselves out of everything. We can try damn hard. I'm open to that as well and I do try, but chances are likely we won't find anything out regarding this discussion within our lifetimes. |
There comes a point where you cross out of the realm of faith and into the realm of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA" really loudly.
Humility is all fine and good, but temper it with realism. We may not have "god-like" intellects, but we're not stupid. We're certainly smart enough to answer some pretty damn complicated questions, as our considerable social and technological advancement demonstrates.
But this question really isn't that complicated, you know. People had it figured out in 5000 BCE (if i recall, off the top of my head, Ancient Egyptian writings going back to that time mention the question). And in 7000 years, we've never changed the answer (although we've refined some amazingly complicated ways of framing the answer, along with the really simplistic ones). You can call it hubris, but i'd say that's a pretty good sign that we've pretty much got it licked. ^_^;
The sad part is you know it, too, but you're stuck in a mental loop that is preventing you from seeing the answer... even when you give it yourself. ^_^; (Which you did, as i will show.) It really is trivially simple - it's so bloody obvious, it's almost a tautology. ^_^ Look:
Presumed fact: God is omnipotent - which means he can do anything.
Therefore:
a: God can prevent all suffering.
Or:
b: God can't prevent all suffering.
Which is correct? Well, duh. ^_^; The answer's right there! Right in the beginning! "He can do anything", ipso fact, he can prevent all suffering (which is something, and therefore part of "anything" ^_^).
You can hedge and say you're "open to the possibility" that there's something you're missing... but that's silly in this case. ^_^; There's simply no room for "possibilities" - the problem is so simple, it's mathematically closed:
| Code: |
"God is omnipotent" ∴ "God can X" ∀ X.
X ≔ "Prevent all suffering"
∴ "God can prevent all suffering"
∎ |
It's a closed problem. ^_^; Saying "maybe there are possibilities that are unknown" is pretty much like saying "maybe there are possibilities that 1 + 1 does not equal 2".
Everyone who knows me knows how hesitant i am to come to any conclusion - when pressured i will refuse to admit that anything is certain, but even without being backed into a corner, i don't go around saying that "this is certain" lightly. Well, this is certain. ^_^; It really is. There is no resolution to the problem of evil without rejecting either "God is powerful", "God is good" or both. Therefore, if God exists, he must be either weak, evil... or crazy (that is, completely without reason; random; mindless).
There are only three ways you can not arrive at the same conclusion:
- Bad logic.
- Denial.
- Not trying.
You're going for option 3, it seems. Alright. ^_^; If that's the road you want to travel - it's your path. i'd call it laziness or cowardice, but it's your choice, not mine. | Quote: |
| Christians believe that the bible is the inspired word of God and therefore the only honest approach is the one I gave. For me, as an atheist, I don't think anything of the sort and so I can take a variety of approaches. |
What about someone trying to find out more? Even Christians question their faith daily. Also, this doesn't take into account the fact that the Bible has been edited and you can't tell me that if it was edited by the church that was God's will or whatever. This goes back to free will. No matter what the church says, I'm pretty sure that if there is a God, he didn't coerce the writing in the Bible. Hypnotism seems below Him.
| Quote: |
If you read the bible you will see repeated references to salvation through knowing the Lord/accepting the Lord. You can only be 'saved' according to Christian scripture (NT), by accepting Christ as your saviour. Since babies cannot make that 'acceptance' then......
According to Catholicism (the 'original Christianity' - or at least one of them Smile ) |
Yes, but again, this assumes that a.) the Bible is God's own will and b.) that God is a rulebook who can't decide anything for Himself. Both of which, I would dispute.
| Quote: |
| You said something like we need to value life, people already do, they don't need a natural disaster to kill somerandom people to make clear that life can stop. We already die anyway because we get old or by the hands of others. Natural disasters don't make a lot of sense for the sake of that argument: |
Alright, well, ignore natural disasters then. This has no bearing on the discussion at hand. Or rather, it does, but at a more specific point. The same unanswerable question remains. I already said I have no idea what a would-be God's motives are.
| Quote: |
| And why do a few random people suffer for the sake of others? |
See above
| Quote: |
How it doesn't matter? Creationists try to explain everything to us and then it doesn't matter?
And every one has the same final destination, either nothing, heaven/hell or reincarnation etc. |
I'm not sure I made my point clear then. This wasn't meant to be an argument at all. I was just saying that either nothing, heaven/hell or reincarnation etc happens. What I meant by "it doesn't matter" is that we'll die and never know the difference. If the believers are correct, we'll die and then finally have our answer. This was just a random musing.
| Quote: |
There comes a point where you cross out of the realm of faith and into the realm of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA" really loudly. |
You've taken on a debater's tone. Your post was full of little innuendos that show an excellent ability to make an argument by making the other person look silly. Likening me to a lazy, silly, ignorant, cowardly child is no way to argue even if it is spread out across your post so that it's not as noticeable.
| Quote: |
| It's a closed problem. ^_^; Saying "maybe there are possibilities that are unknown" is pretty much like saying "maybe there are possibilities that 1 + 1 does not equal 2". |
As ridiculous as it sounds, that is what I'm saying and I have tempered my humility with realism. I already said why I'm open to the possibility. Yes, we think we're pretty smart and yes, we've come up with great solutions to great problems. But like I said, if we're vulnerable to these chemicals and brain damage which completely change our perception of reality, isn't there something to be said there? Who's to say everyone doesn't have some form of this altered perception? That is where the idea that the possibility is still open for me stems from.
| Quote: |
There are only three ways you can not arrive at the same conclusion:
1. Bad logic.
2. Denial.
3. Not trying.
You're going for option 3, it seems. Alright. ^_^; If that's the road you want to travel - it's your path. i'd call it laziness or cowardice, but it's your choice, not mine. |
Really? 3? At least give me 1 or 2. I'm here discussing the matter on a board listening to your views and taking them into account. Not trying would be not thinking about it which I clearly am. If I wasn't trying, I wouldn't be having a one versus the world discussion about it. If I wasn't trying, I wouldn't have read papers by Dawkins, Lewis, Adams, Hawking, Collins, and even Penn Jillette. I would be content in my ignorance. Instead, I try. The problem is when you start getting into the way the universe really works, things start getting hokey. Some concepts of quantum mechanics are insane. Concepts in theoretical physics sound crazy. There's just no way to rule the idea that there is a higher power out completely.
Now, forgive me, but I'm going to stop replying to this thread. It would never end otherwise and replying actually does take a good chunk of my time - especially because it's a 1 vs many debate and I was trying to address everyone. Thanks a lot for a good discussion and thanks to most of you for actually coming into the discussion with an open mind and for not being insulting in your posts. | ericf wrote: |
| What about someone trying to find out more? Even Christians question their faith daily. Also, this doesn't take into account the fact that the Bible has been edited and you can't tell me that if it was edited by the church that was God's will or whatever. This goes back to free will. No matter what the church says, I'm pretty sure that if there is a God, he didn't coerce the writing in the Bible. Hypnotism seems below Him. |
Christians test their faith AGAINST scripture - that is the benchmark. That is exactly what the core Christian dogma requires you to believe - the bible is the inspired word of God. The translations were guided by the hand of God. I can't think of any Christian sects which would say otherwise (I cannot claim to be an expert in all forms of Christianity but I do know a good deal about one of them - Catholicism. In Catholicism it is a fundamental article of faith that the bible is divinely inspired). You could call it hypnotism or whatever - the fact remains that it is a core dogma that the words are 'inspired' by God and therefore must be correct.
I have seen this core belief expressed in many ways, perhaps the most cogent would be | Quote: |
| The proper view of inspiration is that the Bible writers were rendered incapable of error in the reception and communication of God’s revelation to man. |
If you don't believe that the bible is the inspired word of God then what is left? The only accounts of Jesus that we have are in the bible. This means that either:
a) You believe the bible is inspired by God
or
b) You believe the bible is just an account written by men (and therefore fallible)
If you believe the second then what grounds are there for taking any of it seriously? After all there is little or no support from the historical record (certainly for the NT and also for large parts of the OT). How do you decide which parts are accurate and which parts are inaccurate? Do you start with the assumption that the original texts were divinely inspired but then lost some of this in the translations and editing later? That would seem to be inconsistent. Why should the original texts be divine and the later edits not be? After all we must remember that none of the NT is contemporaneous - it was all written well after the events described.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | If you read the bible you will see repeated references to salvation through knowing the Lord/accepting the Lord. You can only be 'saved' according to Christian scripture (NT), by accepting Christ as your saviour. Since babies cannot make that 'acceptance' then......
According to Catholicism (the 'original Christianity' - or at least one of them Smile ) |
Yes, but again, this assumes that a.) the Bible is God's own will and b.) that God is a rulebook who can't decide anything for Himself. Both of which, I would dispute. |
Well, see above. If you believe that the bible is just a man-made account then why would you take it seriously as a basis for your religious beliefs? You might as well consider it as a semi-mythical propogandist account in two parts. One part being an instruction manual for Jews containing a creation-myth, rules for being a good Jew - social and legal codes, and a folk-history of the Jewish people (OT). The other part being an account of a breakaway sect of Judaism and the adventures of its leader (NT). There is no need to attach any spiritual significance to it at all...
(That, incidentally, is exactly how I read the bible)... | Bikerman wrote: |
| Christians test their faith AGAINST scripture - that is the benchmark. |
Can you explain what is meant by the above Christians testing their faith against scripture? How can faith be tested by the Bible? | ericf wrote: |
| Quote: |
There comes a point where you cross out of the realm of faith and into the realm of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA" really loudly. |
You've taken on a debater's tone. Your post was full of little innuendos that show an excellent ability to make an argument by making the other person look silly. Likening me to a lazy, silly, ignorant, cowardly child is no way to argue even if it is spread out across your post so that it's not as noticeable. |
If i wanted to call you (or "liken you", as you put it) to a lazy, silly, ignorant, cowardly child, i would call you a lazy, silly, ignorant, cowardly child.
What i said was that the answer was blatant - right in front of you (and i even went out of my way to point out that you were aware of that) - and that you were being silly to refuse to acknowledge it on the vague hope of "possibilities" that you can't even define. i did not call you "silly". i called doing that silly. And i certainly stand by that.
Furthermore, you know the answer, you even gave the answer ^_^, but you don't like the answer (it seems), so you hedge by saying you're "open to possibilities". What possibilities? Apparently, you don't know, and you don't care. But on the off chance that they might maybe somehow possibly exist, you're refusing to accept a conclusion that's right in front of you... because of? Well, it sure looks like the reason is because you simply don't have the courage to commit to a conclusion. And if that's true, then that is cowardice. Again, i did not call you cowardly. i called doing that cowardly. And i stand by that, too.
But then i gave you the benefit of the doubt (or so i thought! ^_^ but more on that in a minute), and assumed that maybe you didn't see the answer as clearly as i thought you might. But then, the answer is not hard to find. It's pretty easy actually, as i showed. Therefore, the fact that you haven't found it (assuming that you're not in denial), must be that you haven't looked. If so, that would be lazy. And yet again, i did not call you lazy. i called not going for the answer when it is right in front of you and being satisfied with a non-answer (or in other words, "i'm open to possibilities, but not really interested in going to look for them") lazy. And that, too, i stand by.
As for ignorant and a child, you'll have to spell that out for me. ^_^;
| ericf wrote: |
| Quote: | | It's a closed problem. ^_^; Saying "maybe there are possibilities that are unknown" is pretty much like saying "maybe there are possibilities that 1 + 1 does not equal 2". |
As ridiculous as it sounds, that is what I'm saying and I have tempered my humility with realism. I already said why I'm open to the possibility. Yes, we think we're pretty smart and yes, we've come up with great solutions to great problems. But like I said, if we're vulnerable to these chemicals and brain damage which completely change our perception of reality, isn't there something to be said there? Who's to say everyone doesn't have some form of this altered perception? That is where the idea that the possibility is still open for me stems from. |
i honestly can't figure out why you keep talking about brain chemicals and altered perception. ^_^; it's completely irrelevant. No matter what state of mind you happen to be in, whether you're acid or not, logic is logic. The argument is a logical argument. It is logically closed and complete. There's no room for "perception". 1 + 1 is 2 whether you're brain damaged, high or not. Similarly, the problem of evil is solved whether you're brain damaged, high or not.
Yes, it sounds ridiculous, and it is. ^_^; Sadly, you're apparently aware of that, too. Or are you seriously trying to tell me that if i asked you "does 1 + 1 equal 2", you're going to answer "i don't know, because i'm open to possibilities that it is not."? ^_^;
Again, i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and guess not. ^_^; i'm going to guess that because you are aware that there is no rational way 1 + 1 can be anything but 2, you will answer that "yes, 1 + 1 equals 2". So why can't you come to the same conclusion about the problem of evil? Well either you don't understand it, or you can't be bothered to investigate it deeply enough to trust it as completely as "1 + 1 = 2". i assumed laziness... would you rather i assumed incompetence? ^_^;
| ericf wrote: |
| Quote: | There are only three ways you can not arrive at the same conclusion:
1. Bad logic.
2. Denial.
3. Not trying.
You're going for option 3, it seems. Alright. ^_^; If that's the road you want to travel - it's your path. i'd call it laziness or cowardice, but it's your choice, not mine. |
Really? 3? At least give me 1 or 2. |
Seriously? ^_^; You would rather be considered intellectually incompetent or intellectually dishonest rather than intellectually lazy? ^_^;
Alright, have it your way. ^_^;
| ericf wrote: |
| I'm here discussing the matter on a board listening to your views and taking them into account. Not trying would be not thinking about it which I clearly am. |
But you weren't discussing it. You were discouraging discussing it. Look: "I'm open to that as well and I do try, but chances are likely we won't find anything out regarding this discussion within our lifetimes."
If you were actually discussing it, then i would discuss it with you. But when you try to discourage discussion, i have no qualms about chiding you for that.
| ericf wrote: |
| If I wasn't trying, I wouldn't be having a one versus the world discussion about it. If I wasn't trying, I wouldn't have read papers by Dawkins, Lewis, Adams, Hawking, Collins, and even Penn Jillette. I would be content in my ignorance. Instead, I try. |
But you are content in your ignorance. ^_^; You said so yourself! You gave us a long spiel about how "limited" humans are, and how "we can't reason ourselves out of everything". You even said flat out that you don't know the answer, and that was that. ^_^;
| ericf wrote: |
| The problem is when you start getting into the way the universe really works, things start getting hokey. Some concepts of quantum mechanics are insane. Concepts in theoretical physics sound crazy. There's just no way to rule the idea that there is a higher power out completely. |
Er... we're not trying to rule out a higher power completely. We were discussing "Why God allows" suffering etc. Which is the problem of evil.
| ericf wrote: |
| Now, forgive me, but I'm going to stop replying to this thread. |
Which is, of course, a fantastic way to "think about it", which you "clearly are". ^_^; | deanhills wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Christians test their faith AGAINST scripture - that is the benchmark. |
Can you explain what is meant by the above Christians testing their faith against scripture? How can faith be tested by the Bible? |
Well, what is your faith as a Christian? It is based on the bible. When you have a crisis of faith you doubt what is in the bible (ie you doubt whether God exists). The bible is the benchmark - the membership rules, the thing you sign-up to when you say you are a Christian. (At least that is the way I think about it.....not being a believer I could, of course, be wrong....)lol, Indi... Unfortunately, I'm stopping the discussion for clearly stated reasons. I am very busy and this takes a lot of time out of my day.
As for "the possibilities", I'm open to many. Not only the Christian view. The exact point is that there IS no way to know for sure, no matter how hard we try. It's a fun exercise, however, to try. Which is the why I say I am trying. I just already have a strong idea that the outcome is 'I'll never know for sure.' That's not hedging. That's just what I think. You have a strong idea that you've already come to an outcome. It's not the "courage to commit to a conclusion." That's not logical. A conclusion is coming to a decision about something conclusively. If it is conclusive, it is a sure thing. There's no way to prove something like this. This has nothing to do with courage.
If I'm lazy then Dawkins who spends a whole lot of his time thinking about it is lazy as well.
| Quote: |
| My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. - Dawkins |
Being open to possibilities is not the lazy way out. I actually agree with Dawkins on this point. I have a hard time believing in the religious dogmas created in our past. Committing to an answer without actually challenging your ideas is the lazy way out. I'm still in the process of challenging my ideas and if that seems like laziness to you, you must have an insane work ethic.
Ignorant was the general gist of your idea of me that I got from your post. Childish came from sticking my hands over my ears and saying "LA LA LA" really loudly. That statement, like a lot of what you said, had no bearing on the argument but rather was just a way to make me look bad
_________
You keep going back to what I said about 1+1=2. The only reason it sounds so ridiculous is because it's the example you chose. The reason why that is so logical is because it's logical according to what we can comprehend. We created the number one and the number one and the number two to serve a certain purpose. They are things we understand completely because they are tangible. This is not that simple. Earthly idea + earthly idea cannot yield a heavenly idea if such an idea exists. Going back to what Dawkins said, "My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else."
The reason I bring up chemicals and altered perception was just to illustrate the point that there's a capability limit that we inherently have. It's easiest to see when these things alter our perception. We can be made to see things that are plain wrong.
_________
I would prefer that I made a mistake (different than incompetent) or denial (because then, I would at least be fully informed and ultimately it would be not through lack of trying but lack of character) Saying I'm lazy is a slap in the face. You can't possibly know what sorts of things I've thought about and what sorts of things I've been through. You say that you're uncertain about most things and are not quick to come to a conclusion, but you seemed to have come to a conclusion about me only through what I've written on a message board. I don't know what you mean by "have it your way." What I am like has nothing to do with my perception of myself. I may be one of those three things and I can't alter that by just saying something on the contrary.
But we've stopped talking about a higher power and moved towards you insulting me and me defending myself.
_____________
I am discussing it. I don't understand. I'm telling you what I believe and you're telling me what you believe. This is discussion. I personally believe that we likely won't find out anything within our lifetimes. You personally believe you've already figured it out (unless I'm mistaken. Please correct me if I'm wrong). How am I discouraging discussion when I'm the only one - at least on this board - with this viewpoint and am addressing everyone (up till now, at least).
____________
| Quote: |
| we're not trying to rule out a higher power completely. |
Maybe that's where our misunderstanding arises. The view I have taken is a more broad view, but it defines what happens with more specific issues.
| Quote: |
| Which is, of course, a fantastic way to "think about it", which you "clearly are". |
Again, a snide remark for no reason. I have tried to not insult anyone by ridiculing them instead of discussing the topic at hand. I am "clearly thinking about it" on my own time. Is this not allowed? I must discuss it on a message board in order for me to do so? I already said the reason why I'm not. This takes time. I have little. You succeeded in bringing me back into the discussion not to discuss the topic, but to discuss my apparent ignorance as you finally named me to be. ^ I find it funny when people get pissed off and say they won't reply again, yet two or three posts later they're back with a page long response 
Contradicting/nonsensical passages and verses from the Bible can't really be held against me (what with me being Muslim and all...), and my religion happens to have a "You-Don't-Go-To-Hell-If-You-Don't-Dedicate-Your-Heart-And-Soul-To-Worship-Jesus-Christ-Because-We-Believe-He-Was-A-Human-Prophet-Like-Moses-And-Muhammed-Given-Certain-Miracles-From-God-And-Wasn't-The-Son-Of-God-And-In-Fact-It's-The-Other-Way-Around-Because-You-Actually-Go-To-Hell-For-Worshiping-Others-Besides-God" policy.
Anyway, regarding the original question as to why God allows misfortune to happen to certain people and not to others, I (and other Muslims) believe that God will compensate those who suffered because God allows no injustice. This is why of those who are to enter Heaven, those who lived in poverty will enter first. | ericf wrote: |
| As for "the possibilities", I'm open to many. Not only the Christian view. The exact point is that there IS no way to know for sure, no matter how hard we try. |
This has nothing to do with Christianity at all. This is an almost universal theist problem.
And i don't know or care what "possibilities" you think you are open to because "the exact point" is that we do know. ^_^; You just refuse to admit that (or, possibly, you really don't know but refuse to seek the answer). That is the problem. ^_^;
| ericf wrote: |
| It's a fun exercise, however, to try. Which is the why I say I am trying. I just already have a strong idea that the outcome is 'I'll never know for sure.' That's not hedging. |
*facepalm* ^_^;
But you're not trying! You are saying you don't know, you think you can't know, so you won't even try! That is hedging. ^_^; That's textbook of hedging.
| ericf wrote: |
| A conclusion is coming to a decision about something conclusively. If it is conclusive, it is a sure thing. There's no way to prove something like this. This has nothing to do with courage. |
Oh, good grief. ^_^; We have come to the conclusion "conclusively". The problem is that you're denying that conclusion, for no reason whatsoever. This is not a case of there is some evidence for and some against. There is only evidence one way, and zero evidence for the other side. None, nada, zip. We have the problem of evil that shows that a powerful, benevolent god is impossible, and on the other side we have... a whole lot of nothing. Just religious faith, not one single iota of evidence or reason - not a single one.
So basically you have 100% support for one thing and 0% for the other, then you invent vague "possibilities" to avoid admitting the obvious conclusion.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| ^ I find it funny when people get pissed off and say they won't reply again, yet two or three posts later they're back with a page long response |
i know, eh? ^_^; And all the while swearing that they're crusading for gaining knowledge, while covering their ears and running away. Nope, no hypocrisy there, none at all.I'm just going to add this as a non-humoristic joke
| Indi wrote: |
| Shewolf wrote: | | It's just a way of thinking, that's all. |
"Thinking"? ^_^; Is that what is supposed to be happening here? ^_^
So why would you make them vulnerable to skateboarding injury?
What?
Look, my father didn't choose to make my bones breakable, did he? That's kinda what he had to deal with because of the way i was born. If he could have chosen, wouldn't he have made me virtually invincible, like Superman or something?
Uh,... well....
|
...did your dad buy you the newest toys everytime those came to the market
Of course not, that would have spoiled me
Oh, I see
So you compare toys and capability of injuring yourself
Well yeah, would it be called as a free will, if we weren't capable of nothing?
Capable injuring ourself, that's crazy!
Is it? We also have capability to prevent the bad in the world. If you can't cure a disease, should God give you a medicine? Yes you say, but if you can't score a hoop should he score it for you?
Whatta f...
...so He should do everything for you so you don't have to struggle through your problems. Again I repeat, spoiled kid with no practical skills whatsoever.
He could give us all the skills in the world.
Yes He could, but should he? As a father? Should he help and guide us instead of planting the skills in our heads? Should he plant his own personality, the personality of perfection in your head? Don't you want to be perfect?
Yes, or no, or... I want to remain as me
Superman-me? With no choice but to follow the God?
No choice?
What kind of perfect God would give us opportunity to rot in hell?
YES! What kind?
The kind who gives us free will.
So I guess the free will seems like a villain in this story
Worst villain ever | Tutor wrote: |
I'm just going to add this as a non-humoristic joke
| Indi wrote: | | Shewolf wrote: | | It's just a way of thinking, that's all. |
"Thinking"? ^_^; Is that what is supposed to be happening here? ^_^
So why would you make them vulnerable to skateboarding injury?
What?
Look, my father didn't choose to make my bones breakable, did he? That's kinda what he had to deal with because of the way i was born. If he could have chosen, wouldn't he have made me virtually invincible, like Superman or something?
Uh,... well....
|
...did your dad buy you the newest toys everytime those came to the market
Of course not, that would have spoiled me
Oh, I see
So you compare toys and capability of injuring yourself
Well yeah, would it be called as a free will, if we weren't capable of nothing?
Capable injuring ourself, that's crazy!
Is it? We also have capability to prevent the bad in the world. If you can't cure a disease, should God give you a medicine? Yes you say, but if you can't score a hoop should he score it for you?
Whatta f...
...so He should do everything for you so you don't have to struggle through your problems. Again I repeat, spoiled kid with no practical skills whatsoever.
He could give us all the skills in the world.
Yes He could, but should he? As a father? Should he help and guide us instead of planting the skills in our heads? Should he plant his own personality, the personality of perfection in your head? Don't you want to be perfect?
Yes, or no, or... I want to remain as me
Superman-me? With no choice but to follow the God?
No choice?
What kind of perfect God would give us opportunity to rot in hell?
YES! What kind?
The kind who gives us free will.
So I guess the free will seems like a villain in this story
Worst villain ever |
i hope you don't have conversations like this often. ^_^; This is almost incoherent.
But... it sounds like you are trying to argue the following points:
- Free will requires that we have to be able to hurt ourselves - or if we were invincible we couldn't have free will.
- It is better to struggle to learn something than it is to learn it without struggle.
- If you were unable to suffer, you would be perfect.
- Hell is a gift, an opportunity
Is that about right? ^_^; | Indi wrote: |
But... it sounds like you are trying to argue the following points:
- Free will requires that we have to be able to hurt ourselves - or if we were invincible we couldn't have free will.
- It is better to struggle to learn something than it is to learn it without struggle.
- If you were unable to suffer, you would be perfect.
- Hell is a gift, an opportunity
Is that about right? ^_^; |
Now when you put it like that, yes that's about it. Just adding: opportunities are gifts as itselves. Path where the opportunity leads isn't automatically a gift. But it wouldn't be a Free will if you couldn't choose between Hell and Heaven. Remember the Bible, the Beast has a lot of cool stuff before damnation. | Tutor wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
But... it sounds like you are trying to argue the following points:
- Free will requires that we have to be able to hurt ourselves - or if we were invincible we couldn't have free will.
- It is better to struggle to learn something than it is to learn it without struggle.
- If you were unable to suffer, you would be perfect.
- Hell is a gift, an opportunity
Is that about right? ^_^; |
Now when you put it like that, yes that's about it. Just adding: opportunities are gifts as itselves. Path where the opportunity leads isn't automatically a gift. But it wouldn't be a Free will if you couldn't choose between Hell and Heaven. Remember the Bible, the Beast has a lot of cool stuff before damnation. |
Alright then, let's look at this logically.
Does free will require that we have to be able to hurt ourselves? Or, if we were invincible, we couldn't have free will?
No, of course it does not. That's just silly. Free will means the ability to freely choose anything you want... not to freely get anything you want. Even an invincible immortal could freely want to die... the fact that it is impossible to accomplish does not mean that they can't choose that option.
Or, look at it the other way. You say i have free will, right? Well, right now, i freely choose to not suffer. Wait a minute... i can't make that choice, now can i? Therefore, despite your claims, i don't really have free will, do i? But wait, there's more! i choose to earn a million dollars in the next ten minutes for doing absolutely nothing, just sitting here and spacing out. i can't get that? Then i must not have free will. That pretty much toasts your entire defence of God right there, but let's keep going, let's leave no stone unturned here.
Is it better to struggle to learn something than it is to learn it without struggle?
But why? Seriously, if you're going to claim something, you should be able to justify it. It's not true just because you say it is. So why? Why exactly is it better to learn via struggle than to learn without struggle?
Let's say you have two people, one a poor kid and the other a rich kid. Both study astronomy. Now, the rich kid's parents pay his way, he never has to lift a finger toward earning his diploma. When he can't be bothered to study or go to class, they get him the best tutors to teach him the lessons at his leisure. Meanwhile the poor kid has to work two jobs to pay his way through, torture his body to stay awake in classes and do to assignments, and generally struggle all the way through. At the end, both get PhDs, and both go on to be equally well respected in their field. Now... if they both learned the same lessons equally well, why does it matter that one struggled all the way through and one did not? At the end, what is the difference?
Now, careful here - obviously the one that struggled to accomplish the same goal deserves more respect for his accomplishments than the one that did not... but i'm not interested in praise, i'm interested in the end results. Why would the poor kid be a better astronomer than the rich one?
Would you be perfect if you were unable to suffer?
"Perfect" is generally a tricky word, but in this case it's pretty clear cut. Anything that is "unable" to do something is clearly less perfect than a thing that is otherwise identical but "able" to do that thing. Thus, a being that could suffer would automatically be more perfect than a being that could not. (Of course, even more perfect would be a being that could suffer if it wanted to, but only if it wanted to, and otherwise not suffer at all.)
Is Hell an opportunity or a gift?
Now, ^_^ i've talked with a lot of theists over the years about their beliefs, and i am still regularly flabbergasted by how warped and messed up some of them are. This is a prime example of that kind of thing. See, in my world, an opportunity or a gift is something that is given to you that you can optionally accept. In my world, if i choose to turn down an opportunity, that's just fine (although, i may regret it). If i cannot turn it down it is not an opportunity, it is a requirement. Similarly, in my world, i can refuse a gift - and if i cannot refuse it, it is not a gift, it is a fine. ^_^;
Now, judgement day comes. God says to me, "Indi, your life has been... colourful. And throughout it you've done nothing but slander me. Nevertheless, i am merciful. So instead of punishing you, i am going to give you a gift: Hell!" To which i naturally reply, "Well, shit, i didn't expect to see you here! Hey, i really appreciate the offer, but i couldn't possibly! Not after all the crap i did to you. Really, i'd just feel bad accepting a gift from you. What say we just shake on it and forget it all?" What do you think will happen next? ^_^; Will God say, "Well, shucks, Indi, that's too bad. i had a spot picked out for you and all. Oh well. Hey, it's ok, i'll find someone else who wants it." Or will God say, "Shut up an burn, bastard." If the Bible is any indication, i'd bet on the latter. And, if that's the case... "gift"?
"opportunities are gifts as itselves. Path where the opportunity leads isn't automatically a gift"
So basically, if someone gives me an opportunity to go to Hell, that is a gift, regardless of how it turns out when i accept that gift. Fair enough, but it is still ignoring the most important thing that distinguishes an opportunity from a sentence: choice. See, i can't choose not to go to Hell, now can i? It is punishment, and sentence imposed on me if i don't do what God wants me to do. i can't say no when he "offers me this opportunity" any more than a criminal can say no when a judge "offers him the opportunity" to go to jail for his crimes.
But it wouldn't be a Free will if you couldn't choose between Hell and Heaven
Let me ask you a question. If someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to stab an innocent bystander or you die, would you say your choice is "free"? If you choose to stab that person and live, what will you tell the judge? "Your honour, i freely chose to stab that person. It was my choice," or, "Your honour, i had no choice