[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Om and DMV. No the outcome was not unexpected. Om first. Your Conclusion could also be read like this.

"3. Therefore, God decided that the birth of an entire race of immortal souls, some of whom would be with Him in heaven, was better than not to create them." (I changed souls to hell, to souls to heaven)
[quote]

Yes, and you totally changed my position as well. My conclusion could not be read as per your twisted version above. My conclusion describes the costs of the action, while your version leaves that tiny littl detail out.


Oh, really? Can you find a system of values that would consent to such a high price to be paid by the vast majority, in order to achieve the goal you outlined?


Nonsense.


Hey; I'm just going off what your scriptures say about it. If you don't want to defend their position on the topic, fine with me.

I fully understand it. Your objections are incorrect, however. And it is the reason why comparisons to mortal fathers and children are hopelessly flawed and can never map to the Creator-creature model.

Omnipotence gives an alleged Creator not only the ability to know what will happen, based upon his/her own actions, but also the outcome of the life of the created being.

Furthermore, omnipotence also means that you get to set up the conditions of the game in the first place. You can step outside of the box and rewrite the entire scenario. That ability incurs added moral obligation and responsibility.


Unnecessary. I already understand the flaws in the argument.

The analogy is hopelessly busted.

Nonsense. From the standpoint of the Creator, deciding whether or not to cause future pain to someone else is a cost that can be evaluated. And from the standpoint of the unlucky created person, they can certainly measure whether or not they would prefer to have been created, or have never been.

This isn't hard. You have two options:

a. do not create this person in the first place
b. create them, and they either go to heaven (1%) or to hell (99%)


Given these two scenarios, which one results in the highest chance of the least amount of pain?

Even your own scriptures indicate this is a valid option:


MAT 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.


Wrong on all counts.

Om, although I believe this is probably a lost cause......
Hedonism was not a bad thing. It is a philosophical normative. I won't presume to tell you that you need to read up on this, but it seems you're lacking in this area of your education. I am a Christian Hedonist. Which is why I can argue against your definition of humanitarian. You show yourself to be as such later in the post. You define humanitarian as the least amount of pain or the greatest amount of pleasure. If no one existed you cannot define pain of the individual verses their non-existence. You can only define the greatest OVERALL amount of pleasure (and God is an individual who experiences pleasure and pain). And we must conclude that God receives the greatest amount of pleasure by having humans that love Him, and the consequences of people rejecting that relationship is worth it to Him. As I said the consequence is not simply 'unlucky' on the part of the individual. They choose it.

I don't think I'm understanding your problem with the father/daughter analogy. If the father wants a child and KNOWS she's going to die, then it is the same as God's making a human. The man could have chosen to not procreate to spare an individual from dying. But he desired to experience the joy of a relationship with a child. Does the father also desire the child's death? God could have chosen not to make a child, but the consequences (of rejection) he tolerated so that he could experience the joy of a relationship with humans. He did not send anyone to hell. He would prefer that all come to Him. Again, it's their choice. They choose against that relationship and receive the separation which they want. So, like the father, God created man motivated by the good that would come of it, while the consequences were necessary consequences that He would tolerate.
-Shaun


[This message has been edited by Irishbrutha (edited April 19, 2001).]

Hello People

It seems like God made a big mistake creating us with free will.

The answer is easy ... give up your free will immediately, report to the nearest jail and request a quiet cell, and get them to throw away the key.

Simple ... no more chance of offending God.

Blessings and Peace

Hilarius

Hmmm, Irish,

Are you saying there is something that god cannot do? I guess all powerful has its limitations as well...Again, god gets what he wants. Why would an all powerful god not be able to create a better human with freewill that wouldn't betray him and still be able to have a relationship with him and still be able to be loved by him? Is your defense that even god has limitations?




[This message has been edited by dmvprof (edited April 19, 2001).]

Good question DMV. Well, most of the major apologists do not call God omnipotent in the fashion that many here do. No he cannot sin. No He cannot lie. No he cannot make a rock bigger than He can lift. So. If that takes away from his 'omnipotence' then sure. He is Perfect, though. And Goodness is defined by His nature. God cannot commit evil. God cannot make definitional contradictions. He cannot make a free will that cannot choose to disobey. The rules that govern nature and goodness and perfection exist metaphysically in Him. So the whole idea of creation could not be made in opposition to these concepts. What you and I call logic or rationale exist previously because He IS reason. If it is irrational to create a definitional contradiction, then God could not do that. If God could create an enslaved free-will then He would be irrational...It's an impossibility. Like the common example of a married bachelor.
-Shaun

Question:
Are you saying there is something that god cannot do?

Hilarius
No

Supposition:
I guess all powerful has its limitations as well...Again, god gets what he wants.

Hilarius
Sometimes a characteristic of a strong person is to with-hold the use of his power.

Question:
Why would an all powerful god not be able to create a better human with freewill that wouldn't betray him and still be able to have a relationship with him and still be able to be loved by him? Is your defense that even god has limitations?

Hilarius
No defense is needed. For God to have created people with limited free will, would have meant a captive, puppet-like relationship. In fact Genesis states that was God's preferred option for mankind, but inclusion of greater free will in our created nature is hardly a matter for criticism if you ardently desire that freedom and fight tooth and nail for it if someone tries to take it away from you.

You need to make up your mind whether you want to be free or not. Freedom does not come with a risk-free guarantee.

Blessings and Peace

Hilarius

Wow. Thanks for making no presumptions here, and then presuming to tell me what the problem is.

In truth, the problem is not with my education; the problem is that there is the more common usage of the term "hedonist". When you juxtaposed that term with the phrase "values system" it led me to believe that you meant to use the more common definition, not the philosopohical definition.

(I.e. that you were accusing me of only being interested in sensual pleasure and having no moral center. )


No, I offered no such definition. In response to your claim:


I responded that the morality of the "pain/pleasure vs. non-existence" dilemma is definitely measurable, from the standpoint of the being(s) doing the creative act.

I further went on to say that, even from the standpoint of the created being, such an either/or scenario is measurable (i.e, their can be a definite decision that one is more preferable than the other).

I've already addressed the flaws with assuming I meant to offer a definition here.

But as to your other point, I have to say that you are still missing the crux of the argument. It's really quite simple: you have the choice that I outlined earlier:

a. do not create this person in the first place
b. create them, and they either go to heaven (1%) or to hell (99%)

As a being capable of creating:

1. which of these two outcomes is morally and ethically the least offensive? And
2. which one causes the least amount of misery and pain?


Translation: God gets a kick out of the 1% of good people, so much so, in fact, that it's worth it to him that 99% of the rest will suffer imagineable misery for eternity.

This is a god you want others to worship?

Nonsense. If God knew that this would happen, and proceeded to create the person anyhow, then God is a full parter in creating the misery and pain. "He did it to create the opportunity to have a relationship with man" is a very poor excuse indeed.

"I created you knowing IN ADVANCE, BEFORE YOU WERE BORN, that you would NOT follow me at all, but that instead you would die and be in eternal torment. But it was a calculated gamble, because hey - who knows, you might be in that lucky 1%."


No.
This is where you get off the track. The father cannot change the laws of death.

But being omnipotent; well, that changes everything. That means that you can get outside the box and change even the rules of hte game.

And he should have done exactly that. The nature of love is that it does not put one's personal pleasure, even one's personal desire for a relationship, above the needs of another person.


The man (the father) would be acting entirely selfishly if he procreated for that purpose. He needed/wanted a relationship so bad, that he was willing to create another human being whom he knew would live in misery and die after a short life. Again: this is a god you want others to worship?

More nonsense designed to evade the issue of God's pre-knowledge and moral culpability here.

Assuming, of course, that there is a god, and that this was his plan, etc. I personally think that the cleanest, least complicated explanation is that there is no such god.




[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited April 20, 2001).]

Ok, Hilarious and Irish,

Will you agree with this then? God does not have unlimited power. God does have limitations. And that your support for this is that god did not want to be betrayed by man but man betrayed him anyway, so god regrets his creation because the limitation that he is bound to restricted him from creating something he would not regret.

Oh, Hilarious
Perhaps you will agree with this, we currently DO NOT have unlimited freewill. We are restrained by the laws of physics.

"""""quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think I'm understanding your problem with the father/daughter analogy. If the father wants a child and KNOWS she's going to die, then it is the same as God's making a human.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No.
This is where you get off the track. The father cannot change the laws of death.

But being omnipotent; well, that changes everything. That means that you can get outside the box and change even the rules of hte game.""""

I've already stated to DMV that God is limited in His creation. He cannot make definitional contradictions. The creation is a reflection of who He is already intrinsically (He is Rational, Perfect Good, Creator of the Physical Universe). Therefore He could not make a being without making that being able to make a moral choice. To DMV, that may answer your question as well. Our will is free in matters of morality, the laws of physicality we are bound to for the simple reason that we are physical.

"""quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The man could have chosen to not procreate to spare an individual from dying.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And he should have done exactly that. The nature of love is that it does not put one's personal pleasure, even one's personal desire for a relationship, above the needs of another person.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But he desired to experience the joy of a relationship with a child. Does the father also desire the child's death?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The man (the father) would be acting entirely selfishly if he procreated for that purpose. He needed/wanted a relationship so bad, that he was willing to create another human being whom he knew would live in misery and die after a short life. Again: this is a god you want others to worship?""""

The original analogy is that a father procreates even though he knows his child will DIE. Not an early death, or a horrible painful death, but in the normal way of man. The child will grow old and die. You make the argument that to procreate is immoral if you re-read your post. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you thought a short life or some such occurence.

The original question remains. If God knew that His creation would reject Him, does it follow that He wanted to be betrayed? If any man KNOWS His child will eventually die(as ALL people do), does it follow that He wants that child to die? NO. It does not follow. The original question was whether or not God actually WANTED betrayal. I think I've already established my view that God is limited by His own nature (Goodness,etc.)

Regarding the subject of is it moral or not to create something that will suffer or to not create at all.....My point was that there is no measurement of pain or pleasure in non-existence. If no human existed, then God still would, so His pleasure is all there is. If we extrapolate from there to humans we have something like this. No humans=God pleasure in Himself. With Humans=God's pleasure in Himself/His creation/and creation's pleasure in Him. You ALSO have agony of those who will reject Him. Make an equation and figure it out, but I don't think you'll be able to come up with any answer that says whether or not there would be more pleasure without humans or with EN TOTO. It's undefinable equationally. The only way God's decision to do this would be immoral is if lack of pain was your definition of good, and not the most pleasure possible.

I don't agree that God is full partner in creating pain. He created beings who created pain. Simple as that. I tried to think of an analogy but it breaks down because anything I create will have no will. It will be my subject completely and because it is such it will never be a being. To be is to have sentience/consciousness/will/etc. Let's say I invent and create a specific knife. I may or may not be responsible for that knife's destructive future. Generally the moral agent wielding the object would be considered morally responsible for any damage done with said knife. But let's suppose there was a knife which somehow was its own moral agent/was self aware (go with me here ) and had the choice to use it's cutting ability to either destroy life or help humans do their chores, and also had full knowledge that one was good and the other bad, who would then be responsible? It even knows what good is. (sorry about the silliness, it's all I could come up with at this hour... ). Whose fault? The creator who hoped for good things from His creation? or the creation itself?
I submit the creation...
-Shaun

Alright, I tried really hard to be serious, but I just can't help myself anymore...

...get me some of that stuff Amos is smoking!