Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EnterTheBowser · 11-13-2005, 02:38 PM

One thing I forgot: you [bling] have pointed out that on your view, suffering is not a sufficient condition for generating Godly love. I'd like to point out that on your view, it is a necessary condition. You've asserted that we cannot achieve genuine Godly love without suffering. Given that, even though each instance of suffering may or may not produce Godly love, it remains a good idea for God to do so because otherwise no one would develop Godly love - allowing suffering produces the best consequences (according to you) because it is necessary (though not sufficient) for generating Godly love.

John A. Broussard · 11-13-2005, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard
Actually the evil some people see in the world is nothing more than god's expression of godly love and golden opportunities for us to also express that godly love.

O.K. indirectly.

Thank you for being so open and honest in expressing your beliefs.

All the misery and suffering we see in the world are expressions of your god's godly love.

'Nuff said.

bling · 11-14-2005, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnterTheBowser

One thing I forgot: you [bling] have pointed out that on your view, suffering is not a sufficient condition for generating Godly love. I'd like to point out that on your view, it is a necessary condition. You've asserted that we cannot achieve genuine Godly love without suffering. Given that, even though each instance of suffering may or may not produce Godly love, it remains a good idea for God to do so because otherwise no one would develop Godly love - allowing suffering produces the best consequences (according to you) because it is necessary (though not sufficient) for generating Godly love.

I think I agree with this.

bling · 11-14-2005, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnterTheBowser

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnterTheBowser

I've got a couple of things to say, but for the moment I want to stick with the idea that bling is advocating a consequentialist sort of moral theory.

Consequentialist moral theories select some kind, or several kinds, of "good." It's just something that has inherent value. Utilitarianism, a sort of consequentialism, says that "happiness" is the primary good. Consequentialism says that given two possible actions, the one which produces more of the good is the one that is morally preferable.

Given that picture of morality, when we get offered the moral reasoning "God allows suffering because it produces more Godly love" we're clearly being offered a consequentialist sort of moral reasoning. The good is "authentic godly love" (ie not forced). Whatever sort of action maximizes the free acceptance of Godly love is the more moral course of action.
...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

I’ve read this and of course do not agree. I am not saying evil always produces good, it only an opportunity to generate Godly love, the opportunity is only a blessing when it is excepted and acted upon. Opportunities are not good for individuals that are not going to be positively affected by them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnterTheBowser

It would be great if you could offer some reasons as to why I'm wrong. I think it's fairly obvious that you've given us the moral reasoning that suffering is acceptable - even necessary - because on the whole it produces more "good" - Godly love - than would otherwise be generated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

It may be the only way any godly love could be generated by humans.

You still have given no reasons why a consequentialist theory of morality is not implicit in your reasoning.

I thought your 111 posting gives my reason why it does not apply.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

Let me try to explain it another way. I see God as having two main options for earth and humans:
1. Create a “heaven on Earth�?, a place without: sin, suffering, pain, death, hardship, Satan, and no faith or hope being needed (He is visible all the time).
2. Create a world were there will be: sin, suffering, pain, death, hardship, Satan and Faith and hope are needed.
The issues with “heaven on earth�?: ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnterTheBowser

I think you set up a false dichotomy in your post, between our current world and a perfect world. There's an enormous number of possible worlds in between those two - all worlds with just less suffering than ours, not no sufferiing. If any of those worlds could produce consequences as good as our current world (if we could get as much Godly love out of them as we do out of this world) then God should have caused that world to obtain.

The real point here is that we atheists need to show one single, solitary instance of suffering which did not have net good consequences. A single child, dying in pain and alone, is enough to discredit the idea of a loving God. If we can find one - only one instance of needless suffering, then we can draw the conclusion that there is no loving God watching over us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

You are right, there are an enormous number of possibilities, but as soon as you go from no problems to at least some problems you open up door to all the same issues. Where do you stop? It would definitely give support to there not being a God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnterTheBowser

The question "What sort of world would a loving God create" is certainly interesting, but I don't need to answer it in order to show that a loving God would not create this world. In an analogy to math: I don't need to know the correct answer in order to identify a wrong answer. That is, if I'm examining an attempted proof of some statement, I don't need to know the correct way to prove it, or even whether the statement is true or false, in order to find places where the attempted proof fails.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

We know this world does produce some unselfish, sacrificial type love in some people, the question is could there be a better type world for doing that given the limitation of God not just being able to make beings with independently decided, selfless, sacrificial love directly. I think you do have to show a better world then this for accomplishing the objective, or how do you show this is not the best?

[QUOTE=EnterTheBowser]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnterTheBowser

Like I mentioned before, if we atheists can find a single instance of useless suffering that God could have prevented, then that constitutes evidence that there is no loving God. The better world would be the world where God prevented that instance of suffering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnterTheBowser

But I'll throw out a possibility anyways: a world in which everyone was a little less hard-hearted; that is, less inclined to dismiss Godly love for bad reasons. It's true that there are people out there in this world with varying degrees of hard-heartedness. Now, it seems that the hard-hearted and the not-hard-hearted are each free to develop or reject authentic Godly love. So it would seem clear that if the hard-hearted were less so, then they'd still be able to freely develop authentic Godly love. And there would need to be less suffering, since it would take witnessing less such suffering for them to develop Godly love. I'm not concerned with how much less hard-hearted they'd be, or anything of that nature; the point is that it's at least possible for there to be at least as much authentic Godly love and less suffering.

1. What do you mean by less hard-hearted, does that mean: less stubborn, more reasonable, more logical, more empathetic or less selfish? I will go with less selfish.
2. I do not know if God could control a portion of a man’s free will and still allow man to have the free will needed to make a totally independent decision to Godly love God and others. That would have to be an assumption on our part or it could be a deal killer.
3. Right now we know people can become totally selfish, if there is a control or limit on man’s selfishness it seems we could figure that out and attribute that to God. That would sound like God is allowing us to be that selfish, which must mean it is alright by Him, which it is not.
4. The contrast between good and evil is important to allow those that might be considering not being selfish to see where selfishness leads.
5. It is hard to say if any opportunities are for individuals that have hearts so harden they will not change, so eliminating this degree of selfishness may actually increase the need for suffering.
6. We really have know idea what happens if you adjust one sin factor on the total amount of Godly love. Some people have to reach rock bottom before they will change, so what happens to them if they never can reach rock bottom?
7. Dictators like Hitler and Saddam Hussein both had a tender heart for children (they were the only people that did not threaten them), so are they less hard hearted then the ones you wanted to eliminate?

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnterTheBowser

Let's take hard-hearted to mean disposed to reject Godly love for stupid reasons. Surely making a person more rational doesn't interfere in their free will?

We still have a lot of the same issues as my posting on less selfish. To some degree all reasons to reject Godly love become stupid and since accepting God’s love requires some faith those that do except can be seen as stupid by those that do not. The atheist Sigmund Freud once asked his wife to love him illogically. We are almost in a balance of emotional and rational acceptance. As people become harder they loss all rational thinking and start doing crazy things, and are obviously undesirable to be like. What individuals do now can lead them closer or father away from being like these people. Being rational does not make you a follower of God.
I worked in the youth prison program for a while and found it interesting how a young man that had done a lot of stupid stuff for most of his live could change and almost over night become a man of deep thought and consideration, surprising those around him. One Bill Searcy when on to get a doctorate in theology and is a missionary in Africa today. How much was his being stupid help him to turn around?

[QUOTE=EnterTheBowser]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnterTheBowser

At this point, I want to tell a story. A mother is camping in the deep forest with her young child (perhaps 3 years old). Maybe it's a stupid thing to do, but that's besides the point. One morning, the mother has a heart attack, and dies. Over the next few days, the young child, being young and consequently rather incapable, begins starving to death. He dies, slowly and painfully. No-one ever finds the mother or the child; their bodies are devoured by wolves and their campsite is reclaimed by nature. Nobody - not the child and certainly no other person - develops any Godly love from this series of events. And God could certainly have changed things to decrease suffering. Heart attacks are certainly a "natural evil" and are within the power of God to prevent without interfering with anyone's freedom. And barring that, God could have granted the child a peaceful, painless death, rather than the exquisite torture of starvation.

Given that story... are you going to assert that nothing relevantly similar to that has ever occurred?

We have know idea how painful a death God allowed this boy to have. It is very hard to know much about children’s pain. There is a lot more study today going on, because of the abortionist saying the fetus does not have pain, so when, how and why does pain start? We also know everyone experiences pain differently. The body can block out pain with adrenalin and shock.
Good people should be involved in other people’s lives, so no one is lonely. There are many lonely people dying today, which is an opportunity for all of us. The fact that your story could be true tells us to get out and be more involved to eliminate the possibility of you story ever happening. This is part of the way the world is now that we need to change

RGD · 11-14-2005, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

We have know idea how painful a death God allowed this boy to have. It is very hard to know much about children’s pain. There is a lot more study today going on, because of the abortionist saying the fetus does not have pain, so when, how and why does pain start? We also know everyone experiences pain differently. The body can block out pain with adrenalin and shock.
Good people should be involved in other people’s lives, so no one is lonely. There are many lonely people dying today, which is an opportunity for all of us. The fact that your story could be true tells us to get out and be more involved to eliminate the possibility of you story ever happening. This is part of the way the world is now that we need to change

Of course, you failed completely to address his question. Par for the course, it would appear.

Here's the kicker, though. If we need to change any part of the world to make it a better place, then God could have changed that - and didn't. Hence, gratuituos cruelty, hence, a non-omnibenevolent or non-omnipotent God.

The PoE always wins: the Christian God is incompatible with the observable world.

EnterTheBowser · 11-14-2005, 02:17 PM

My post 111 is almost irrelevant to the discussion of whether we have to accept a consequentialist sort of morality on your view. Could you please spell out specific reasons why your sort of reasoning does not imply such a sort of morality?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

We have know idea how painful a death God allowed this boy to have. It is very hard to know much about children’s pain. There is a lot more study today going on, because of the abortionist saying the fetus does not have pain, so when, how and why does pain start? We also know everyone experiences pain differently. The body can block out pain with adrenalin and shock.
Good people should be involved in other people’s lives, so no one is lonely. There are many lonely people dying today, which is an opportunity for all of us. The fact that your story could be true tells us to get out and be more involved to eliminate the possibility of you story ever happening. This is part of the way the world is now that we need to change

Sure there's debate regarding whether fetuses feel pain. On the other hand, there is no debate as to whether three year olds feel pain. And sure, sometimes adrenaline and shock can block pain. But in this case, they didn't. The child died a horrible slow painful death. And plenty of people were involved in the lives of the mother and the child. They had a very loving and supportive extended family and led good and happy lives. They just happened to have a little bad fortune.

And RGD has pretty much hit the nail on the head: if it's moral for God to do something, or if a loving God would do something, then a moral (or loving - take your pick) human ought to do the same thing. It's a bit of a bind.

bling · 11-15-2005, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RGD

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

We have know idea how painful a death God allowed this boy to have. It is very hard to know much about children’s pain. There is a lot more study today going on, because of the abortionist saying the fetus does not have pain, so when, how and why does pain start? We also know everyone experiences pain differently. The body can block out pain with adrenalin and shock.
Good people should be involved in other people’s lives, so no one is lonely. There are many lonely people dying today, which is an opportunity for all of us. The fact that your story could be true tells us to get out and be more involved to eliminate the possibility of you story ever happening. This is part of the way the world is now that we need to change

Of course, you failed completely to address his question. Par for the course, it would appear.

Here's the kicker, though. If we need to change any part of the world to make it a better place, then God could have changed that - and didn't. Hence, gratuituos cruelty, hence, a non-omnibenevolent or non-omnipotent God.

The PoE always wins: the Christian God is incompatible with the observable world.

RGD, you have come in rather late in the discussion. The question: is this the best world we could have for creating Godly love is being addressed. We know this world does create Godly love in some people some of the time, but would there be a better world for doing that without all the suffering is what must be shown to support the idea, there is no God. I do not mind considering other possibilities, but changing one factor has a positive or negative effect on all other factors. I don’t think we can come up with a net effect.

Godly love = a thought out, forgiving, generous, selfless, sacrificial, decision (with real alternative), and all consuming love. To develop that type of love requires: suffering, needy people, earning limited resources, forgiveness, sin, thinking, real alternatives, examples of good and bad, God’s involvement, a tender heart, and a commitment.
Anything that can possibly be used to support the development of Godly love could out weigh it’s seemingly negative impact. The objective of everyone is Godly love development, so it really does not matter what the cost maybe.

bling · 11-15-2005, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnterTheBowser

My post 111 is almost irrelevant to the discussion of whether we have to accept a consequentialist sort of morality on your view. Could you please spell out specific reasons why your sort of reasoning does not imply such a sort of morality?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

We have know idea how painful a death God allowed this boy to have. It is very hard to know much about children’s pain. There is a lot more study today going on, because of the abortionist saying the fetus does not have pain, so when, how and why does pain start? We also know everyone experiences pain differently. The body can block out pain with adrenalin and shock.
Good people should be involved in other people’s lives, so no one is lonely. There are many lonely people dying today, which is an opportunity for all of us. The fact that your story could be true tells us to get out and be more involved to eliminate the possibility of you story ever happening. This is part of the way the world is now that we need to change

Sure there's debate regarding whether fetuses feel pain. On the other hand, there is no debate as to whether three year olds feel pain. And sure, sometimes adrenaline and shock can block pain. But in this case, they didn't. The child died a horrible slow painful death. And plenty of people were involved in the lives of the mother and the child. They had a very loving and supportive extended family and led good and happy lives. They just happened to have a little bad fortune.

And RGD has pretty much hit the nail on the head: if it's moral for God to do something, or if a loving God would do something, then a moral (or loving - take your pick) human ought to do the same thing. It's a bit of a bind.

consequentialist sort of morality, I am equating with, “for every bad there is a good produced that equals the bad�?, so the bad is not really bad, but neutral. There is then an equation established that must be maintained. If that is not what you are saying explain it to me again with the differences in my understanding. The point I am making is the bad stuff is just a small part in the development and not equal to the Godly love desired. We have the universe itself, every good and bad that has and will happen, our emotions, the entire history, Christ on the cross, and the indwelling Spirit. The bad stuff is bad and not desired, but is necessary, because of the problem inherent in humans. It is inherent in humans, they will fail, because humans can not be made any differently (less flexible) and still meets all the requirements for developing Godly love. The failure can be turned around after it occurs to become part of production of a greater result, Godly Love.

We are only addressing the suffering portion of a much larger equation.

As far as your story about the child it is total speculation on your part how much pain God would allowed him to have in that situation. This one child becomes part of the whole earthly situation designed to help humans develop Godly love and could not be removed without changing the earthly situation we are all in. We have no idea how much pain anyone goes through. Pain and suffering often draw the tender hearted to God and some close to God seem to have their pain removed. Not to long ago there was a young man trapped by a rock in a ravine and after weeks, eating what he had drinking his own urine, he broke and cut off his own arm. He somehow got out, on TV he said it all made him a better person and was glade to have gone through it. The tragedies we survive can be character building and bring us closer to the Lord or they can harden our hearts.

I have said before and RGD can lesson in, we are not playing the role of God in heaven, but the role of God on earth (Jesus). God has shown us what we are to be doing in Jesus.

Atheos · 11-15-2005, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

RGD, you have come in rather late in the discussion. The question: is this the best world we could have for creating Godly love is being addressed. We know this world does create Godly love in some people some of the time, but would there be a better world for doing that without all the suffering is what must be shown to support the idea, there is no God.

What's this "We" business? I seriously doubt that many here have carte blanc accepted the proposal that "this world does create Godly love". Also, just because someone enters the conversation recently (as I just have) doesn't mean they haven't been following the thread since its inception (which I have, can't speak for RGD).

Quote:

Godly love = a thought out, forgiving, generous, selfless, sacrificial, decision (with real alternative), and all consuming love. To develop that type of love requires: suffering, needy people, earning limited resources, forgiveness, sin, thinking, real alternatives, examples of good and bad, God’s involvement, a tender heart, and a commitment.

So that begs the question, how did this god of yours develop "godly love"? Was there suffering involved? Did your god ever have to do without? Ever need forgivness? If you're going to suggest that none of these were needed for your god to get "godly love" then you're hopelessly nailed to the premise that there are other ways to get this alleged godly love that don't involve suffering.

-Atheos

EnterTheBowser · 11-15-2005, 09:51 AM

Perhaps I should have explained what a consequentialist theory of morality is... it's the idea that whether an act is moral is determined by the consequences of the act. This is perhaps best contrasted with deontology - the idea that what makes an action right is determined by the particular nature of the act. A consequentialist would say that lying is alright if it produces good consequences, whereas a deontologist (eg Kant) would say that lying is never right. Consequentialist theories usually identify a "good" (or several goods), such as happiness (in the case of utilitarianism), and defines right action as the action which maximizes that good (the greatest happiness for the greatest number).

If we say that Godly love is "good" (and we say that suffering is bad), then we need a consequentialist theory of morality if we want to say that it's okay for there to be suffering because it produces Godly love. This is the sort of reasoning you have consistently given us.

And regarding the story I told: perhaps I didn't make it clear, but it was literally a story in the same way that the Lord of the Rings is a story. I made it up. As a consequence, I definitely know that little child suffered horribly and then died. The point is that it seems odd to say that something relevantly similar to that has never ever happened. And regarding the comment "we never know how much pain someone goes through," I'm going to have to say that is a load of twaddle. I mean, if I cannot ever tell how much pain a person is in, how can I say they're suffering? How do I know that by shooting their kneecaps I'm not making them happy? For crying out loud...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-13-2005, 02:38 PM	#111
EnterTheBowser Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,021	One thing I forgot: you [bling] have pointed out that on your view, suffering is not a sufficient condition for generating Godly love. I'd like to point out that on your view, it is a necessary condition. You've asserted that we cannot achieve genuine Godly love without suffering. Given that, even though each instance of suffering may or may not produce Godly love, it remains a good idea for God to do so because otherwise no one would develop Godly love - allowing suffering produces the best consequences (according to you) because it is necessary (though not sufficient) for generating Godly love.

11-15-2005, 09:51 AM	#120
EnterTheBowser Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,021	Perhaps I should have explained what a consequentialist theory of morality is... it's the idea that whether an act is moral is determined by the consequences of the act. This is perhaps best contrasted with deontology - the idea that what makes an action right is determined by the particular nature of the act. A consequentialist would say that lying is alright if it produces good consequences, whereas a deontologist (eg Kant) would say that lying is never right. Consequentialist theories usually identify a "good" (or several goods), such as happiness (in the case of utilitarianism), and defines right action as the action which maximizes that good (the greatest happiness for the greatest number). If we say that Godly love is "good" (and we say that suffering is bad), then we need a consequentialist theory of morality if we want to say that it's okay for there to be suffering because it produces Godly love. This is the sort of reasoning you have consistently given us. And regarding the story I told: perhaps I didn't make it clear, but it was literally a story in the same way that the Lord of the Rings is a story. I made it up. As a consequence, I definitely know that little child suffered horribly and then died. The point is that it seems odd to say that something relevantly similar to that has never ever happened. And regarding the comment "we never know how much pain someone goes through," I'm going to have to say that is a load of twaddle. I mean, if I cannot ever tell how much pain a person is in, how can I say they're suffering? How do I know that by shooting their kneecaps I'm not making them happy? For crying out loud...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.