Freethought & Rationalism Archive

infinity · 11-10-2005, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefoot Bree

This conversation has wandered far, far away from the formal debate it is supposed to be throwing peanuts at. Would anyone object if bling & company were split off to a seperate thread?

i for one encourage it - it seems to be a totally appropriate situation for such a thing

Barefoot Bree · 11-10-2005, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinity

i for one encourage it - it seems to be a totally appropriate situation for such a thing

Good enough for me. Fasten your seatbelts, laddies, it gets bumpy from here. Closing thread momentarily to make split.

ETA: Split made. For those of you just joining our programme, this thread was split from the Peanut Gallery for the formal debate between James Lazarus and singer645, found here.

If anyone finds any posts you believe should be in the other thread, simply report it, please.

Carry on.

bling · 11-10-2005, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnterTheBowser

The basic point I'm making is to take your assertion that any instance of suffering has a net positive moral outcome, and that for this reason God allows suffering, and draw from that absurd moral conclusions.

To begin with, if we want to say that an action is moral if the net consequences of that action produce the most good, then we're committed to some form of consequentialism. That is to say: whether an act is moral or not is not determined by the nature of the act itself, but by the consequences of the act.

Bad is not good and evil is not holy. I am not preaching Taoism, your ideas are excellent for showing issues with Taoism. I may not be explaining it right. Godly love comes from doing good stuff, not from the bad stuff. Suffering only provides an opportunity to do good stuff. The following can happen from suffering happening; pain, sorrow, hurting, hardship, and nothing good, a little good, or a lot of good, it is totally dependent on the reaction of people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnterTheBowser
Why? If it's the case that an instance of suffering could cause a net increase in good - then we'd be obligated to cause such suffering. On the other hand, if a decrease in suffering would cause a net increase in good, why wouldn't a loving God have opted for that course? Why did God allow suffering that caused a net decrease in good? So it seems we're committed to this perfectly balanced world. And the problem with such a world is that whatever happened, happened for a reason, and whatever happens, happens for a reason, and there's no room left for moral judgment of individuals, because everything they do is the best course of action. And looking to free will to escape this puzzle doesn't seem to help.

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�?:
1. Godly love is not extended to people in the form of forgiveness.(there is nothing to be forgiven of)
2. There is know way to see/experience a thought-out, sacrificial love God does have for humans, the most that can be seen or experienced is a parent to child type love.
3. There is no visible contrast to God’s love (no evil) this could be explained but not really experienced.
4. There is no way to take Godly love and express it to others, you have nothing to sacrifice that is yours, even time, has no value when you have an endless supply. You can express a parent’s love for a child.
5. Going through hardship to earn something allows you to give that something to another. But there is no hardships.
6. If there is no way to have faith you can not extend faith to God or offer up to God your reasoning and Hope.
7. You could have free will with out the option to do anything bad humans are controlled by God’s desire and not of their own desire. They have not had to display their desire to follow God and have no way to express a desire to not follow God. If true free will with options are given some will chose to disobey and have to be removed which leaves the rest there because they want to be or because they do not want to be removed. The being is under God’s control.
The being in the “heaven on earth�? scenario will not be able to develop Godly love and will be only what God made them to be and not going to what God wants them to be.

In option 2, you can resolve all the issues of option 1.
1. Sin is inevitable with every adult mature human being as a result of free will, Satan, Human nature, and limited resources. God provides a solution to the sin problem.
2. Humans can see, feel, and experience the full extent of God’s love with Jesus on the cross.
3. Humans can express Godly love to other humans.
4. Godly love can be contrasted with evil.
5. Heaven is available just not on earth, and earth becomes the development area for humans.
6. Humans have things to sacrifice.
7. Man can exercise his free will completely.
8. Humans can offer up to God their hope and faith.

If the objective for humans is to develop Godly love then the earth we have now is much better then a “heaven on earth�? and I think is the best we could have.

In your opinion, what makes the better person, a. The person that has all there wants satisfied, avoiding all pain, suffering, tragedy, not needing to hope for anything, and avoiding all needy people. Or b. The person that has endured pain, hardship, tragedy, developed a strong faith, hope, and love, and continues to help needy people?
God knows which will work and extends only the possibility of b. if we will except the option then we can become a Godly person. Do you want to be person a?
You can’t chose a, so what will it take for you to become b?

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnterTheBowser
On another note: if we're accepting a consequentialist moral theory, there's no big difference between doing something yourself and allowing someone else to do the same thing. I'm bringing this up specifically in regards to the God/Satan stuff we've heard.

I am not excepting consequentialism moral theory. My God makes a big difference between doing thing directly Himself and allowing Satan to do them. That same rule may not apply to us. I do not know if we can allow evil to go on without being somewhat selfish. I do allow my children to make mistakes if they do not hurt others or themselves beyond a full recovery with the added experience. Have you ever taught a kid to ride a bike?

bling · 11-10-2005, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefoot Bree

This conversation has wandered far, far away from the formal debate it is supposed to be throwing peanuts at. Would anyone object if bling & company were split off to a seperate thread?

It is up to you. I started on subject. You could title it, "why God allows suffering?"

bling · 11-10-2005, 09:51 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by bling
If many beings are given free will with real options in order to develop Godly love, then evil is inevitable since some will chose to not love.

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinity
what is your basis for thinking that?
i mean, from your perspective, we're incapable of 'knowing' anything that isn't based in scripture... so where in the bible does it say this is the case?

All adult mature humans have sinned. You must chose to sin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinity
further, if god is responsible for the foundations of how the fabric of reality works, why is evil inevitable, unless go specifically chooses to *want* evil to exist?

God realized evil would result in humans having real free will, but He developed at the same time a solution to evil for those that desired the solution.
Quote:
God allowed that situation to exist and knew what it would produce, kind of a “catch 22,�? but that still does not make Him responsible for evil in my mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinity
why not? it couldn't exist, and indeed couldn't even have the framework of a reality in which it could exist, unless the designer of the reality added it as a feature.

Read what I said to EnterTheBowser in the last post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinity
you have to admit there's a bit of a disconnect here...
you're saying, in effect:
in my mind, god is responsible for everything that exists in both a physical and metaphysical sense, including evil... but, you can't hold him responsible for evil that actually happens... why? oh, you just can't. because i like him too much.

God seems to make the distinction in saying He can not do wrong. That same reasoning may not apply to us. Read what I said to EnterTheBowser in the last post.

Quote:
In your mind you may feel that God is responsible, since He allowed the situation to exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinity
you're god damned right... the same way i'd hold an author responsible for what happened in a book.

God has allowed Both humans and Satan to write in His book.

Infinity you get way to vulgar for me to go on, I am sorry.

bling · 11-10-2005, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

I have to admit that you are right. I can conger up a better god than yours, since your god is the personification of evil.

Your god causes malaria, floods, earthquakes, incredible suffering for human beings and yet inveigles you to think all that misery is necessary so that you can excercise your "godly love."

Your moral standards are indeed strange.

You might read on some other postings.

bling · 11-10-2005, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Cobalt asked:
bling, suppose there is a very skilled gardener who knows beforehand which flowers on his tree will produce fruit to his liking and which will not. Would it not be prudent for the gardener to prune the tree such that only the good fruit is allowed to mature? Does bad fruit somehow make good fruit taste better?

This is an excellent argument against predestination. If the Gardener is reacting to what the flower will do then it is no longer up to the flower at the time of the pruning what the flower will do. The flower that has not been pruned is predestined to produce good fruit so did the flower make the choice to produce good fruit or did the Gardener, we will never know. What does the pruned flower have to say, You never let me try, so it was not my choice? The fruit left can also wonder if they had a real choice, to fail. They could make no choice and allow the Gardener to tell them the choice they will make. If the flower must work at it every day to grow the right fruit, ward of the pests and diseases, knowing he can, but not knowing he will without great effort, what should the Gardener do to encourage the flower to but forth the effort. The fear of being pruned at any time, might encourage some, but the caring love of the Gardener might do more. This analogy is limited.

The idea is: we know we can and God has made it easy. We are all being treated as individuals that can succeed. Those that are failing and even will fail; become opportunities for the others that cease the opportunities to help. God gives no hint who will fail in the end, but does let us know we will succeed if we continue with Him. At the judgment there is no question who is responsible for the failure, God did His part.

John A. Broussard · 11-10-2005, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

You might read on some other postings.

I have no objection to your avoiding answering the post, since I know you have no answer.

But simply saying "read on some other postings," is not only non-responsive, it's also inane.

I insist your repeated approval of human suffering indicates clearly that you approve of all that suffering. How will reading some other postings disabuse me of an idea derived entirely from your postings?

John A. Broussard · 11-10-2005, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

The idea is: we know we can and God has made it easy. We are all being treated as individuals that can succeed.

Does this include the vast numbers of the unborn that god aborts--also the toddlers who die before they can understand the gift that your god has given them. And how easy is it for individuals to succeed when they are massacred in floods, earthquakes, famine, etc.

I know, I know. All that suffering, misery, disaster allows you to express your godly love.

Aren't you willing to give up those opportunities to express godly love in order to spare humanity all that suffering? Or do you prefer the suffering to continue in order for you to have a chance to express your godly love?

John A. Broussard · 11-10-2005, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

This is an excellent argument against predestination. If the Gardener is reacting to what the flower will do then it is no longer up to the flower at the time of the pruning what the flower will do. The flower that has not been pruned is predestined to produce good fruit so did the flower make the choice to produce good fruit or did the Gardener, we will never know. What does the pruned flower have to say, You never let me try, so it was not my choice? The fruit left can also wonder if they had a real choice, to fail. They could make no choice and allow the Gardener to tell them the choice they will make. If the flower must work at it every day to grow the right fruit, ward of the pests and diseases, knowing he can, but not knowing he will without great effort, what should the Gardener do to encourage the flower to but forth the effort. The fear of being pruned at any time, might encourage some, but the caring love of the Gardener might do more. This analogy is limited.

Do you really, honestly believe you've said anything meaningful in the above paragraph?

If so, please tell me what it is. Gardeners are not god. Flowers are not people. Pruning has nothing whatsoever in common with the genocide your god and you approve of.

This analogy is indeed limited. It's meaningless. Proves nothing.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.