Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Oolon Colluphid · 01-22-2002, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jpbrooks:
While evidence for an immaterial "realm" of the dead may be somewhat difficult to come by, an "afterlife" would be required by an absolutely just God to mete out punishments and rewards for deeds that are done by humans that didn't (and won't) get redressed in this life.
The only instance in which an "afterlife" would not be needed to redress unresolved moral issues is one in which no innocent people would ever die or experience any kind of evil, and where everyone who did sin only had the opportunity to sin once before dying. In that instance, death would be the penalty for sin and would be justly meted out (in this life) only to those who sinned.
But (again) it is highly unlikely that such a state of existence could be brought about among "free" beings without violating their "free will".
Thus, the concept of an "afterlife" is intertwined with the concept of a perfectly just God who creates a world like ours. To consider the possibility of such a creator God automatically "drags in" the possibility of an "afterlife".

So it's unsupported assumption piled on unsupported assumption. And a cop-out, bypassing the need to explain the existence of evil. Is there no end to the levels of delusion mankind will indulge in?

Gotta go, my dragon needs feeding.

Oolon

phlebas · 01-22-2002, 06:41 AM

The first step is to show that "free will" is such a good thing that it is worth risking eternal punishment for. Since we couldn't tell the difference between being preprogrammed and being a free agent, it doesn't seem worth it to me.

Whether there is actually a difference depends on one's definition of "free angency".

Could you give me a definition of free will that does allow us to perceive the difference between that and predestination?

But we are aware that certain feelings, like fear, seem to occur in us automatically, without our intention, in response to certain situations in which we find ourselves. We also experience dreams which seem to come to us when we are asleep, without our intention. This seems to suggest that we are "preprogrammed" to have certain experiences.

Not exactly the same thing. Fear is often an instinctive reaction, brought about by eons of an evolving survival instinct. Or it's a learned reaction based on previous experience -- being caught in a strong undertow may create a fear of being in the ocean, for example.

And dreams are a by-product of how our brains work.

But we're talking about being preprogrammed by a god, not by our genes.

1) angels are generally perceived to have more wisdom, and 2) angels lack the emotional and mental baggage that sometimes lead human beings into bad decisions.

But, of course, this would not explain how the angel Satan could bring himself to sin.

Satan and his allies are a special case for the purposes of this discussion. How Satan could do what Christians believe he did without God's complicity is another interesting problem.

So the question becomes "why didn't God make us smarter, so we can make better choices? And why didn't he make us less a slave to our emotions?"

It may be argued that God is making us smarter by submitting us to an "educational" process that occurs over time.

But how is going through a painful and (potentially) eternally damning learning experience in any way better than creating us smarter to being with?

He wanted to create beings who were self-motivated and would do things because they wanted to do them; not because some "higher" beings were "pulling their strings".

So we're back to the angels. Do they lack free will? If so, was God evil by creating them that way?

A world of "puppets" could hardly be considered a morally "better" world than one with beings in it who act on the basis of their own emotions and desires.

But Heaven is a place without sin. By the time we get to Heaven, we are capable of not sinning, presumably without losing any free will. Why the intermediate step of mortal life?

A world made up entirely of beings who are exactly like Christ cannot exist. Christ was unique among humans because he was the product of one human parent who didn't share his attributes. So, it is impossible for God to produce a world of such "better models".

Why? Why is a sinless world with perfect beings an impossibilty if you have a perfect creator?

And, once again, there's Heaven, which is apparently exactly such a place.

Furthermore, the underlying reasons why we choose to sin or do evil are irrelevant to the issue of accountability, rewards and penalties for intentional acts, etc.. Humans are morally accountable for their choices.

But God gets off the hook for creating an imperfect world where we must sometimes choose among varying degrees of evil? If I had to steal to feed my children because of a flood or other natural disaster, I would in a heartbeat -- but according to the Ten Commandments, that's a big ol' sin. God is the one who allegedly gave us this need for physical things like air, food, and water, not to mention a multitude of emotional needs. And then he punishes us for giving in to these needs.

Since it would be impossible for God to construct a sound argument that demonstrates His culpability for causing someone to sin against Him,

God can't be trying very hard, then.

the soundness of any argument that would place the blame for human sin on God, itself, presupposes the actuality of intentional thinking about moral choice (and thus, of moral accountability) in humans.

Nope. God is the one who creates the hopeless situations, AND he is the one who defines what "sin" is.

Or did Jesus not have free will? (And wouldn't the story have been different if Judas had free will and opted not to rat out Jesus?)

Yes and yes. And again, depending on one's definition of "free", Judas did have "free will".

Yeah, the definition of "free will" is sort of important here. Odd how it never gets defined in these discussions.

A "perfect" being does whatever "He", "She", or "It" does because "He, "She", or "It" desires to do it.

It's been awhile since I heard the old "who are we to speculate on God's motives" line

To assume that the being does anything for any other reason is to assume that "He", "She", or "It" does what "It" does out of necessity. And that would imply a "less perfect" being because an even more transcendent being would be needed to account for the necessity in the original being.

I don't know that you have to posit an even higher being, since that just moves the same question up one more level. Why would Supergod create and imperfect God?

Why would God desire a finite, imperfect universe?

(Oh, btw -- just for the record, I don't believe in free will

)

[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: phlebas ]

The Loneliest Monk · 01-22-2002, 09:17 AM

phlebas,

I would suspect that God would create this world because she viewed it's existence as a good thing. Do you believe that it would be better if the world did not exist?

[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: The Loneliest Monk ]

Adrian Selby · 01-22-2002, 09:40 AM

Is this the best God could do?

"It may be argued that current events such as this are part of our moral education that is intended (by God) to eventually lead to enlightened free will in those who will reside in "heaven"."

It may be argued indeed. But this moral education involves suffering of innocents and genocide of Jews. Which is all right by a Christian God?

Couldn't the moral education have been done a little less bluntly. For example, couldn't the horror experienced when witnessing something, well, horrible, be felt when the urge was there to perform a potentially horrible act. It wouldn't stop one from doing the act if so determined, but it might ensure that choices are better made.

After all, if the purpose of all this suffering is to teach us a lesson, couldn't he just teach us the lesson in another way, one that didn't involve lovely kind people like my mum getting multiple sclerosis and gradually losing the ability to walk and swallow food over a thirty year stretch, stopping my father from getting a good job in a better area because they can't afford a carer etc. etc. A personal example I know, but is this lesson for her or my benefit? And if it's for either of our benefits, why couldn't I just have been given the feelings and frustration I feel by God. Why does she or anyone that is a 'good' person (can of worms there) need to suffer at all, or at least, as much. Couldn't he, for example, give me extreme bowel cancer for a year then take it back, I'm sure i'd have learned some lessons about pain there. Instead, people with extreme bowel cancer die in agony. Great lesson! A perfect strategy for turning me and many people I know to atheism. Including, as I recall reading, a great number of Jews, who thought that God couldn't have allowed ALL that suffering they went through.

You add to that the myriad other problems with the whole concept, and it strikes me that God isn't a very effective teacher, I should know, I've been one, he is a lousy motivator.

Adrian

phlebas · 01-22-2002, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Loneliest Monk:
phlebas,

I would suspect that God would create this world because she viewed it's existence as a good thing. Do you believe that it would be better if the world did not exist?

Better for whom?

If we didn't exist, it's difficult to say I would be "worse." I wouldn't be anything. Since I do exist, I enjoy existing and want to keep doing it, but it's not like a remember a lot of discomfort or unhappiness before I was born.

In what possible way could the existence of a finite place be good for a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, gender-neutral God?

If the world was more like what Heaven is conceived to be, maybe you could argue it's a good thing. But ask those folks in the Congo who suddenly have to wade through magma if they think volcanoes are a good thing. No volcanoes in Heaven, right? But still those angels manage to thrive.

It seems to me that theists assume that it is OBVIOUSLY a good thing because God OBVIOUSLY did it and God is OBVIOUSLY good albeit frustratingly INSCRUTABLE sometimes. This seems, at best, circular reasoning.

The Loneliest Monk · 01-22-2002, 11:39 AM

phlebas,

My question was not would you be worse if the world didn't exist. I was asking if you consider it to be a bad thing for the world to exist. If you can see no reason that God would want the world to exist, it seems to follow that you can't find the world's existence good.

And isn't the volcano reference simply an appeal to the problem of evil?

phlebas · 01-22-2002, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Loneliest Monk:
My question was not would you be worse if the world didn't exist. I was asking if you consider it to be a bad thing for the world to exist. If you can see no reason that God would want the world to exist, it seems to follow that you can't find the world's existence good.

I don't think it follows at all.

I can see a good reason for the world to exist -- it gives me something to stand on. My own existence is dependant upon the world existing, and since I enjoy existing, I'm glad the world is here. I certainly don't want it to go away tomorrow.

However, if the world had NEVER existed, then I never would have existed either. Is that bad? I didn't exist for a hell of a long time before I started existing, and I will not exist for a hell of a long time once I stop. But I don't view all that time before I was born (April 2, 1968, btw) as bad.

But we're talking about God here. God's existence presumably doesn't depend on the world's existence. So its existence couldn't be "good" for him in the same way it's "good" for me.

What benefit does God get from it? What does our existence grant God that is worth our occasional (and, if you believe in Hell, eternal for some) suffering? Since our feeble, finite selves are absolutely nothing compared to the infinite being God is supposed to be, how could we even be interesting to him?

Quote:

And isn't the volcano reference simply an appeal to the problem of evil?

Not exactly. I'm not arguing that, since we have volcanoes, God can't be omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent, etc. I'm saying that it is apparently possible for God to create a place free of such things (Heaven) without denying our free will or stunting our ability to be independent entities, such as the angels are supposed to be.

The Loneliest Monk · 01-22-2002, 12:27 PM

phlebas,

If we view our lives as good, then I don't see why the reasons we have for believing them to be can't be part of the basis God has for creating the world. If it can be good to us, why can't God view it as good?

And if you are claiming that God could have created the world with the same amount of good attributes but with less suffering, then you are claiming that the suffering is unnecessary. And remarks concerning unnecessary suffering certainly seem to fall under the problem of evil argument.

phlebas · 01-22-2002, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Loneliest Monk:
If we view our lives as good, then I don't see why the reasons we have for believing them to be can't be part of the basis God has for creating the world. If it can be good to us, why can't God view it as good?

The question isn't whether God views it as good. The question is why would God view it as better than nothing? So far, I have yet to conceive of or hear about a reason why the standard Judeo-Christian God would prefer our existence to our non-existence.

Quote:

And if you are claiming that God could have created the world with the same amount of good attributes but with less suffering, then you are claiming that the suffering is unnecessary.

I am claiming that THEISTS are claiming that suffering is unneccessary. If Heaven exists as they conceive of it, then a place without suffering already exists, and its denizens enjoy a perfectly blissful existence.

Quote:

And remarks concerning unnecessary suffering certainly seem to fall under the problem of evil argument.

Label it however you want.

I'm not claiming that God can do away with human suffering. I believe our psychological makeup forces us to rate the "goodness" of things, and those at the bottom of the list become "evil" compared with those at the top. I'm content with that, and I feel that irreparably damages the traditional problem of evil argument.

But we're not just talking about humans.

If there exists even ONE ENTITY that IS capable of perfect bliss, then it demonstrates that it is possible for such a being to exist. Simple, right? Even if that entity is God himself. And, of course, the angels are generally thought of as being perfectly blissful too (I'm sorry to keep bringing angels up, but you keep ignoring them).

Furthermore, those humans that make it to Heaven are also supposed to be perfectly happy.

Why, then, put us through all this? What good does it do God? If God needs or wants other beings, why not just populate Heaven, unmake Satan, and be done with the whole thing?

The Loneliest Monk · 01-22-2002, 01:31 PM

phlebas,

I'm ignoring angels because I am not aware of any forceful arguments for their existence. And all theists are not committed to belief in angels. You are using the word "theist" when you are addressing what appear to be specifically Christian claims.

As for reasons why our existence should be preferrred to our nonexistence, our existence allows for the existence of things such as courage, compassion, love, reason, and all the other ideas people generally consider lofty or whatever. If things like courage are really valuable things, then it would be better that they exist. It could be that mankind is simply deluding itself by thinking these things are worthwhile. But if they are in fact of value, then that would be reason enough for God to create the world.

01-22-2002, 06:41 AM	#22
phlebas Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Metropolis Posts: 916	The first step is to show that "free will" is such a good thing that it is worth risking eternal punishment for. Since we couldn't tell the difference between being preprogrammed and being a free agent, it doesn't seem worth it to me. Whether there is actually a difference depends on one's definition of "free angency". Could you give me a definition of free will that does allow us to perceive the difference between that and predestination? But we are aware that certain feelings, like fear, seem to occur in us automatically, without our intention, in response to certain situations in which we find ourselves. We also experience dreams which seem to come to us when we are asleep, without our intention. This seems to suggest that we are "preprogrammed" to have certain experiences. Not exactly the same thing. Fear is often an instinctive reaction, brought about by eons of an evolving survival instinct. Or it's a learned reaction based on previous experience -- being caught in a strong undertow may create a fear of being in the ocean, for example. And dreams are a by-product of how our brains work. But we're talking about being preprogrammed by a god, not by our genes. 1) angels are generally perceived to have more wisdom, and 2) angels lack the emotional and mental baggage that sometimes lead human beings into bad decisions. But, of course, this would not explain how the angel Satan could bring himself to sin. Satan and his allies are a special case for the purposes of this discussion. How Satan could do what Christians believe he did without God's complicity is another interesting problem. So the question becomes "why didn't God make us smarter, so we can make better choices? And why didn't he make us less a slave to our emotions?" It may be argued that God is making us smarter by submitting us to an "educational" process that occurs over time. But how is going through a painful and (potentially) eternally damning learning experience in any way better than creating us smarter to being with? He wanted to create beings who were self-motivated and would do things because they wanted to do them; not because some "higher" beings were "pulling their strings". So we're back to the angels. Do they lack free will? If so, was God evil by creating them that way? A world of "puppets" could hardly be considered a morally "better" world than one with beings in it who act on the basis of their own emotions and desires. But Heaven is a place without sin. By the time we get to Heaven, we are capable of not sinning, presumably without losing any free will. Why the intermediate step of mortal life? A world made up entirely of beings who are exactly like Christ cannot exist. Christ was unique among humans because he was the product of one human parent who didn't share his attributes. So, it is impossible for God to produce a world of such "better models". Why? Why is a sinless world with perfect beings an impossibilty if you have a perfect creator? And, once again, there's Heaven, which is apparently exactly such a place. Furthermore, the underlying reasons why we choose to sin or do evil are irrelevant to the issue of accountability, rewards and penalties for intentional acts, etc.. Humans are morally accountable for their choices. But God gets off the hook for creating an imperfect world where we must sometimes choose among varying degrees of evil? If I had to steal to feed my children because of a flood or other natural disaster, I would in a heartbeat -- but according to the Ten Commandments, that's a big ol' sin. God is the one who allegedly gave us this need for physical things like air, food, and water, not to mention a multitude of emotional needs. And then he punishes us for giving in to these needs. Since it would be impossible for God to construct a sound argument that demonstrates His culpability for causing someone to sin against Him, God can't be trying very hard, then. the soundness of any argument that would place the blame for human sin on God, itself, presupposes the actuality of intentional thinking about moral choice (and thus, of moral accountability) in humans. Nope. God is the one who creates the hopeless situations, AND he is the one who defines what "sin" is. Or did Jesus not have free will? (And wouldn't the story have been different if Judas had free will and opted not to rat out Jesus?) Yes and yes. And again, depending on one's definition of "free", Judas did have "free will". Yeah, the definition of "free will" is sort of important here. Odd how it never gets defined in these discussions. A "perfect" being does whatever "He", "She", or "It" does because "He, "She", or "It" desires to do it. It's been awhile since I heard the old "who are we to speculate on God's motives" line To assume that the being does anything for any other reason is to assume that "He", "She", or "It" does what "It" does out of necessity. And that would imply a "less perfect" being because an even more transcendent being would be needed to account for the necessity in the original being. I don't know that you have to posit an even higher being, since that just moves the same question up one more level. Why would Supergod create and imperfect God? Why would God desire a finite, imperfect universe? (Oh, btw -- just for the record, I don't believe in free will ) [ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: phlebas ]</p>

01-22-2002, 09:17 AM	#23
The Loneliest Monk Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 96	phlebas, I would suspect that God would create this world because she viewed it's existence as a good thing. Do you believe that it would be better if the world did not exist? [ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: The Loneliest Monk ]</p>

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

01-22-2002, 09:40 AM	#24
Adrian Selby Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Farnham, UK Posts: 859	Is this the best God could do? "It may be argued that current events such as this are part of our moral education that is intended (by God) to eventually lead to enlightened free will in those who will reside in "heaven"." It may be argued indeed. But this moral education involves suffering of innocents and genocide of Jews. Which is all right by a Christian God? Couldn't the moral education have been done a little less bluntly. For example, couldn't the horror experienced when witnessing something, well, horrible, be felt when the urge was there to perform a potentially horrible act. It wouldn't stop one from doing the act if so determined, but it might ensure that choices are better made. After all, if the purpose of all this suffering is to teach us a lesson, couldn't he just teach us the lesson in another way, one that didn't involve lovely kind people like my mum getting multiple sclerosis and gradually losing the ability to walk and swallow food over a thirty year stretch, stopping my father from getting a good job in a better area because they can't afford a carer etc. etc. A personal example I know, but is this lesson for her or my benefit? And if it's for either of our benefits, why couldn't I just have been given the feelings and frustration I feel by God. Why does she or anyone that is a 'good' person (can of worms there) need to suffer at all, or at least, as much. Couldn't he, for example, give me extreme bowel cancer for a year then take it back, I'm sure i'd have learned some lessons about pain there. Instead, people with extreme bowel cancer die in agony. Great lesson! A perfect strategy for turning me and many people I know to atheism. Including, as I recall reading, a great number of Jews, who thought that God couldn't have allowed ALL that suffering they went through. You add to that the myriad other problems with the whole concept, and it strikes me that God isn't a very effective teacher, I should know, I've been one, he is a lousy motivator. Adrian

01-22-2002, 11:39 AM	#26
The Loneliest Monk Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 96	phlebas, My question was not would you be worse if the world didn't exist. I was asking if you consider it to be a bad thing for the world to exist. If you can see no reason that God would want the world to exist, it seems to follow that you can't find the world's existence good. And isn't the volcano reference simply an appeal to the problem of evil?

01-22-2002, 12:27 PM	#28
The Loneliest Monk Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 96	phlebas, If we view our lives as good, then I don't see why the reasons we have for believing them to be can't be part of the basis God has for creating the world. If it can be good to us, why can't God view it as good? And if you are claiming that God could have created the world with the same amount of good attributes but with less suffering, then you are claiming that the suffering is unnecessary. And remarks concerning unnecessary suffering certainly seem to fall under the problem of evil argument.

01-22-2002, 01:31 PM	#30
The Loneliest Monk Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 96	phlebas, I'm ignoring angels because I am not aware of any forceful arguments for their existence. And all theists are not committed to belief in angels. You are using the word "theist" when you are addressing what appear to be specifically Christian claims. As for reasons why our existence should be preferrred to our nonexistence, our existence allows for the existence of things such as courage, compassion, love, reason, and all the other ideas people generally consider lofty or whatever. If things like courage are really valuable things, then it would be better that they exist. It could be that mankind is simply deluding itself by thinking these things are worthwhile. But if they are in fact of value, then that would be reason enough for God to create the world.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.