ex-preacher

I appreciate your response, but I do not regard this as an answer. I think you may realize the trilemma which is created by your position.

Horn 1: if God insists that the creatures who love him do so in an atmosphere of perfect freedom, then evil must exist in heaven (according to your definition of freedom). People can hurt each other, rape little girls, rebel against God, etc. Yet the Bible seems to clearly indicate that there will be no sin, pain, tears in heaven.

Horn 2: if there is no sin, pain, tears in heaven, then true freedom must not exist there. Everyone is an automaton.

Horn 3: if somehow both true freedom and love exist in heaven, then why didn't God create an earth like that?

Don't dance around this issue or claim that it is too mysterious. Pick one of these choices and defend it, or find a fourth choice that makes sense.

luvluv

Mac says:

"If a god exists then it can or cannot stop one from committing an evil or harmful act is. We know it is logically possible (police officers do it all the time). If a god cannot, it is not omnipotent."

Mac my whole point was while this is a functional model if we are looking at a SINGLE act of intervention, it becomes impractical if we decide that ALL acts of evil... from the whitest lie to the most heinous murder... were constanly halted from occuring by the direct action of God.

I'll ask you a direct question, Mac, would you rather live in a world where God constantly prevented you from making every moral error. Where he showed up in your bedroom when you are about to masterbate, where he would not allow you the power of speech when you wanted to say a mean word, where he would paralyze your hand when you wanted to give somebody the middle finger. In fact, the more you know about Yahweh, the more you know that he considers many THOUGHTS to be sinful. Would you want to live in a world where God would not allow you even to form THOUGHTS of anger, jealousy, lust, ambition, etc?

"If a god can, then it is plain that it chooses not to. Either it is morally right or wrong to stop an evil action. If it is morally right, then if an god fails to perform a right action which is within its power, the god is not acting morally and is not omnibenevolence."

Again, you have not addressed my argument of scale. It is morally right for the police to stop SOME evil acts, but beyond those that are necessary to prevent in order to provide a stable functioning society, it is actually wrong for the police to continue to try and stop "all evil."

Should the police try to stop lust? Greed? Jealousy? Adultery? Covetousness? Racism? That is what you are asking God to do. For the government to try to stop all evil it would have to become a dictatorship, and for God to stop ALL evil, He would have to become a dictator.

Again, I'll ask you a direct question... do you think it would be right for the police to try to stop ALL evil, because THAT is what you are asking God to do. You are not asking him to "get the bad guys", you are asking Him to prevent ALL evil. So would you advocate a government doing that? Would it be right for a government to try to prevent ALL evil?

"The existence of moral freedom does not outweigh the evil acts performed by people"

I think that is a judgement call, and one I would vehemently disagree with. I would rather live in a free society that was infested with crime than in a totalitarian society with no crime. Likewise, I would rather be morally free in a world where that freedom is abused than to live in a world where there is no moral freedom.


"Keep in mind that no one is asking you to implement the logistics. The triviality of the logistics is entailed by the omnimax attributes of the deity."

Here, you are espousing the same "God can" argument that you would chide me for using in the evolution forum. You are not presenting an argument against my position you are basically saying: I don't need to answer your objections because God can do anything. Again, I find it ironic that you guys are using this argument.


"What about their mothers? Their children? Are they harmed by the fact that their loved ones participate in pornography?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What about them?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And what happens when one of them prays to God to stop you from looking at her daughter?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing, as god doesn't exist."


You're avoiding the obvious implications of my question here. There is right now someone who says that God is cruel because he allows men like us to masterbate to images of their daughters or mothers, just like Jerry Smith is now considering God evil for not stopping the abuse of his niece. So how does God stop this evil without taking away your ability to masterbate?

So I'll ask another direct question:

Can you construct a model in which you personally would want to live by which God could eliminate the possibility of evil? Would it be by the suspension of natural laws? By making acts of moral good so pleasurable that they are irresistable? By making acts of moral evil so painful that we cannot possibly choose them?

Finally:

"Lewis doesn't impress many of us."

Nevertheless, he is addressing the same points I am directing to you, and he does it better.

So here are my four direct questions just to avoid confusion:

1) Would you personally prefer to live in a world where God intervened to stop you from making any decision that He did not want you to make, or would you rather live in this world?

2) You seem to be saying that since the police stop some evil acts, it should be morally justified for God to stop ALL evil acts. So can we also apply this back to the police? Would you like to live in a society in which the police (or any entity) try to stop you from commiting ALL immoral acts?

3) Can you describe a functional universe in which we are free yet God stops us from abusing that freedom even in the smallest increments?

You have previously avoided this by referring to the "God can" ominmax argument. I'll ask you in this case to consider all the arguments that you can concieve and present your case for how that world would be better than this one.

4) I haven't previoulsy mentioned this question, but can you address my belief that a universe in which moral freedom does not exist would also take away meaningful human relationships, since they require moral freedom?

luvluv

turt:

"This is nonsense. Anybody guiding anyone knows that an excellent teaching method is to give people enough rope to hang themselves, then yank them away from death at the last moment so that they understand what could have happened. My kids can do whatever they want so long as no permament harm is done. That in fact is how they learn independence and freedom."

Okay, well then something needs to be clarified here: are you asking God to prevent ALL evil or merely to intervene and act as an instructor... sort of an omniscient parent? Those are two different questions. If God were to act as an instructor and not take away our free choice, He would not be able to stop all evil, anymore than you can guarantee that your children will never make a mistake. So do you want God to be a direct instructor or do you want Him to prevent all evil? They aren't the same thing.

"You see, Luv, you don't need the actuality of pain and suffering, only knowledge of their potential. When my son messes with the stove, I take his hand away and then show him by burning something what happens to something stuck in the flame. Dead dogs in the street show what happens to creatures hit by a car. In point of fact, I have never been hit by a car, but I am quite certain that the experience would do terrible damage to me. No need for me to learn firsthand. It would be quite possible to give humans greater freedom than they have now, and create a world full of love and free of pain."

You know as well as I do that even when people are fully aware of adverse consequences to a course of action they still take that course of action. God merely showing us those things are wrong (and I'd actually argue He has done that in the Bible) does not mean that people won't still do those things. If God were to show us examples (and again, I'd argue He has) it would not prevent evil. People might simply use their freedom to not listen to God, and the only way God could prevent that is to take their freedom away.

"The truth is that the universe is choked to overflowing with pointless suffering. Even the attempt to find a moral justification for that is sick; let alone believe that a being who could create all this pain is worth worshipping. "

The world is also full of beauty and love and laughter. Would you be willing to give all those away too? The universe is not JUST suffering, it is also filled with many wonderful things. I happen to live in the universe, and I'm a happy camper all things considered. Just in my own personal life, I have had sufferings and I have had joys... and I would not trade any of them in. If I could go back and make every pain I have suffered go away, I would not do it. It's made me who I am. So just speaking personally, I would not trade in my sufferings. It is true I have not suffered as much as many people on the globe, but I'd wager that if you asked most of them whether they would rather go back and give up their moral freedom so that they would never suffer... I think most of them would say thanks but no thanks.

And if the universe is so inexplicably terrible, why haven't you punched your own ticket and checked out? I'm not trying to be insulting here, but if the universe is so intolerable that whoever invented it must be a demon, why are you sticking around? God can't be as bad as all THAT, if an omnipotent demon created the universe, as bad as things are now, they would certainly be a lot worse.

luvluv

Jerry:

"I will go along with you that the pornography industry causes harm to women. This does not change the truth of my statement, and here's why:

1) I can masturbate without viewing pornography.
2) Women choose to pose for pornographic pictures. God has the knowledge and power to intervene if someone attempts to take that choice away from them."

You are still missing the big point. If you are saying that God should directly act to prevent evil, it stands to reason that He will act to prevent everything that HE considers evil. Theoritically, in such a universe you would not even have the ability to argue with Him. If God took the course of action you are reccomending to Him, He would stop you from masterbating even if it only involved imagery. When you say try to construct a way you can masterbate without hurting anyone, you are using moral freedom. In the universe you are asking God for, you would have no such choice in the matter. He would have to stop you.

"If it is RIGHT for you to intervene in any given case, and WRONG for you not to intervene in the same case, why is it not also RIGHT for God to intervene and WRONG for God not to intervene?"

Because I don't and can't intervene in EVERY act of immorality you might commit. As I said to Mac, your theory works fine in an isolated incident, but you are asking God to stop ALL evil. I don't think it is right for the police to try to stop all evil, and I don't think it would be fun to live in a world where God acted to stop every action you committed that He considered evil, even in some cases your thoughts.

Asking me or the police to intervene in ONE act, and asking God to intervene in ALL acts... those are two totally different scenarios. The appropriate comparison would be to a society in which the police stopped all acts of evil. If you would be content in such a society, one in which the police would not only try to stop you from raping... but from even thinking a single lustful thouhgt... if you would like to live in such a police state, then you might like to live in a universe in which God stopped every evil act. I personally would not like to live in that world.

luvluv

"Horn 1: if God insists that the creatures who love him do so in an atmosphere of perfect freedom, then evil must exist in heaven (according to your definition of freedom). People can hurt each other, rape little girls, rebel against God, etc. Yet the Bible seems to clearly indicate that there will be no sin, pain, tears in heaven.

Horn 2: if there is no sin, pain, tears in heaven, then true freedom must not exist there. Everyone is an automaton.

Horn 3: if somehow both true freedom and love exist in heaven, then why didn't God create an earth like that?"

Horn 4: Heaven could be a place where people of their own free will choose to obey God, and heaven is a place where only those who have chosen to obey God by their own free will are allowed to go.

As for why He didn't create Earth like that, because then it would be impossible for Earth/Heaven to be populated by people who obeyed him out of love and out of free will. That can only be arrived at by giving people the freedom to choose to love and obey Him or choose not to. Both of those choices require freedom and time.

Pomp

luvluv,

Horn 4: Heaven could be a place where people of their own free will choose to obey God, and heaven is a place where only those who have chosen to obey God by their own free will are allowed to go.

That doesn't resolve the dilemma. Those people who have freely chosen to obey god get into heaven. Then, if they are to remain free once they are there, the situation in heaven must be identical to the situation on earth. Sin, pain, etc. must exist in heaven or else, by your reasoning, god will not have "free sons" in heaven.

Malaclypse the Younger

luvluv

Answer these questions without spamming the thread with your brain-damaged cult indoctrination.

To answer this questions, we will assume that an omnsicient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god exists, with the most theistically charitable but meaningful interpretation. If your answer contradicts these assumptions, it will be rejected.

1) Is interfering with a person's moral free will morally wrong or morally acceptable?

You may answer any way you like. You might claim it is deontically wrong (we have a duty to respect a person's moral free will regardless of the outcome); you might claim it is pragmatically wrong, because, either always or sometimes it leads to wrong consequences.

You should be able to answer this question in a single paragraph, at most two. Please try to be concise.

2) Why did god not stop Jeffery Dahmer before he raped, killed and ate a dozen people?

Remember, we are not talking about the "evil thoughts" your evil mind-control cult indoctrinated you to feel guilt over which would ensure your dependence and continued economic support, but real sick twisted fucks like Jeffery Dahmer.

Again, you should be able to answer this question in a paragraph or two.

3) Was it morally right or morally wrong for the police to arrest and imprison Dahmer?

If different from your answer to 2), please explain why the police are evaluated by a different moral standard than god.

Brevity is the soul of wit, and precision is encouraged. Take as much time as you need, think it through, but keep it short. We are becoming impatient with your massive pile of cult spam.

[ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

luvluv

Sin does not have to exist if people choose not to do it.

And of course it is possible that once God is in an evironment where everyone has already decided to obey Him out of free will, he will be more directly involved in helping them walk that out.

Actually, that is already the case with me as with all other Christians. I actually feel God communicates with me all the time in different ways, and actually puts His foot down and tells me not to do certain things. He does more direclty participate in the life of people who have freely decided to obey him than He does in the lives of people who have not made that decision. You guys always assume that Christians believe in God without evidence. That is actually wrong. We believe in God without objective, repeatable, evidential evidence. But we have a lot of personal evidence... we "feel" God. While that obviously cannot be communicated, it is nonetheless real. I guess you'll have to take my word for it. But anyway, a possible answer to your question is that God might be allowed to be a more direct participant in the life of a person once that person has already decided of his own free will to obey God, and on earth as a Christian, I find that already to be true.

luvluv

Mac, I will after you have answered my questions. You continue to post as if I have never raised my objection on the grounds of scale. I have already stated than in single isolate incidents it seems to make sense, but in the aggregate it would be impossible. Would you please address any of my questions, and then I would be happy to address yours.

Secular Elation

Actually, that is already the case with me as with all other Christians. I actually feel God communicates with me all the time in different ways, and actually puts His foot down and tells me not to do certain things.

You have not proven this to be any more than the psychological perceptions of being religiously brainwashed.

You guys always assume that Christians believe in God without evidence. That is actually wrong. We believe in God without objective, repeatable, evidential evidence.

As far as we're concerned, that's not evidence.

But we have a lot of personal evidence... we "feel" God. While that obviously cannot be communicated, it is nonetheless real.

Psychological perceptions that thrive in your own religious mind, like I stated.

But anyway, a possible answer to your question is that God might be allowed to be a more direct participant in the life of a person once that person has already decided of his own free will to obey God, and on earth as a Christian, I find that already to be true.

I was once religious. At the time, I thought the same thing...but looking back, when I was religious, the same things happened to me that happen to me now. There is no indication that any god directed me while I was religious. I have always directed my own life.