phlebas

They are worthwhile to us. But what good does it do God for us to have them?

I don't think you're looking at this issue from far enough away. I'm not debating the worthwhile attributes for humans to have. I'm trying to uncover the reason for humans to exist in the first place.

And you ignored my point again in the previous message. Forget angels for now, if you don't believe in them. Do you believe that Heaven is a place where there is no pain or sorrow?

From the perspective of the Christian God, I cannot see any value at all in humans having these qualities, partly because I still can't see a value in having humans in the first place. Does it make sense for God to create a finite existence so the finite creatures have the opportunity to be brave from time to time?

The Loneliest Monk

It certainly seems reasonable to assume that the value of attributes that humans could have would have bearing on the value of human existence. If you are going to try to determine if there is reason enough for creating humans, why wouldn't you consider the attributes they can possess?

Also, in an earlier post you said that you were glad that the world exists because it allows you to exist and you enjoy your life. My question is why do you enjoy your life if you can see no value in human existence? Surely you can find something of value in human life if you in fact enjoy your own.

Concerning eternal bliss in heaven, I believe that the situations in heaven and on earth would have to depend on whatever purpose God had in mind for each place. If heaven was supposed to be a reward for or culmination of human work on earth, then I don't believe heaven would require the trials present on earth.

Finally, your remarks about the existence of suffering given the fact that God can create free beings without suffering is the same kind of reasoning employed by the argument from evil. So you either must not think your remarks have much force, or you must believe that the argument from evil carries more force than you previously thought.

Adrian Selby

"But if they are in fact of value, then that would be reason enough for God to create the world."

I also just want to comment on this point. THe personal qualities shown here can surely be demonstrated adequately by pitching man against the environment. That we have free will that creates all kinds of further terrible situations involving courage etc. seems a bit redundant, when manking has faced and continues to face sufficient challenges from nature.

Surely continued earthquakes and floods and famines offer sufficient hardships for sufficient numbers of people that human qualities God thinks worthwhile do come to the fore. Free will just seems to have made things far far worse, the way its supposedly been implemented.

Adrian

phlebas

I think we're going around in circles now.


<strong>Originally posted by The Loneliest Monk:
It certainly seems reasonable to assume that the value of attributes that humans could have would have bearing on the value of human existence.</strong>

Sure. To us. But we're talking God's motives here. Creating humans to have emotions that have meaning to humans if they are created is an extremely circular view.

<strong>If you are going to try to determine if there is reason enough for creating humans, why wouldn't you consider the attributes they can possess?</strong>

Because I have yet to see even a glimmer of a reason why the attributes we possess would be (or even COULD be) of interest to the standard Christian god.

<strong>Also, in an earlier post you said that you were glad that the world exists because it allows you to exist and you enjoy your life. My question is why do you enjoy your life if you can see no value in human existence? Surely you can find something of value in human life if you in fact enjoy your own.</strong>

I can find loads of enjoyment in my own existence. But we're talking about what value God could get from it. Causing me to exist so I can enjoy my existence is more circular reasoning.

<strong>Concerning eternal bliss in heaven, I believe that the situations in heaven and on earth would have to depend on whatever purpose God had in mind for each place. If heaven was supposed to be a reward for or culmination of human work on earth, then I don't believe heaven would require the trials present on earth.</strong>

Once again, the "we do not know the mind of God" argument. So you agree that it is possible for a place with no suffering to exist.

<strong>Finally, your remarks about the existence of suffering given the fact that God can create free beings without suffering is the same kind of reasoning employed by the argument from evil.</strong>

Whatever

<strong>So you either must not think your remarks have much force, or you must believe that the argument from evil carries more force than you previously thought.</strong>

My problem with the PoE is in it's traditional approach -- that is, does the existence of evil imply a God that is necessarily not omni-everything.

My discussion here is more of the Problem of Existence, which I view as a much different question. Why would the Christian god create this universe? This talk about pain and suffering is more of a corollary to the main point (i.e. "Is whatever whim God had to create all this sufficient reason for this unnecessary suffering.")

If you want to include that under the label "problem of evil" then feel free, but I think you're confusing the point by insisting on it.

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: phlebas ]</p>

phlebas

I'm looking for motives here. I'm sure he whole of human existence makes for some grand entertainment for any metaphysical spectators. But why would the Christian God even schedule the game?

Adrian Selby

beats me

Adrian

jpbrooks

Thank you all for your replies. Sorry for my delay in responding to your posts. I'm trying to "juggle" a lot of commitments. And since I'm using a phone line, that is almost constantly being used by relatives to make phone calls, to access the web, I only have a short stretch of time to spend here. Thus, I may not be able to make any further replies. But we'll see. Anyway here are a few brief responses.


Oolon.

The point, Oolon, is that "heaven" is not a "delusion" within Theism. In fact, as I pointed out in my last post, it is quite consistent with it.

However, if Theism itself is a "delusion" then the whole "Problem of Evil" (at least, as it relates to God) "dissolves", because it becomes a "self-effacing" argument.
Without a God, there would be no basis
for an absolute moral standard, and consequently, no basis for a judgment of "Evil" against God.

But it gets even worse!
Without an absolute moral standard, moral values such as "good" and "evil" are relegated to the "realm" of human judgment. And this means that there can be, in that case, no way to provide a rational justification for any moral obligation to use one human standard rather than another.
Thus, if I wanted to disregard the "objective" moral standard of my society and act on the basis of my own personal subjective standard of morality, I am free to do so with moral impunity. It may not be the case that "everything is permitted" without a absolute moral standard, but every standard of morality would certainly be permitted.

phiebas,

Yes, I certainly can.
Suppose we define "free will" as the ability, not only to act in any way that we desire, but also to "preprogram" our own emotional "reactions" to certain kinds of situations that we find ourselves "thrown into" from time to time, such as, again, situations that are frightening to us.

For Theism, "preprogramming" by our genes is "preprogramming" by God.
(That is, to be more precise, the genetic "preprogramming" occurs ultimately according to God's predetermination.)


Indeed!

We have been created as beings who learn things by experience. How could experiential knowledge be acquired by humankind without going through the experiences? I suppose that an "Omnimax" God could create false experiential "memories" in us of past experiences, but assuming that possibility would raise epistemological problems for us and ethical problems for such a God.

Again, that depends on the way one defines "free will". Does "free will" necessarily include the will to do evil?

Again, it all has to do with the acquisition of genuine experiential knowledge that would not even be possible without such an "intermediate step" that allows us to learn from the "messes" that we create in this life. Unfortunately, such freedom allows for the possibility of grave casualties such as "damnation". But overall, it is still better that we experience that degree of freedom.

Putting aside, for the present, the need to provide a more precise definition of "perfection", there can be only one absolutely "perfect" being. Any being with characteristics that are essentially different from that of the "perfect" being, which would necessarily include any being that is created by this "perfect" being, cannot possess all of the characteristics of the "perfect" being, and hence, cannot be a "perfect" being.

Every created being that exists cannot possess the characteristics of Christ, again, because Christ had a mother who did not share all of His characteristics. Thus, a world of "Christ beings" could not even come into existence without the prior existence of non- "Christ beings".

I suppose that God could simply wave a world of "Christ beings" into existence, but that could hardly be considered considered a genuine act of "creation" within Christian Theism. God would simply be "incarnating" Himself over and over again for no apparent reason.

Why do you assume that punishment by God would not be meted out justly, i.e., that He would not take the circumstances that gave rise to the sin into account? I'm not sure that Christian Theism supports the notion that we are punished by God for simply "giving in to our desires".
Rather, it seems that sin would result from fulfilling our desires in ways that violate God's moral principles.

Of course, this raises theological questions about the sin of "coveting" which is itself a desire.

No, my friend. It would be impossible because if God directly caused someone to do something, that person could not help but be "obedient" to God in that act.

Nope. If the argument that blames God for human sin is assumed to be "sound" then it could only be assumed to be so by a being other than God; in this case, a human being. But if this is the case, then humans must be able to think about moral choices independently from God, which establishes their moral accountability.

The point that I'm trying to make is that there is no viable alternative to the assumption that it had to be by God's desire.
But that is not an injunction against further inquiry into God's motives. Perhaps a "divine psychology" is possible.

Which leads to an infinite regress unless one of the "Supergods" in the sequence creates out of "Its" own desire rather than out of necessity.

This question points to a need for a more precise definition for "perfect" as it applies to both God and His creation.

"Me neither" (of course, depending on the way "free will" is defined).


Adrian Selby,

Unfortunately due to time restrictions (which is another thing that annoys me about this life), I'm going to have to be brief here, but (to let you in on a little secret) even Theist like me question the rationality of letting things get to be as bad as they are in the world. For that matter, even biblical characters like Job struggled with this issue. And it is an important issue, from a biblical perspective, since an entire "book" in the bible is devoted to it. So, it doesn't seem to me that God is insensitive to the problems that we are going through.
I realize that everyone handles this issue in ways that work for them, but in my case, I don't expend "energy" blaming God for the evils that occur. Instead, I try to find and apply solutions to the problems that arise because of evil and, rather than be (psychologically) defeated by such problems, try to view them as opportunities for us to learn things.

As far as death is concerned, since I don't know (exactly) who is going to go to "heaven", (though, I doubt that there will be any outright Christ rejectors there), the ultimate outcome of the life of a person that undergoes suffering in this life, might be better in the "afterlife". In fact, I'm rather certain of this because a Christ rejector would undoubtedly find living with Christ in "heaven" forever at least somewhat unpalatable.

-John Phillip Brooks

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

Adrian Selby

Perhaps JP, the difference is, you already have faith, so expect some kind of answers. I already deny God exists, then hear people suggest that God has set all this up, and find it incredulous.

Perhaps my points on suffering in the world are wrapped up in the other problems with the concept of God I have. But when you're on the outside looking in as it were, this faith that things are meant to be as they are, however difficult, seems so far from rational that it does no good when someone like me is supposed to try to understand how God could exist, when this is the only answer I'm able to get.

People do react in different ways, my first instinct is to react now, on earth, not hope the afterlife will or won't be better.

Adrian

14God

&gt;&gt;&gt;Bottom line to me is that if being an Atheist automatically exempts one from suffering,then I would probably be the first one in line to join up!

However,suffering is for all,some more than others.
My biggest question is why certain people do suffer immensely more than others??
Is it all like some big cosmic crap shoot,to determine who is stuck with what disease or abnormality at birth--or who dies the most horrific and grotesque death,and who passes away in a state of complete tranquility,with a big smile on their face?

But getting back to original topic of "free will"---We all have it,whether we admit it or not,and it's our own free will to choose what to believe in,whenever and wherever we decide to exercise this freedom.

There is nothing that hinders anyone from believing in God,except their own intellects and reasoning,which they have complete control over.
No one thing or Entity forces the unbeliever
to reject a belief in the supernatural--they force themselves.
Whereas the Theists force themselves to willfully believe.
However,each decision does come naturally to both parties.

We all have different ways of dealing with death and suffering...but whether or not one blames God or simply ignores Him doesn't change the way things are,for them or anyone else.
Bottom line is that only YOU stand in the way of believing,and how YOU choose to see things.
YOU will either sit back and let circumstances dictate how you will react,and thus take control over your own free-will,making it void.
The same way anger can take control over a person to the extent where they no longer can think rationally,and only react with animal instinct.

Or you can choose to believe that despite what you see NOW in this world,there MUST be something better to come.
After all,how do YOU know which decision is the most irrational...WHO told you that your choice is the right one??
Maybe we can assume that life is so hard because we all are actually nothing more than cosmic scumbags,and the spiritual equivalent of a mass-murderer?
Maybe we are far worse sinners that our own limited intellects can discern as of yet?

Either way,the freedom to choose is always open--
and we will be held responsible for what we decide.
I could deny that I am who my birth certificate says I am,simply because that's all the documented proof I have,other than my Mother's word.
The same way you could deny the Father's Word as the only documentation of His existance...
Either way,there IS documentation,and one has the power to choose to believe it,despite how irrational it SEEMS.

But methinks that Bible or not,the infidel mindset is one of utter rejection of the supernatural,even if it slapped em in the face,which ghosts have been known to do on occassion!
PROOF really has nothing to do with it...they demand it,but at the same time revel in the absence of it?!


So it seems they are hoping He doesn't exist,and thus hoping for a VERY short after-life experience?
Therefore the problem seems to be more emotional than intellectual,but still one which any person could choose to overcome,if they so wished.

Just things to consider...

Transworldly Depraved

phlebas:

You wrote:

Why would it be the case that the Christian God would not find value in many of the same things in which we find value?

It is part of Christian tradition that we are made in God's image. It would seem to follow that we would have many things in common with God. Values can be among these things. Maybe the Christian God would find value in other conscious agents similar in many respects to himself.

Another aspect of the Christian God is that he is supposed to be a being of perfect goodness, justice, and love. If persons do not have at least some values in common it is difficult to see how they can love each other. God is supposed to have created humanity for the purpose of freely loving him and other human beings. It follows that he must create us with many values in common with himself or at least with the ability to discern value in things in a way similar to the way he discerns value.

However, it could be that you are arguing that God would be so "wholly other" that we could have literally nothing in common with him.

I do not understand your difficulties here.