Hobbs

Yes, I admit, I took that particular quote out of context. But I do think that the way I used the quote accurately reflects your position as stated in other contexts. I maintain that I was accurately representing your position in saying that "you cannot demonstrate that all suffering makes sense, but that you have faith that it does," as I think your subsequent post on relying on faith demonstrates. But I should have waited until you made that post and then quoted from there rather than using a quote that in its context does not say this. My bad.

Hobbs

And ignored the Old Testament? Is this a case of looking only at the good stuff and not at the bad stuff, rather than looking at both, to determine whether the god hypothesis is consistent with all the evidence?

Jack the Bodiless

Why is "greater susceptibility to death" a problem? The prey MUST die for the predator to live. Why not create a system where a predator only hunts when it's hungry, limits its own population by not breeding when rivals encroach on its territory, and kills prey simply by touching them?
Again, this argument works both ways.

Much pain and suffering is functional: if we were in pain all the time, then pain would not serve its evolutionary purpose, and the Omnipotent Sadist would soon have no suffering victims to chuckle at. If the Omnipotent Sadist can magically override this problem and inflict continuous pain without making us extinct, then the Omnipotent Good Guy is permitted to do the equivalent: preventing all suffering while magically overriding the problems this will cause.
No, he isn't. We must assume that the Omnipotent Sadist is under a similar constraint of minimal intervention. Perhaps this is a game to him. He takes pride in creating a world in which he can maximize suffering without "cheating". This is sufficient to explain the existence of good in an evil Universe.

luvluv

Hobbs:

Don't hold your breath. But thanks for the compliment.

You still haven't made clear to me two things:

1) What is the limit of suffering that is allowable and it still be logical to posit a good God?

2) How did you calculate this limit?

You say that some suffering is unecessary. I've explained some biological objections to the scenarios you spell out. Basically, God could not stop all unecessary suffering without his constant direct intervention. In a world that largley operates independantly of his direct, natural-law-suspending action, unecessary suffering is going to happen. Some people are going to trip over rocks, some people are going to sprain their ankles, kids are going to fall out of trees and break their arms, etc. I am saying to you that what you ask for, absolutely zero excess suffering, is not possible without constant miraculous intervention.

We part company here. I can't see how anyone can believe this. I can certainly conceed to you that once emotions like happiness and fullfilment are present in a species they have a selective advantage. But if you are trying to tell me that random genetic accidents actually PRODUCED the emotions of fulfillment and aesthetic pleasures, that to me is ludicrous. Are you saying that some adenine and guanine got mixed up a thousand years ago and all of a sudden human beings consider a blue sky beautiful? Am I to further believe that this perception of beauty was such a selective advantage that all those other proto-men who were not able to hear music or appreciate the smell of flowers died off? Am I to believe that things like laughter and romantic love are reducible to a genetic mishap? This is where I feel the atheist and the religious man are staring at each other over a wide abyss, because I simply cannot believe someone could actually believe that the more beautiful parts of our lives are just the results of chemical accidents. I think our lives and our capacities to experience happiness and joy, our capacity to laugh and daydream and just be really happy to be alive.... I find that all very suspicious.

I know there's some shaky stuff in the Old Testament, but a lot of people around here like to conveniently behave as if the only legitimate view of God is the fire and brimstone God. (I'm speaking about atheists, here). In reality, the kind of depiction of God actually inhabits only the VAST MINORITY of the Old Testament. The majority of the Old Testament is the work of the prophets, which paints a picture of God as being an advocate of the poor and down-trodden and being against corruption. An unbiased account of the full person of Yahweh as represented in the gospels would lead you to a much better presentation. The caricature of Yahweh often presented in these arguments over here amounts to the kind of partisan misrepresentation usually reserved for political advertisements.

Jack:

I don't know Jack. No offense, but that just sounds ridiculous to me. I mean, that is my visceral response to most of the suggestions you guys are making. I think greater susceptibility to death would be a problem because, in a world where pain SHUT DOWN when there was danger, a lot of organisms who are lacking in the smarts department would simply cease to resist when their pain sensors kicked in.

Of course, the short answer is that animals who were susceptible to death would go extinct more easily.

What would an Omnipotent Sadist care about evolutionary purposes? What does he care about anything but inflicting the most pain he can at every possible moment?

Again, slavery, my friend, is wrong, no matter how good the enslaver. In short, it is morally wrong to force people to do anything against there will, even if this thing is good. So a good being cannot use coercion to accomplish his ends.

On the other hand, the use of force and control is a pretty big source of and expression of evil. This, incidentally, is why Christians believe that God cannot tempt us to do good the way in which satan tempts us to do evil. (Not to open this whole "You don't believe in Satan, do you?" can of worms) I have never had an overriding desire to do something good come on me such that I had to struggle to try to resist it. But in terms of doing something incorrect, the desire to do so can often overcome a person's conscious. That is because God will not "pressure" someone to do good to the degree that it is the pressure that forces or brings into creation the act of good.

To be brief, it is a contradiction for Absolute Good to force itself on it's object, since the use of force to override the will of another is evil.

It is in contradiction for Absolute Evil to allow it's object free will, since freedom to choose is a good thing.

Again, with all due respect, I find this totally unreasonable. Minimal intervention is not a goal we can reasonably ascribe to absolute evil. No absolute evil I am aware of (whether we are talking about Hitler or Stalin or anything or anyone else) has ever had a policy of laissez faire. That very concept goes against everything we consider to be evil. The totalitarian desire to control is evil, therefore it is illogical to assume that Absolute Evil would somehow have a fetish for minimal intervention.

And how in the world could absolute evil have scrupples about cheating? Have you ever encountered any evil that had a problem with cheating? Lying? Breaking promises? That's an inherent part of evil. An absolutely evil being would not follow rules, because following rules is a good thing. It's a logical contradiction.

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

HRG

But from a theist PoV, God made all the rules. He could have created a universe where people do not trip over rocks, bones do not break etc. - just as energy is conserved in our universe. In such a universe, suffering would not exist (or be greatly reduced) without constant miraculous intervention.

Regards,
HRG.

ex-preacher

luvluv asked:
1) What is the limit of suffering that is allowable and it still be logical to posit a good God?

2) How did you calculate this limit?

I'd like to turn the tables and ask luvluv:

1) What is the (maximum) limit of suffering that is allowable and it still be logical to posit a good God?

In other words, can you conceive of any situation involving such horrific, innocent suffering that you would have to conclude a good God cannot exist?

2) How did you calculate this limit?


My answer to your questions: The same as the amount of suffering allowed in heaven.

Kassiana

Originally posted by luvluv:
concEEd, concEEded

I must point out that it's spelled concEde. I have never conceeded anything, because conceed is not a word. Concede is, and conceded is.

This has been jumping out at me for pages.

ex-preacher

bump -

calling luvluv

Hobbs

I'm not sure how I am supposed to recognize the difference between this and no god at all. Do you think God ever answers any prayers to intervene in natural processes and changes those processes? If so, isn't he giving away the game, proving he exists and demonstrating his power and all that?

Besides, as HRG pointed out, God made these natural laws, so he could have devised laws that didn't lead to gratuitious suffering. Again, he obviously can create predators which kill their prey quickly and relatively painlessly (of course, this is granting for the sake of argument that he created anything). So, even if for some reason he could not avoid creating predators, if he is a loving and powerful god he would not have created predators which kill their prey in slow, painful ways.

To posit a good god? Well, to posit a perfectly loving, perfectly moral, and supremely powerful god, then: no unnecessary suffering. Or, as ex-preacher said: "The same as the amount of suffering allowed in heaven."

Given that there is the bad stuff in the world as well as the good stuff, I'd have to conclude that if there is a god, he must be either:
- lacking in power, and thus unable to do things he would like to do and would do if he could, such as create a world with different natural laws in the first place, create only quick-killing predators if he had no choice but to create predators, etc.
- indifferent to his creation, or perhaps at least partly malevolent.
- not very bright, and thus he got himself into problems he didn't foresee and can't figure out how to solve.

I understand fully, and sympathize. That is the last point that kept me in theism. I was able to question, and reject, the doctrines I had been taught and had wholeheartedly believed, and then to question and reject the ability of humans to reliably know anything about God. But I couldn't get beyond theism before I could deal with this point you bring up here.

One way to look at it is to see it as whether mind is fundamental to matter, or matter is fundamental to mind. In learning about cognitive sciences and evolution, I learned never to be too surprized at what nature can accomplish. I learned just how much mind is dependent on, and a function of, brain. And I know of no evidence of minds that exist independently of brains.

In other words, I see direct, empirical evidence of the former, and no evidence of the latter. It may be "faith" to take incomplete evidence and conclude that matter, or a godless, natural universe, can do all this on its own. But again, this is faith that goes beyond but in the same direction as the evidence, taking the evidence a little farther than it goes on its own. It is not faith that goes against the evidence.

How could God exist if he's not physical? How can he think if he doesn't have a brain? Thinking, "minding," is an activity; how can it exist without an actor? That is something I find very suspicious.

But even granting a god, I find it even more suspicious that a perfect, loving, and powerful God would have created a world and its governing laws that would result in so much suffering. You don't want to give up the idea of God's goodness, but you seem to be saying that God has many constraints on him such that he cannot intervene, and that he could not have created a world without parasites, without slow-killing predators, etc. Are you willing to state that God is lacking in power? If not, then we do part ways here: I find it much more likely that the good stuff in life can exist in a godless, natural universe than that the bad stuff in life can exist with a perfectly loving and powerful God.

If you want to posit the existence of a god to account for the good stuff in life, fine. But you must also account for the bad stuff in life, by admitting that god must be indifferent or lacking in power.

[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: Hobbs ]</p>

Dr S

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
     Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
     Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
     Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
     Then why call him God?
-- Epicurus (ca. 341-270 BCE)