Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Thomas Metcalf · 09-18-2002, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nickolaus:
Thomas, it looks like you're still a little new here, so let me introduce you to Amos...

Amos isn't a traditional apologist. He has his own explanation for everything, and his beliefs bear little similarity to any one mainstream religion or theological construct. So just keep that in mind when reading his posts.

Well, thanks for the advice. My response is that I have not nearly as much interest in arguing against Amos' version of God than I have against the God of the apologists, and it was with the God of the apologists that my original post concerned itself.

09-18-2002, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Metcalf:
[b]
So God existed before He existed? I'm afraid I don't understand. I was under the impression that most apologists believed God is outside the universe.

God has no corporeal existence of being but finds his own existence in all that is created. God as creator is the first cause and is in need of a second cause to form that which He created. God creates the essence of existence and Lord God forms that which God created.

Read carefully in Gen.1 and notice that "God" creates everything and in Gen.2 "Lord God" forms all that which God created in Gen.1. Notice also that the second story of creation (Gen.2) explains that nothing had been formed as of yet.

Indeed God is outside the universe because God is inside of creation and inside of all that which is created within the universe. In that sense God is inside the universe but not as a seperate entity. God is the leading edge of creation to make evolution possible. Of course the word God is arrived at by convention but if intelligence can be assigned to nature we would call that God. If on the other hand you see chaos in nature you are looking at it from the wrong side.

09-18-2002, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Primal:
Amos:

Are you saying that all things in what we call the universe were made out of God? Or are you saying that there was mere nonexistence prior to God, and God established all of existence even his own, in which case you run into contradiction?

No God is infinite and infinity has no beginning and no end. Therefore God always was.

Not made "out of God" because God has no corporeal body to exist but finds existence in all that is. I believe that God was there when life first came to be on the planet we call earth.

God is responsible for all forms of live including the lower forms of life.

Primal · 09-18-2002, 09:38 PM

So then how did corporeal substance transform into material substance?

How did a perfect being give rise to imperfection?

Plump-DJ · 09-19-2002, 09:37 AM

TM...

Quote:

I think it's still morally better to prevent useless suffering than to allow it, even if one is not the direct cause of such suffering.

Well i'd much rather suffer a bit in this life, and at least be able to live and experience God when i die and forget all the pains of this world. (assuming it's all true) But i would never get that choice if i wasn't created, and that to me feels like a wrong. To deny me the choice because i might suffer? Do you simply *not* create people and deny those who would chose "You" or "Good" because some may choose wrongly? Sounds like a moral tightrope to me. And more may choose the good then the bad, and so it might be a case of the good of the many out weighing the good of the few.

Quote:

Suppose you say God might have a morally justifying reason for not revealing how all the intense suffering we observe is justified. We can say, similarly, that maybe God has a morally justifying reason for not revealing that the world is only 100 years old, or that the world is actually highly disordered rather than ordered, or that the universe's existence extends infinitely into the past. For any empirical observation we make, we can say God might have a morally justifying reason to lead us to believe that we have made that observation accurately, when in fact we have not.

As for moral skepticism, if we accept that every instance of suffering actually creates an equal or greater good, the obvious conclusion is that we ought to try to create as much suffering as possible, because all suffering we successfully create will have an equal or greater justifying reason.

You say that God has not revealed his moraly sufficent reason, but that's debateable in my view and assumes a great deal. For example if God did reveal it would he "appear" before us all (*Poof*) and spell it out, or would he plant it in our intellects or in the writings of the bible or in the writings of others so that we may discover it ourselves? Can he reveal his justified reason while at the same time making our choice a free one? Again, that's quite a tightrope to walk isn't it.

In regards to the "lets go make some people suffer cause it's good" point I can see how one would be moraly confused but again, that rests on the idea that no good reasons have been "revealed" by the big G.

Quote:

One of the best reasons to deny the Unknown Purpose Defense, however, is that it just seems unlikely to be true. There is quite a lot of intense suffering with no apparent morally justifying reason, and it just seems most likely that at least one of these instances of suffering simply has no morally justifying reason.

Who says the purpose is unknown?

I'd say there's *good* reasons, when one looks at the big picture for why suffering is allowed to continue. The most obvious one in my view is the matter of honest choices, which i think is actually quite a powerful reason. I mean you seem to be suggesting that there are no good reasons to think that God allows suffering. Reasons which when one reflects on with their own "God" given brains finds to be honestly and intellectualy acceptable.

Quote:

Leading theologians such as Alvin Plantinga and Peter van Inwagen agree that theodicies seem to fail consistently, and many leading apologists have decided to concentrate on confirming God's existence, which would totally disconfirm the existence of gratuitous suffering. Evidence for God's existence is reason to accept the unknown purpose defense.

Theodicies, in regard to the existence of suffering? I really have to question that. I've read a bit of Plantinga (only a bit

) and that's not the impression I get. In fact in writing about the pope's essay on the relationship between reason and faith Plantinga writes...

".....Salvifici Doloris ("The Christian Meaning of Human Suffering"), published in 1984�surely one of the finest documents (outside the Bible) ever written on this topic, and surely required reading for anyone interested in the so-called problem of evil, or the problems that suffering can pose for the Christian spiritual life or, more generally, the place of suffering in the life of the Christian."

Quote:

But if God is strongly omnipotent, God can do anything. He can indeed create a universe without the possibility of suffering while at the same time creating persons who can choose Him or good in a meaningful sense. God can perform any action whatsoever. God could even cause people to be free while simultaneously always forcing them to choose Him.

Says who?

I mean it's like asking God to do something illogical. Omnipotent doesn't mean as far as i understand that you can do *anything*, even absurd things. So i'm simply arguing it might not be possible for an omnipotent God to allow real choice without preventing the possbility of bad stuff arising. I mean in the example i gave of the cliff jumper, there is *no* choice invovled. If you cannot choose to not jump then where's the choice there? There's a certain honesty which is lost in the decision.

Quote:

I'm afraid I don't understand your point here. A strongly omnipotent God can provide you with a choice all the time while continually precluding the existence of suffering; He can indeed do anything.

I think that's the problem here. You're idea of omnipotence is not one i agree with here. I don't see even a strong omnipotent being as being able to do *anything* while at the same time trying to enact out an ultimate plan that allows beings to choose Good, honestly and of their own free will. In fact i would argue God would have to contradict his own nature (honesty) to proceed as you suggest, by allowing us to make choices which don't allow us to choose the bad instead of the good. That's not a choice man.

It's a psudeo choice. It's not honest and therefore in some sense i think that contradicts God's honest nature.

Thomas Metcalf · 09-19-2002, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Amos:
"Of course the word God is arrived at by convention but if intelligence can be assigned to nature we would call that God. If on the other hand you see chaos in nature you are looking at it from the wrong side."

I don't see any overarching intelligence in nature.

Thomas Metcalf · 09-19-2002, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Plump-DJ:

"Well i'd much rather suffer a bit in this life, and at least be able to live and experience God when i die and forget all the pains of this world. (assuming it's all true) But i would never get that choice if i wasn't created, and that to me feels like a wrong. To deny me the choice because i might suffer? Do you simply *not* create people and deny those who would chose 'You' or 'Good' because some may choose wrongly? Sounds like a moral tightrope to me. And more may choose the good then the bad, and so it might be a case of the good of the many out weighing the good of the few."

But God can prevent all gratuitous suffering while maximizing goodness, right? If you need to suffer to experience God and be created and all that, that particular instance of suffering is not gratuitous.

"You say that God has not revealed his moraly sufficent reason, but that's debateable in my view and assumes a great deal. For example if God did reveal it would he 'appear' before us all (*Poof*) and spell it out, or would he plant it in our intellects or in the writings of the bible or in the writings of others so that we may discover it ourselves? Can he reveal his justified reason while at the same time making our choice a free one? Again, that's quite a tightrope to walk isn't it."

I know that I am not aware of a justifying reason for every instance of intense apparently gratuitous suffering. So there's definitely some mystery here. And if there is no justifying reason, then God's allowing completely useless suffering to exist, and He isn't morally perfect.

"In regards to the 'lets go make some people suffer cause it's good' point I can see how one would be moraly confused but again, that rests on the idea that no good reasons have been 'revealed' by the big G."

I don't think it rests on that. All we need to decide is whether this principle is true: "Every instance of suffering that happens has a morally justifying purpose." If that's false, God doesn't exist, and if it's true, we should try to cause as much suffering as possible.

"Who says the purpose is unknown? I'd say there's *good* reasons, when one looks at the big picture for why suffering is allowed to continue. The most obvious one in my view is the matter of honest choices, which i think is actually quite a powerful reason. I mean you seem to be suggesting that there are no good reasons to think that God allows suffering. Reasons which when one reflects on with their own 'God' given brains finds to be honestly and intellectualy acceptable."

Leading apologists would say it's unknown. How would a 1-year-old orphan being buried in a landslide and dying slowly and painfully about whose death no one ever learns, help us make choices? In my experience, the apologist usually fails when trying to provide a morally justifying reason for every instance of intense inscrutable suffering, but you are welcome to try.

"Theodicies, in regard to the existence of suffering? I really have to question that. I've read a bit of Plantinga (only a bit ) and that's not the impression I get. In fact in writing about the pope's essay on the relationship between reason and faith Plantinga writes..."

I strongly recommend Tattersall's essay
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nicholas_tattersall/evil.html" target="_blank">The Evidential Argument from Evil</a> here. Plantinga admits that "many" of the attempts seem "shallow, tepid and ultimately frivolous."

"Says who? I mean it's like asking God to do something illogical. Omnipotent doesn't mean as far as i understand that you can do *anything*, even absurd things. So i'm simply arguing it might not be possible for an omnipotent God to allow real choice without preventing the possbility of bad stuff arising. I mean in the example i gave of the cliff jumper, there is *no* choice invovled. If you cannot choose to not jump then where's the choice there? There's a certain honesty which is lost in the decision."

Well, that's why I said "strongly omnipotent." The weakly omnipotent God can't force people to make free choices. So let me echo the question that I used to open this thread, and ask, what's your definition of "omnipotent"?

Primal · 09-19-2002, 02:23 PM

Plump: Your definition of omnipotence is not the one used in the argument from evil. It is also not the one ahdered to by the vast majority of Christians now at days or within the Christian tradition.

dictionary.com

Quote:

om�nip�o�tent Pronunciation Key (m-np-tnt)
adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.

n.
One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.
Omnipotent God. Used with the.

Notice how it says "unlimited power" i.e. power not limited by logic or anything else, beacause then it would be limited power. If you wish to define omnipotence as something else you should A) Give a good reason why. B) Recognize that such a definition of omnipotence is not the one adhered to by the majority of Xians, especially the one's the argument from evil is directed against. In which case you cannot say that the argument from evil is "unsound" simply because you have changed the definitions to suite your own ends, it was never meant to attack such a viewpoint as your own, only those who hold to the above defintion of omnipotence.

09-19-2002, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Primal:
So then how did corporeal substance transform into material substance?

How did a perfect being give rise to imperfection?

Imperfection only exists in the third cause which is the eyes of the beholder. First cause is God, second cause is Lord God and third cause is like god as in our human nature ("like god" was created in Gen.3). As humans we participate in the creation process with our ego awarenes wherein we have shame (cf "no shame of Gen.2:25 with "shame" of Gen.3:7) and also wherein we concepualize good and evil. Therefore, outside of our ego awareness there is no good or evil but just the evolution of nature in strict compliance to natural law.

Plump-DJ · 09-19-2002, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Notice how it says "unlimited power" i.e. power not limited by logic or anything else, beacause then it would be limited power. If you wish to define omnipotence as something else you should

A) Give a good reason why. B) Recognize that such a definition of omnipotence is not the one adhered to by the majority of Xians, especially the one's the argument from evil is directed against. In which case you cannot say that the argument from evil is "unsound" simply because you have changed the definitions to suite your own ends, it was never meant to attack such a viewpoint as your own, only those who hold to the above defintion of omnipotence.

Well i have to disagree.

I've seen it in a number of places, that omnipotence does not mean you can do *anything*, even absurd things. He cannot contradict his own nature anymore then he can create square circles. Thats absurd. To quote Roy Jackson (A philosopher of Religion) from his book 'The God of Philosophy'...

"Classical Theism tends to adopt the view that God is able to do *possible* things which are *consistent* with his nature."

<a href="http://www.philosophers.co.uk/chapter1.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.philosophers.co.uk/chapter1.pdf</a>

Under the section, God is All.

Perhaps you can offer me some reasons for thinking that your idea of Omnipotence and the one spoken of in this discussion is in fact the accepted idea of what it means for God to be omnipotent. I've seen plenty from various apologists or philosophers to think otherwise, starting with the above quote from a philosopher of religion.

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

09-18-2002, 09:38 PM	#44
Primal Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Marcos Posts: 551	So then how did corporeal substance transform into material substance? How did a perfect being give rise to imperfection?

09-19-2002, 01:56 PM	#46
Thomas Metcalf Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 1,009	Originally posted by Amos: "Of course the word God is arrived at by convention but if intelligence can be assigned to nature we would call that God. If on the other hand you see chaos in nature you are looking at it from the wrong side." I don't see any overarching intelligence in nature.

09-19-2002, 02:09 PM	#47
Thomas Metcalf Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 1,009	Originally posted by Plump-DJ: "Well i'd much rather suffer a bit in this life, and at least be able to live and experience God when i die and forget all the pains of this world. (assuming it's all true) But i would never get that choice if i wasn't created, and that to me feels like a wrong. To deny me the choice because i might suffer? Do you simply not create people and deny those who would chose 'You' or 'Good' because some may choose wrongly? Sounds like a moral tightrope to me. And more may choose the good then the bad, and so it might be a case of the good of the many out weighing the good of the few." But God can prevent all gratuitous suffering while maximizing goodness, right? If you need to suffer to experience God and be created and all that, that particular instance of suffering is not gratuitous. "You say that God has not revealed his moraly sufficent reason, but that's debateable in my view and assumes a great deal. For example if God did reveal it would he 'appear' before us all (Poof) and spell it out, or would he plant it in our intellects or in the writings of the bible or in the writings of others so that we may discover it ourselves? Can he reveal his justified reason while at the same time making our choice a free one? Again, that's quite a tightrope to walk isn't it." I know that I am not aware of a justifying reason for every instance of intense apparently gratuitous suffering. So there's definitely some mystery here. And if there is no justifying reason, then God's allowing completely useless suffering to exist, and He isn't morally perfect. "In regards to the 'lets go make some people suffer cause it's good' point I can see how one would be moraly confused but again, that rests on the idea that no good reasons have been 'revealed' by the big G." I don't think it rests on that. All we need to decide is whether this principle is true: "Every instance of suffering that happens has a morally justifying purpose." If that's false, God doesn't exist, and if it's true, we should try to cause as much suffering as possible. "Who says the purpose is unknown? I'd say there's good reasons, when one looks at the big picture for why suffering is allowed to continue. The most obvious one in my view is the matter of honest choices, which i think is actually quite a powerful reason. I mean you seem to be suggesting that there are no good reasons to think that God allows suffering. Reasons which when one reflects on with their own 'God' given brains finds to be honestly and intellectualy acceptable." Leading apologists would say it's unknown. How would a 1-year-old orphan being buried in a landslide and dying slowly and painfully about whose death no one ever learns, help us make choices? In my experience, the apologist usually fails when trying to provide a morally justifying reason for every instance of intense inscrutable suffering, but you are welcome to try. "Theodicies, in regard to the existence of suffering? I really have to question that. I've read a bit of Plantinga (only a bit ) and that's not the impression I get. In fact in writing about the pope's essay on the relationship between reason and faith Plantinga writes..." I strongly recommend Tattersall's essay <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nicholas_tattersall/evil.html" target="_blank">The Evidential Argument from Evil</a> here. Plantinga admits that "many" of the attempts seem "shallow, tepid and ultimately frivolous." "Says who? I mean it's like asking God to do something illogical. Omnipotent doesn't mean as far as i understand that you can do anything, even absurd things. So i'm simply arguing it might not be possible for an omnipotent God to allow real choice without preventing the possbility of bad stuff arising. I mean in the example i gave of the cliff jumper, there is no choice invovled. If you cannot choose to not jump then where's the choice there? There's a certain honesty which is lost in the decision." Well, that's why I said "strongly omnipotent." The weakly omnipotent God can't force people to make free choices. So let me echo the question that I used to open this thread, and ask, what's your definition of "omnipotent"?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.