Thomas Metcalf

I do not consciously choose to suffer every time I do suffer. Therefore, I suffer unnecessarily, and God does not exist.

ManM

Thomas Metcalf,
Even if you are morally perfect, you would not be exempt from suffering. God is trying to heal all of humanity, and if it would be beneficial for humanity if you were to suffer (even though you did nothing to deserve it), I suspect God would act as a good utilitarian. God Himself suffered in this manner on the cross. He suffered not for His own sins, but rather for the sins of the world. Likewise we too suffer for the sins of the world. Humans are not islands; we are all in this together.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by ManM:
"Even if you are morally perfect, you would not be exempt from suffering. God is trying to heal all of humanity, and if it would be beneficial for humanity if you were to suffer (even though you did nothing to deserve it), I suspect God would act as a good utilitarian. God Himself suffered in this manner on the cross. He suffered not for His own sins, but rather for the sins of the world. Likewise we too suffer for the sins of the world. Humans are not islands; we are all in this together."

God does not need to make us suffer for us to be healed. Therefore, He's just choosing that we suffer for no reason. This is morally imperfect.

tergiversant

I am afraid that I cannot quite see how this makes it rational to assume that natural events are indeed acts of God, even if we assume that God exists. If one assumes that every time nature prevents evil (or suffering) it is an act of God, must one not assume that every time nature induces evil (or suffering) it is likewise an act of God?

I was not attempting to direct my argument at Christianity in particular. However, I would consider my premises generally compatible with Christian theism. If you think that the doctrine of the incarnation/resurrection somehow demonstrates that God generally prevents moral evils, you are welcome to show how this is the case.

Unless we have some reason to think that God prevents certain moral evils, it is rational to conclude that such evils most often go unprevented by God.

Of which knowledge do you speak? Do you know why God allows, e.g., rape and murder?

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: tergiversant ]</p>

ManM

Thomas Metcalf,
If a doctor uses surgery to heal what could fixed with Asprin, then yes, we have a problem. However, I will not grant that surgery is unnecessary. We have given God no choice but to perform surgery with the goal of bringing us back to health. If we turned back to health on our own, surgery would be unnecessary.

tergiversant,
Yes. The world is the tool God uses to heal and instruct us.

This was the very first thing I addressed in this thread. God died on the cross to conquer death. Eternal nonexistence is evil. Jesus's death prevented that evil. The theology of the resurrection is incompatible with your claim that God does not act to prevent evil.

No. It is rational to to conclude that we have no reference by which to judge. Observation only tells us that God does not prevent all evil. The fact that evil happens does not imply that most evils are not prevented by God. We have no grounds to make any quantitave claims about the evil God prevents.

Knowledge of what would be best in the long run. God allows evil for the sake of our freedom and growth. A child can gain knowledge of the hot stove through faith in the parent's word or through experience. When we sin (touch the stove), we choose knowledge by experience, and find ourselves subject to the natural consequences of turning away from God (pain and death). Were God to shelter us from the stove, we would never be able to boil water. Likewise, freedom is a powerful tool. Even if it takes temporary suffering to learn the proper use of the tool, I think the benefits are well worth the effort.

tergiversant

Even if we assume that Christian theology is true on every point, it does not affect our observation that God rarely (if ever) intervenes to prevent people from committing evil acts, e.g. rape and murder. The argument stands or falls on this premise, not considerations about possible otherworldly evils (e.g. Hell). People quite often decide to do evil, they are rarely (if ever) prevented from doing so. Thus, God is not preventing most moral evils. This seems clear enough to me. Are you claiming that people are being prevented from doing evil? If so, what is your evidence to that effect? This statement is perfectly compatible with my original argument. If there are indeed certain (unknown) utilitarian reasons that God allows moral evils, we too should allow them, just as God does.

HRG

No, because there is nothing to "know". What is good for me is not objectively defined, but depends on my personal preferences.

If your personal preference happens to be to experience a death by Ebola, then an infection with Ebola is good for you - by definition.
Nothing, actually. If a sentient and self-aware entity which is not demonstrably insane wants to go to hell in a handbasket (as they say), then anything to achieve this aim is good for him.

Regards,
HRG.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by ManM:

"If a doctor uses surgery to heal what could fixed with Asprin, then yes, we have a problem. However, I will not grant that surgery is unnecessary. We have given God no choice but to perform surgery with the goal of bringing us back to health. If we turned back to health on our own, surgery would be unnecessary."

We have removed God's choices? How does one limit the power of an omnipotent being? Are you asserting that if we choose to suffer, God is powerless to stop us? Are you asserting, further, that everyone who suffers does so because she chose to suffer?

tergiversant

It might be worth noting that premise (4) may be modified to address any particular natural or moral evil. For example, "4a) God does not act to prevent rape" or "4b) God does not act to prevent ebola."
Also, (4) could be modified to make it a bit weaker and less controversial, e.g. "God rarely (if ever) acts to prevent _____." This allows for a few unknown cases of divine intervention.

tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.org
<a href="http://www.OklahomaAtheists.org" target="_blank">OKLAHOMA ATHEISTS</a>


[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: tergiversant ]</p>

ManM

My apologies for the delay in responding.

tergiversant,
I do not observe that God rarely intervenes to prevent people from committing evil acts. I observe that God does not prevent the evil that happens. It is possible that I would be a serial killer were it not for hurricane Opal destroying my grandmother's house. It is possible that you might have chosen to slander someone at work were you not feeling sick on a particular day. We do not know what might have been. Given our ignorance, how can we pretend to know what God has prevented?

And I hope you see how evidence of such a thing would not exist independent of speculation. We cannot observe what never happened.

The reason is not unknown. God desires for us to be one as He is one: we are to attain the likeness of God. Therefore He aims at nothing less but the destruction of evil. As you have mentioned in your argument, we should act as God does. That is, we should strive against the evil before us just as God strives against the evil before Him. Given His knowledge of what will be, He acts as a utilitarian. Given our ignorance, we act based on the moment.

This fails by the same logic as your original premise. We do not know what might have been, therefore we can make no judgment regarding the frequency of divine intervention. All we have is the observation that God does not prevent the evils that occur. Your claim requires knowledge of the evils that did not occur. I have 6 ounces of water in a container. Can you tell me with certainty that the container is mostly full?

HRG,
While I admire your consistency, I find your position to be completely contrary to common sense and practice. If someone wants to jump off a building, we try to talk him out of it. We don't say, "if he wants to spatter himself on the ground, it must be good for him." By your logic, aren't we performing an evil action by preventing the man from jumping?

A minor point, but this opens up the door. Why should insanity make any difference? If someone wants to chew their fingers and toes off because he thinks they are snakes, isn't that good for him? And who are you to judge him insane and tell him what really is good for him? If your definition of good conflicts with God's definition, might someone come along and simply label you as insane?

Thomas Metcalf,
That's a can of worms in itself, because the tendency is to limit omnipotence. An omnipotent being cannot make a rock he can't lift, right? An omnipotent being could not deny it's own omnipotence, thus placing a limit on it's power. But what if that limit didn't exist? That is exactly what must happen if we are to have any freedom in the face of an omnipotent being.

Yes. We can choose to oppose God.

No. As I said before, we are all in this together as one connected humanity. People suffer due to other people's choices all the time. Still, there would be no suffering if everyone chose the good.