If I were granted omnipotence...
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>their basic needs and no longer had any need or disposition to
seriously harm one another.
Would this be morally wrong?
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>Overly simplistic, perhaps.
Of course, the speculation rests on a conjectural condition that is
ambiguous at best. What do you mean by omnipotent? What do you mean
by "secure"? Basic needs? Disposition to harm? If you are not taking
a more formalized and rigorous approach, such as, for example,
constraint programming[1] then its hard to consider such a
hypothetical as anything other than philosophical hot air.
Regards,
Brock
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constraint_satisfaction#Constraint_logic_programming
George Chalkin
<georgechalkin@gmail.com>>
Well I'm sure you could complicate any need Brock with your moronic
gyrations.
>
> [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constraint_satisfaction#Constraint_logic...
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com><george...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Overly simplistic, perhaps.
>>
> Well I'm sure you could complicate any need Brock with your moronic
> gyrations.
Nothing lacking in noting the speculation rests on a conjectural
condition that is ambiguous at best.
Regards,
Brock
George Chalkin
<georgechalkin@gmail.com>> condition that is ambiguous at best.
>
your plastic God?
>
On Dec 28, 8:51 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:43 PM, George Chalkin
>
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com><george...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Nothing lacking in noting the speculation rests on a conjectural
>> condition that is ambiguous at best.
>>
> What would you then suggest for anyone's needs then Brock?
I'm not sure what you mean by "anyone's needs", but clearly any
speculation on what Rupert may or may not do if he were omnipotent is
inadaquate without some or all of the indicated clarification.
Regards,
Brock
George Chalkin
<georgechalkin@gmail.com>> speculation on what Rupert may or may not do if he were omnipotent is
> inadaquate without some or all of the indicated clarification.
>
goods. Put up or shut up.
>
On Dec 28, 9:05 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:59 PM, George Chalkin
>
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>everyone, maybe you took one too many psychic enhancing pills?
> > Brock- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com><george...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Needs or Deeds Brock, we're sick or hearing your bullshit without any
> goods. Put up or shut up.
I've put it up nicely:
dillan
<dfernando@gmail.com>On Dec 28, 5:27 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Perhaps you should wish for omniscience as well. That way, you would
be able to find an answer to your question.
George Chalkin
<georgechalkin@gmail.com>> everyone, maybe you took one too many psychic enhancing pills?
>
your famous polls? Oh, I forgot, you really don't need any evidence,
and your fundie roots are showing again, better go in for another dye
job.
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
George Chalkin
<georgechalkin@gmail.com>> > goods. Put up or shut up.
>
> I've put it up nicely:
>
> "clearly any speculation on what Rupert may or may not do if he were
> omnipotent is inadaquate without some or all of the indicated
> clarification."
>
doesn't even follow the form of logic, nor reason. Go back into your
delusional, dark, cave. I'm sick of hearing it. Your theological
fountain "runneth" dry.
>
On Dec 29, 8:42 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:07 AM, George Chalkin
>
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> On Dec 28, 5:27 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ... I would bring it about that all sentient beings were secure in
> > their basic needs and no longer had any need or disposition to
> > seriously harm one another.
>
> > Would this be morally wrong?
>
> Overly simplistic, perhaps.
Is an overly simplistic goal morally wrong?
> Of course, the speculation rests on a conjectural condition that is
> ambiguous at best. What do you mean by omnipotent?
> What do you mean
> by "secure"? Basic needs? Disposition to harm?
Would you like to be airdropped into the middle of the Amazon or Congo
rainforest? Once you make it out of there, on foot, you might no
longer need to ask these questions.
> If you are not taking
> a more formalized and rigorous approach, such as, for example,
> constraint programming[1] then its hard to consider such a
> hypothetical as anything other than philosophical hot air.
> Regards,
> Brock
>
> [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constraint_satisfaction#Constraint_logic...
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>> > Needs or Deeds Brock, we're sick or hearing your bullshit without any
>> > goods. Put up or shut up.
>>
>> I've put it up nicely:
>>
>> "clearly any speculation on what Rupert may or may not do if he were
>> omnipotent is inadaquate without some or all of the indicated
>> clarification."
>>
Its not up to me to clarify Rupert's position. :)
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com><ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 11:16 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 5:27 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > ... I would bring it about that all sentient beings were secure in
>> > their basic needs and no longer had any need or disposition to
>> > seriously harm one another.
>>
>> > Would this be morally wrong?
>>
>> Overly simplistic, perhaps.
>
> Is an overly simplistic goal morally wrong?
Lacking clarification, such an overly simplistic goal is not even
unambiguously articulated. :)
Regards,
Brock
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>lord of others...all week long' or some similar half baked concoction.
seems like that echoing is still going strong in yo haid... the fundie
statement is rather bizarre too... guess you havent seen me crashing
TC and others huh? wakey wakey!
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>On Dec 29, 3:16 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 5:27 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ... I would bring it about that all sentient beings were secure in
> > their basic needs and no longer had any need or disposition to
> > seriously harm one another.
>
> > Would this be morally wrong?
>
> Overly simplistic, perhaps.
>
I don't think I get what's being claimed here.
> Of course, the speculation rests on a conjectural condition that is
> ambiguous at best. What do you mean by omnipotent?
This is one attempt to clarify the concept:
I don't really have a problem with the idea that the notion as
Swinburne defines it is coherent. I welcome clarification about
whether you believe that there is a God who is omnipotent in this
sense.
> What do you mean
> by "secure"? Basic needs?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secure?db=dictionary
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/basic+human+needs
> Disposition to harm?
I don't know how I can help you, really. Are you able to give me some
hints about what the point of confusion is? I did say "seriously
harm". Perhaps you need clarification about what counts as a serious
harm? I'm not talking about declining an invitation to a social
engagement. I agree that that point could use some clarification.
I don't know, do you have nothing better to do with your life than
pointless nitpicking? I just don't see how this post of yours
contributes to productive discussion.
> If you are not taking
> a more formalized and rigorous approach, such as, for example,
> constraint programming[1] then its hard to consider such a
> hypothetical as anything other than philosophical hot air.
>
I don't agree with your assessment. You are never going to be able to
pin down the meaning of every word with exact precision, except maybe
in mathematics, but basically I believe that all of my post was clear
to the point of being crystalline and I don't see what's wrong with
just answering the question.
I don't know, if you love precise definitions so much maybe we should
talk about maths instead. You claim to have an interest in recursion
theory and the lambda calculus. Well, I agree, those things are
interesting. I'm curious as to whether you'd be able to hold your own.
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>On Dec 30, 3:42 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:07 AM, George Chalkin
>
> <georgechal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Needs or Deeds Brock, we're sick or hearing your bullshit without any
> > goods. Put up or shut up.
>
> I've put it up nicely:
>
> "clearly any speculation on what Rupert may or may not do if he were
> omnipotent is inadaquate without some or all of the indicated
> clarification."
>
I hope that my attempts at clarification have been helpful.
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>Indeed. That point did occur to me. If you have been granted
omnipotence then you ought to make yourself omniscient and perfectly
good straight up just to rule out any risk of misusing your power.
So am I to take it that you claim that you do not know whether I would
continue with this proposed course of action after I had done that?
It's just not clear to you?
dillan
<dfernando@gmail.com>I would say latter. But I also think that effecting something(s) in
isolation is more difficult than you might think. I think each
location of space and time is linked to each other in some form or
another. IMHO.
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>Omnipotence means being able to do anything that it is *logically
possible* to do. With that kind of power my proposed course of action
shouldn't be a problem.
So, you feel uncertain about to what extent it is a good thing to
alleviate the suffering in the world. Does this come up when you make
decisions about what to do about alleviating suffering? Do you ever
thing "I could save this starving child, but maybe it would be the
wrong thing to do"?
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Dec 28, 8:51 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:43 PM, George Chalkin
>
> <georgechal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Overly simplistic, perhaps.
>
> > Well I'm sure you could complicate any need Brock with your moronic
> > gyrations.
>
> Nothing lacking in noting the speculation rests on a conjectural
> condition that is ambiguous at best.
Observer
Exactly what the non concept of a god is, conjectural and ambiguous .
If it weren't for ambiguity there would have been no attempted
definitions of this dumb ass god thing.
Fucking Zombie
Psychonomist
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Dec 28, 9:05 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:59 PM, George Chalkin
>
> <georgechal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Nothing lacking in noting the speculation rests on a conjectural
> >> condition that is ambiguous at best.
>
> > What would you then suggest for anyone's needs then Brock?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "anyone's needs", but clearly any
> speculation on what Rupert may or may not do if he were omnipotent is
> inadaquate without some or all of the indicated clarification.
Observer
I am sure that it you first clarify specifically and succinctly what
defines this god thing he will get right back to you on that.
Fucking Zombie
Psychoinomist
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Dec 28, 9:07 pm, George Chalkin <georgechal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "anyone's needs", but clearly any
> > speculation on what Rupert may or may not do if he were omnipotent is
> > inadaquate without some or all of the indicated clarification.
>
> Needs or Deeds Brock, we're sick or hearing your bullshit without any
> goods. Put up or shut up.
Observer
Calvinistic Zombies are not adequate to any task wherein is required
rational thought or even the bare essentials intelligence . They have
only the simplistic belief if ritualized, fetishistic magic,
necromancy, and a deep attachment to the perversions of criminality
and sadomasochism all of which are expressed by their basic
misanthropy and lack of any ability to acquire any meaningful
education.
These posts by Brock are perfect examples what it is like to debate
with an extremely poor software package which was composed by a
zombie.
What we have here is a fucking zombie and nothing more.
Psychonomist
dillan
<dfernando@gmail.com>On Dec 29, 10:43 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 10:12 am, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 29, 5:46 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 30, 4:05 am, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 28, 5:27 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > ... I would bring it about that all sentient beings were secure in
> > > > > their basic needs and no longer had any need or disposition to
> > > > > seriously harm one another.
>
> > > > > Would this be morally wrong?
>
> > > > Perhaps you should wish for omniscience as well. That way, you would
> > > > be able to find an answer to your question.
>
> > > Indeed. That point did occur to me. If you have been granted
> > > omnipotence then you ought to make yourself omniscient and perfectly
> > > good straight up just to rule out any risk of misusing your power.
>
> > > So am I to take it that you claim that you do not know whether I would
> > > continue with this proposed course of action after I had done that?
> > > It's just not clear to you?
>
> > I would say latter. But I also think that effecting something(s) in
> > isolation is more difficult than you might think. I think each
> > location of space and time is linked to each other in some form or
> > another. IMHO.
>
> Omnipotence means being able to do anything that it is *logically
> possible* to do. With that kind of power my proposed course of action
> shouldn't be a problem.
I agree, but the question is can you make the changes necessary while
preserving the free will we enjoy right now?
Perhaps it's possible, I'm not really sure.
> So, you feel uncertain about to what extent it is a good thing to
> alleviate the suffering in the world. Does this come up when you make
> decisions about what to do about alleviating suffering? Do you ever
> thing "I could save this starving child, but maybe it would be the
> wrong thing to do"?
I don't see why you had the need to make this about me. I was clearly
talking about actions based on omniscience.
But to answer your question directly, no I don't feel that way. I
think we should do whatever we can to alleviate suffering of anyone.
Since I am not privy to the knowledge of the greater good, I act based
on what I know.. and what I know is suffering needs to end.
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>Yes, why would that be a problem, when working only within the
constraints of what is logically possible? It's perfectly logically
possible that things could come to be as I described while we still
have free will, is it not?
> Perhaps it's possible, I'm not really sure.
>
I don't know what would be the cause of confusion on that point.
Do you have to suffer in order to have free will? Does that mean that
when things are going well you no longer have free will?
> > So, you feel uncertain about to what extent it is a good thing to
> > alleviate the suffering in the world. Does this come up when you make
> > decisions about what to do about alleviating suffering? Do you ever
> > thing "I could save this starving child, but maybe it would be the
> > wrong thing to do"?
>
> I don't see why you had the need to make this about me. I was clearly
> talking about actions based on omniscience.
>
We were talking about what you feel confident about given your
*current* knowledge. You apparently don't feel confident that the
course of action I described would be morally right, based on what you
*currently* know. I was just seeking further clarification on where
this confusion comes from. I just find it all a bit bizarre, myself,
that's all. Don't know how to make sense of where you're coming from,
really. A certain discomfort that people feel confused about this
issue, perhaps.
> But to answer your question directly, no I don't feel that way. I
> think we should do whatever we can to alleviate suffering of anyone.
But apparently that would no longer apply if I became omnipotent, so
presumably as your power to do something about the problem increases
you run into some kind of cut-off point somewhere, or at least a point
where you become confused about what is the right thing to do. Any
thoughts at all about where that point is?
> Since I am not privy to the knowledge of the greater good, I act based
> on what I know.. and what I know is suffering needs to end.
So I don't really know where the confusion would come from about
whether my proposed course of action would be morally right.
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>I made an effort to clarify. I always try to go the extra mile to
achieve productive conversation.
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>some. fmp, a really 'dumb ass' activity is totally rejecting something
that one really has no idea about, one way or the other. you are so
obsessed with rejecting the concept of 'god', that if there ever was
proof, you would deny it. you would have to, wouldnt you? how could
your massive, starving ego accept being wrong for soooooo long? your
bridge is burned so badly, there are not even any remnants of its
existence.
history is packed with incidents where completely rejecting something
simply because no proof exists, has backfired. those who ridiculed
chris for saying the world was round, eventually ate humble pie. get
the scenario?
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>> ambiguity has no impact on reality,
Ambiguity is part of reality.
. although it may cloud the issue to
> some. fmp, a really 'dumb ass' activity is totally rejecting something
> that one really has no idea about, one way or the other.
If someone makes a claim that they have no idea about, like "spirit
energy exists within me" then that is a very good reason to reject
their claim. You're shooting yourself in the foot here.
> you are so
> obsessed with rejecting the concept of 'god', that if there ever was
> proof, you would deny it.
Most atheists have a pretty good track record of accepting something
when presented with valid evidence. A better track record than most
theists, in fact - e.g. evolution.
> you would have to, wouldnt you? how could
> your massive, starving ego accept being wrong for soooooo long?
Strawman fallacies are not evidence that Observer rejects things for
which there is valid evidence.
> your
> bridge is burned so badly, there are not even any remnants of its
> existence.
Sour grapes are not evidence that Observer rejects things for which
there is valid evidence, either.
> history is packed with incidents where completely rejecting something
> simply because no proof exists, has backfired.
Funny that you would refer to history when you advocate that we don't
learn from others and to gain knowledge by looking inside ourselves.
> those who ridiculed
> chris for saying the world was round, eventually ate humble pie. get
> the scenario?
Except proof/evidence that the world is round existed the whole time.
Got a better example?
> On Dec 29, 11:34 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 8:51 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:43 PM, George Chalkin
>
> > > <georgechal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Overly simplistic, perhaps.
>
> > > > Well I'm sure you could complicate any need Brock with your moronic
> > > > gyrations.
>
> > > Nothing lacking in noting the speculation rests on a conjectural
> > > condition that is ambiguous at best.
>
> > Observer
> > Exactly what the non concept of a god is, conjectural and ambiguous .
>
> > If it weren't for ambiguity there would have been no attempted
> > definitions of this dumb ass god thing.
>
> > Fucking Zombie
>
> > Psychonomist
>
> > > Regards,
>
> > > Brock- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
dillan
<dfernando@gmail.com>Perhaps, but think of the mechanism by which you hope to achieve this
noble goal.
Right now, the resources of the world is spread out, and some have
more than others. The cause of poverty is the fact that the haves will
no share with the have nots. If you were to achieve your goal one way
to change the free will of haves to share with have nots. Or you can
just make the have nots happy inside, another way of eliminating
poverty.
Or you can give everyone equal resources, then people will lose the
motivation to invent and progress.
I'm just shooting in the dark here. perhaps you can give me an
inclination of how you hope to achieve this task, Then we can talk
about the effects of the changes.
> > Perhaps it's possible, I'm not really sure.
>
> I don't know what would be the cause of confusion on that point.
>
> Do you have to suffer in order to have free will? Does that mean that
> when things are going well you no longer have free will?
Not at all. That's not what I'm saying at all. My confusion is because
I'm not sure whether blindly effecting changing would cause even
greater harm. Like I said, it's difficult to change things in
isolation. Perhaps if we restrict our domain to just earth, we might
be able to perceive success, but if you're the ruler of the universe,
and given that there could be other sentient beings out there, how
could we be sure the changes you make will not effect someone/
something in some other part of the universe?
> > > So, you feel uncertain about to what extent it is a good thing to
> > > alleviate the suffering in the world. Does this come up when you make
> > > decisions about what to do about alleviating suffering? Do you ever
> > > thing "I could save this starving child, but maybe it would be the
> > > wrong thing to do"?
>
> > I don't see why you had the need to make this about me. I was clearly
> > talking about actions based on omniscience.
>
> We were talking about what you feel confident about given your
> *current* knowledge.
You never said "current knowledge" until now. (or perhaps you implied
that when you said "logically possible") That was where the confusion
was. My apparent confusion lied in the assumption that for an
omniscient being, would it be the moral course of action. I pleaded
ignorance on that and said perhaps it's harder than you might think.
>You apparently don't feel confident that the
> course of action I described would be morally right, based on what you
> *currently* know. I was just seeking further clarification on where
> this confusion comes from. I just find it all a bit bizarre, myself,
> that's all. Don't know how to make sense of where you're coming from,
> really. A certain discomfort that people feel confused about this
> issue, perhaps.
>
> > But to answer your question directly, no I don't feel that way. I
> > think we should do whatever we can to alleviate suffering of anyone.
>
> But apparently that would no longer apply if I became omnipotent, so
> presumably as your power to do something about the problem increases
> you run into some kind of cut-off point somewhere, or at least a point
> where you become confused about what is the right thing to do. Any
> thoughts at all about where that point is?
That's not an accurate description of what I was saying. I was
thinking about omniscience, while you are thinking about omnipotence.
All I was saying was that the more knowledge you acquire about the
effects an action has on the rest of universe, then perhaps the
actions we perceive as more, becomes fat more complicated. As I said I
don't know. But we shouldn't ignore the possibility.
> > Since I am not privy to the knowledge of the greater good, I act based
> > on what I know.. and what I know is suffering needs to end.
>
> So I don't really know where the confusion would come from about
> whether my proposed course of action would be morally right.
I hope I was able to clarify some things.
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>i cannot express them, the least of all to someone whose blinders are
so pronounced that the slightest hint of a 'spiritual' encounter, will
quickly give rise to a fearful feeling of pestilence, that is to be
eradicated post haste at all costs. your desire to be right about
'god' is SO strong, it will most surely shield you from the light.
this is an example of how your amusing little mind twists things that
i say. neil: "Funny that you would refer to history when you advocate
that we don't learn from others and to gain knowledge by looking
inside ourselves." ... when i am in fact showing historically, that a
wrong belief was well accepted because of the words of some misguided
scientists. how that really differs from mans promotion of 'god' is
something you can consider if you like. i'll take a pass.......
from what i understand about evidence, it cannot be offered as fact
until it has been proven??? i could be wrong, and im sure OJ is
thankful that isnt always the case ;^-) you know neil, like before
scientists KNEW the world was round, it was promoted, as fact, that it
was flat? unless of course, you are skeptical about that part of human
history as well? ;^-) how proof or evidence of this fact was available
for human consumption before it existed, is a bit of a query, isnt
it?
but neil, what does this possibly have to do with my statement that to
find 'god' [knowledge of 'god' neil, not knowledge about the shape of
a rock...get it?] one should look inside??? your enthusiastic reach
exceeds your reason by many marathons.
yawn ... please try to get past the feeling that my comments to you
are derived from anger, hate, narcississm, insanity, etc, etc, etc,
etc, etc, ad infinitum .... although maybe a bit of the insanity rap
applies as humans are a tad hard to live with ;-) your joyous
endeavor to proffer wild opinions, and to use any adjective that comes
to mind, is frenetic, abstract, and more like wishful thinking than
anything that resembles reality iml. the fact that my words impact you
so much may be something you might want to look into. zzzzzzzz
George Chalkin
<georgechalkin@gmail.com>> lord of others...all week long' or some similar half baked concoction.
> seems like that echoing is still going strong in yo haid... the fundie
> statement is rather bizarre too... guess you havent seen me crashing
> TC and others huh? wakey wakey!
>
not here just to debate amonst themselves. And I'm sure once people
realize how stupid you are, they'll start running you out of here with
ridicule, but please stick around, I like the laughs.
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>wanna have a party? hahahaha ;^-)
ummm ... when you say 'your all slime', who are you referring to there
george? all xtians? all atheists? all people other than yourself? in
case you missed it, i am not affiliated with either side of your funny
little debate so i really dont know who you are talking to ... maybe
yourself eh? lol
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Dec 30, 8:43 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i have a very good idea about my experiences thank you '^-)
Lots of people hallucinate. Lots of people lie. Lots of people
hallucinate and lie. Given your relentless insincerity, it's natural
to think that you are lying.
> and yes, i cannot express them, the least of all to someone whose blinders are
> so pronounced that the slightest hint of a 'spiritual' encounter, will
> quickly give rise to a fearful feeling of pestilence, that is to be
> eradicated post haste at all costs.
Interesting that you blame me about your inability to express
yourself. I guess that's another example of your pathological
narcissism.
> your desire to be right about
> 'god' is SO strong, it will most surely shield you from the light.
Except my desire is for you to provide valid evidence for 'god,' and
this is just a red herring fallacy.
> this is an example of how your amusing little mind twists things that
> i say. neil: "Funny that you would refer to history when you advocate
> that we don't learn from others and to gain knowledge by looking
> inside ourselves." ... when i am in fact showing historically, that a
> wrong belief was well accepted because of the words of some misguided
> scientists.
Except that your example of Christopher Columbus for showing that
"history is packed with incidents where completely rejecting something
simply because no proof exists, has backfired" fails, since evidence
existed to show that the world was spherical the whole time. So you
haven't shown that "a wrong belief was well accepted because of the
words of some misguided scientists," at all.
> how that really differs from mans promotion of 'god' is
> something you can consider if you like.
Since you haven't proved your premise you are just jumping to
conclusions.
> i'll take a pass.......
From logic, as you always do...
> from what i understand about evidence, it cannot be offered as fact
> until it has been proven???
Huh?
> i could be wrong, and im sure OJ is
> thankful that isnt always the case ;^-) you know neil, like before
> scientists KNEW the world was round, it was promoted, as fact, that it
> was flat?
Which is irrelevant to the fact that the evidence that the world is
spherical was there the whole time. Objective, verifiable, and
falsifiable evidence. The kind that is non-existent for "spirit
energy" or "spirit" or "god" or "God."
> unless of course, you are skeptical about that part of human
> history as well? ;^-)
I am familiar with history, and I also know that history is not
appropriate to show that your evidence for 'spirt energy,' etc, is
valid evidence.
> how proof or evidence of this fact was available
> for human consumption before it existed, is a bit of a query, isnt
> it?
The evidence that the world is spherical existed long before humans
existed.
> but neil, what does this possibly have to do with my statement that to
> find 'god' [knowledge of 'god' neil, not knowledge about the shape of
> a rock...get it?] one should look inside???
It has a lot to do with it, because you are telling us how to find
'god." This is an attempt by you at providing evidence. But when we
look inside a large number of people don't find 'god.' What we find
are internal organs and the various machinations of the human brain -
the people who don't find 'god' are no different physically that the
people who claim to find 'god.' So your "god" can just be justifiably
explained as the delusions of a narcissistic mind, a schizophrenic
mind, or an outright liar, etc, since there's no objective,
verifiable, and falsifiable evidence of 'god' residing in some of us.
> your enthusiastic reach
> exceeds your reason by many marathons.
Once again you blame your inability to provide evidence on me.
Shifting the burden fallacies are not evidence that your version of
'god' exists.
> yawn ... please try to get past the feeling that my comments to you
> are derived from anger, hate, narcississm, insanity, etc, etc, etc,
> etc, etc, ad infinitum ....
As long as you keep providing evidence that I am right then I'm not
going to abandon it. You need to provide a valid argument that I am
wrong. Logical fallacies and narcissistic disdain are not valid
arguments.
> although maybe a bit of the insanity rap
> applies as humans are a tad hard to live with ;-)
Being "hard to live with" does not mean a person is insane.
> your joyous endeavor to proffer wild opinions,
My opinions aren't "wild," they are supported with objective and
verifable evidence - your posts. Nor are they "joyous" - I wish that
we could find a cure for insanity, and I think that insane people are
dangerous when they try to impose their insanity on others - e.g. Jim
Jones, e.g. David Karesh, e.g. Marshall Applewhite, e.g. Warren Jeffs.
Why would you think I am joyous about this?
> and to use any adjective that comes
> to mind, is frenetic, abstract, and more like wishful thinking than
> anything that resembles reality iml. the fact that my words impact you
> so much may be something you might want to look into. zzzzzzzz
More disdain.
"People who are overly narcissistic commonly feel rejected, humiliated
and threatened when criticised. To protect themselves from these
dangers, they often react with disdain, rage, and/or defiance to any
slight criticism, real or imagined."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
Your words impact me to the extent that I feel the need to oppose
them. As I've said several times, I feel morally obligated to speak up
when the insane try to impose their insanity on others. Until you come
up with valid evidence for 'spirit energy' and 'god,' they are just
manifestations of your insanity.
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>I didn't have redistribution of resources in mind. I can just create
resources as I need them if I am omnipotent. Some kind of economic
development program, perhaps, whereby all humans are above the level
where there basic needs are met. And remove corrupt and tyrannical
governments. Making myself omniscient would help if I were having
planning problems.
> > > Perhaps it's possible, I'm not really sure.
>
> > I don't know what would be the cause of confusion on that point.
>
> > Do you have to suffer in order to have free will? Does that mean that
> > when things are going well you no longer have free will?
>
> Not at all. That's not what I'm saying at all. My confusion is because
> I'm not sure whether blindly effecting changing would cause even
> greater harm.
Well, you would have to think things through about how best to help,
as indeed I do now when I am making a charitable contribution, I try
to find out where my money would be best spent. But if I were
omnipotent and had the power to give myself omniscience, then I think
that it would be feasible to work out some kind of plan.
> Like I said, it's difficult to change things in
> isolation. Perhaps if we restrict our domain to just earth, we might
> be able to perceive success, but if you're the ruler of the universe,
> and given that there could be other sentient beings out there, how
> could we be sure the changes you make will not effect someone/
> something in some other part of the universe?
>
I only had Earth in mind. It should be possible to fix Earth up
without affecting other sentient beings in the universe.
> > > > So, you feel uncertain about to what extent it is a good thing to
> > > > alleviate the suffering in the world. Does this come up when you make
> > > > decisions about what to do about alleviating suffering? Do you ever
> > > > thing "I could save this starving child, but maybe it would be the
> > > > wrong thing to do"?
>
> > > I don't see why you had the need to make this about me. I was clearly
> > > talking about actions based on omniscience.
>
> > We were talking about what you feel confident about given your
> > *current* knowledge.
>
> You never said "current knowledge" until now. (or perhaps you implied
> that when you said "logically possible")
When I asked you that question which you found bothersome, I made it
clear that I was talking about how you make your decisions *now*.
> That was where the confusion
> was. My apparent confusion lied in the assumption that for an
> omniscient being, would it be the moral course of action. I pleaded
> ignorance on that and said perhaps it's harder than you might think.
>
So you think that God *would* do this, but for some reason that we
don't know about it's just too *hard*, even for an omnipotent being?
Do these considerations not rather cast doubt on the rationality of
theism?
>
>
>
>
> >You apparently don't feel confident that the
> > course of action I described would be morally right, based on what you
> > *currently* know. I was just seeking further clarification on where
> > this confusion comes from. I just find it all a bit bizarre, myself,
> > that's all. Don't know how to make sense of where you're coming from,
> > really. A certain discomfort that people feel confused about this
> > issue, perhaps.
>
> > > But to answer your question directly, no I don't feel that way. I
> > > think we should do whatever we can to alleviate suffering of anyone.
>
> > But apparently that would no longer apply if I became omnipotent, so
> > presumably as your power to do something about the problem increases
> > you run into some kind of cut-off point somewhere, or at least a point
> > where you become confused about what is the right thing to do. Any
> > thoughts at all about where that point is?
>
> That's not an accurate description of what I was saying. I was
> thinking about omniscience, while you are thinking about omnipotence.
> All I was saying was that the more knowledge you acquire about the
> effects an action has on the rest of universe, then perhaps the
> actions we perceive as more, becomes fat more complicated. As I said I
> don't know. But we shouldn't ignore the possibility.
>
Sounds like a pretty remote possibility to me. In any event it is a
mere possibility, yet necessary if theism is to be in any way tenable.
Do you think that if you were granted omnipotence, you would do what
God appears to be doing now, namely, pretty much nothing?
> > > Since I am not privy to the knowledge of the greater good, I act based
> > > on what I know.. and what I know is suffering needs to end.
>
> > So I don't really know where the confusion would come from about
> > whether my proposed course of action would be morally right.
>
> I hope I was able to clarify some things.
Your point of view is fine, but it seems to me that given your remarks
the argument from evil is a rather decisive refutation of theism.
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>On Dec 28, 5:27 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ... I would bring it about that all sentient beings were secure in
> their basic needs and no longer had any need or disposition to
> seriously harm one another.
>
> Would this be morally wrong?
There are two ways to approach this question. Your intent is
obviously to invoke the Argument From Evil, i.e., if God is
omnipotent, why has He not already done this? The first way would be
to examine it from the perspective, as nearly as we are able to
imagine it, of an omnipotent being. The second way is to say what God
has already expressed as His intent.
For the first way, let us first of all lay out the situation as you
have described it. You are omnipotent, and you have decided to insure
that all sentient beings are secure in their basic needs, and no
longer have any need or disposition to seriously harm one another.
There are a lot of qualifiers in your statement and a lot of
assumptions that it would be good to make plain.
You have said you are omnipotent but you have not said whether you are
infinitely wise. Omnipotence would include the ability to obtain
infinite wisdom, but not necessarily the exercise of that ability.
But since you are making an analogy to God, maybe it is safe to assume
that you are including infinite wisdom as one of your traits.
You have said you would supply sentient beings with their basic needs,
indicating that you would not necessarily supply them with all of
their desires. And, you have said they would not seriously harm one
another, leaving open the possibility that they would cause each other
lesser harm. Did you mean to be so conservative with your goodness?
Actually, you have not said you are infinitely good. You could be, if
you wanted it, with your omnipotence, but you haven't said that you
would want it. Again, you are attempting to make an analogy to God,
so maybe, again, it is safe to assume that you are including infinite
goodness. But here, that seems contraindicated. Your qualifiers of
only basic needs and only serious harm does seem to imply limited
goodness on your part. Given that you are absolutely omnipotent, why
would you choose to be less than absolutely wise and absolutely good?
Can it be that you feel, even from your own current perspective, that
supplying every desire indiscriminately would be less than ideal? And
perhaps you feel that to preclude any harming whatsoever is too much
of an imposition on free will?
Other assumptions include the idea that sentient beings do now have
both needs and dispositions toward seriously harming one another. I
would question the assumption that there is ever any such need. But
certainly, people have dispositions. People do not always choose how
they want to be, although, to my mind, they should. I advocate taking
full responsibility for oneself, which means not blaming any part of
your personality on your parents, or on the world, or society, or
anything else apart from yourself. But if this is true, then it
follows that those with dispositions to seriously harm others chose
those dispositions for themselves, with free will. And thus, to take
them away might require the violation of free will. I think that, in
light of what I have said about taking responsibility for oneself, to
claim that one had a need to harm someone is essentially a violation
of this. I.e., it is rejecting one's own responsibility for one's own
actions, attitudes, and dispositions, transferring that responsibility
to some necessity.
Would you use your omnipotence to force everyone to own their own
actions, and to take responsibility? That might be a good thing, but
would it involve, again, a violation of free will? Since part of the
problem you are trying to address involves the free actions of
sentient beings themselves, how would you go about altering those
actions to better suit your plan, without, at the same time, violating
the free will of those beings?
Since you are omniscient (we assume), surely you would know just what
things were, for lack of a better word, sins. You would have at least
a general idea of what would constitute proper human behavior, and you
would be able to express it succinctly. You could probably, I dunno,
sum it up in ten or so principles, and then reveal those principles to
the human race. Maybe write them on stone tablets and communicate
them to one of your prophets. That would solve the problem of the
ambiguity of your perceived will. It would accomplish spelling out
clearly, for your human creatures, exactly how you would like them to
behave. And it wouldn't violate their free will.
The only problem with this scheme would be, it would only accomplish
the pointing out of what was sinful; it wouldn't also accomplish
conversion of the sinners from their sins. Knowing the right thing to
do, and doing the right thing, are two very different things. Still,
it is better to know the right thing to do than not to know it, and
giving your Law to your human creatures would at least accomplish
that. But it would also place a greater responsibility on those
humans to whom you gave the Law.
If you were omnipotent and all-good, naturally you would want not only
to inform them of what was sinful but also to help them to avoid doing
what was sinful and to do what was virtuous instead. So you would
likely have to institute some means of your human creatures obtaining
for themselves, or receiving from you, the proper dispositions. You
would want to encourage them to change, and also to help them to
change, if they were so willing. The proper dispositions, along with
the will to act on them, we can call, for lack of any better word,
grace. You would find it expedient to set up channels by which your
creatures, at least those who accepted your plan in principle, could
receive grace from you to help them to carry that plan out. For lack
of a better term, let us call this institution, with its channels of
grace, your Church.
Then --- and since you are infinitely wise you would naturally
perceive this --- once the changing of peoples' dispositions had taken
place, those very people would be far more inclined to act on further
graces, and eliminate each others' suffering rather than perpetuate or
cause it. Thus would you be bringing about the security in basic
needs that you spoke about.
So it seems that, if you were omnipotent, you would bring it about
that all sentient beings were secure in their basic needs and no
longer had any need or disposition to seriously harm one another, by
first giving your Law and then by instituting your Church.
Would this be morally wrong? Not in the least. It is how God does
it.
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>starting to feel sorry for you, especially since i read very little of
what you post.
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>My point was that I would do *at least that much* to make the world
better, leaving open the possibility that I would do more.
> Actually, you have not said you are infinitely good.
No, I didn't say that. I could make myself so if I chose. But the
question is, if I did, would I change my mind about the propose course
of action?
> You could be, if
> you wanted it, with your omnipotence, but you haven't said that you
> would want it.
I did say elsewhere that it would be a good idea.
> Again, you are attempting to make an analogy to God,
> so maybe, again, it is safe to assume that you are including infinite
> goodness. But here, that seems contraindicated. Your qualifiers of
> only basic needs and only serious harm does seem to imply limited
> goodness on your part.
Not at all, I am perfectly open to the possibility that I would do
even more to make the world better. The question is, surely being good
would require me to do *at least that much*. It is, as you observed,
at attempt at a new version of the argument from evil.
> Given that you are absolutely omnipotent, why
> would you choose to be less than absolutely wise and absolutely good?
>
Never said I would.
> Can it be that you feel, even from your own current perspective, that
> supplying every desire indiscriminately would be less than ideal? And
> perhaps you feel that to preclude any harming whatsoever is too much
> of an imposition on free will?
>
Yes.
> Other assumptions include the idea that sentient beings do now have
> both needs and dispositions toward seriously harming one another. I
> would question the assumption that there is ever any such need.
There is for obligate carnivores.
Do you eat meat?
> But
> certainly, people have dispositions. People do not always choose how
> they want to be, although, to my mind, they should. I advocate taking
> full responsibility for oneself, which means not blaming any part of
> your personality on your parents, or on the world, or society, or
> anything else apart from yourself. But if this is true, then it
> follows that those with dispositions to seriously harm others chose
> those dispositions for themselves, with free will.
No. That does not logically follow. Taking responsibility for your
personality is great but it is certainly not true that you freely
chose it. You can freely choose to make efforts to change it.
> And thus, to take
> them away might require the violation of free will.
You seem to be saying that everyone is born innately good and that if
someone develops into someone who wants to rape children then that was
his own free choice which no-one should take away from him. Well,
that's as may be. But what about all the natural evil, and death by
starvation, and the animals who need to eat other animals in order to
survive?
> I think that, in
> light of what I have said about taking responsibility for oneself, to
> claim that one had a need to harm someone is essentially a violation
> of this.
Well, I was more thinking of the nonhuman obligate carnivones, who
don't have moral responsibility, but it would still be good if they
didn't need to kill other sentient beings in order to survive.
I do pay other people to inflict suffering and premature death on
sentient beings, because plant-based agriculture and electricity
production cause those things too, but I have made a fair amount of
effort to reduce the extent to which I do that within the constraint
of not dropping out of technological civilisation. If I did drop out
of technological civilisation, then I would be sacrificing
opportunities to reduce suffering in other ways. It is *in some sense*
true that I don't need to case harm, but that would be true if I were
an obligate carnivore. Fortunately, humans are not.
You may perhaps be restricting your attention to harm towards humans.
Well, that is true. In normal circumstances, humans do not need to
harm other humans.
> I.e., it is rejecting one's own responsibility for one's own
> actions, attitudes, and dispositions, transferring that responsibility
> to some necessity.
>
I will happily take responsibility for my actions. I just think that
if I were omnipotent it might be good to do something about the
propensity to cause harm which seems to be quite widespread.
I wouldn't have a problem with making everyone see the light and go
vegan, no, I would not consider that an unacceptable violation of free
will. So I suppose most of you think that it's just as well that I'm
not omnipotent.
> Would you use your omnipotence to force everyone to own their own
> actions, and to take responsibility?
Within some constraints, yes.
> That might be a good thing, but
> would it involve, again, a violation of free will? Since part of the
> problem you are trying to address involves the free actions of
> sentient beings themselves, how would you go about altering those
> actions to better suit your plan, without, at the same time, violating
> the free will of those beings?
>
I would change the circumstance that some sentient beings are not
secure in their basic needs through no fault of their own. I would
change the circumstance that some sentient beings need to harm others
in order to survive. And I would make sentient beings *more disposed*
not to do harm, while still allowing them to have free will. I don't
consider that to be objectionable.
> Since you are omniscient (we assume), surely you would know just what
> things were, for lack of a better word, sins. You would have at least
> a general idea of what would constitute proper human behavior, and you
> would be able to express it succinctly. You could probably, I dunno,
> sum it up in ten or so principles, and then reveal those principles to
> the human race. Maybe write them on stone tablets and communicate
> them to one of your prophets. That would solve the problem of the
> ambiguity of your perceived will.
Not in the least. That is exactly the issue. The authenticating
miracle was too long ago for reasonable people to believe in it now.
> It would accomplish spelling out
> clearly, for your human creatures, exactly how you would like them to
> behave. And it wouldn't violate their free will.
>
My suggested solution is making people a little bit less disposed to
act in ways I don't like. Your suggested solution is to make a lot of
people strongly disposed to inflict serious harm, and issue
instructions backed up by the threat of hellfire with an
authenticating miracle which not everyone witnessed and in any case
allegedly happened two thousand years ago. I like my solution better.
> The only problem with this scheme would be, it would only accomplish
> the pointing out of what was sinful; it wouldn't also accomplish
> conversion of the sinners from their sins. Knowing the right thing to
> do, and doing the right thing, are two very different things.
You're confining your attention to harms which are caused by human
choices. And for some reason you seem to think that it only matters
when the victims are human. What about harms which happen as a result
of someone refraining to act, like innocent people dying from absolute
poverty? What justifies God in sitting idle there?
And what about all the harms that used to occur but which no-one could
do anything about because medical knowledge hadn't advanced that far
yet?
Pretending that the only harms to worry about are the harms that come
to humans as a result of a decision by other humans to cause harm:
well, was there any particular need to make some people have a strong
desire to have sexual contact with children? God must have
deliberately chosen to do that for some reason.
All seems a bit sick to me...
> Still,
> it is better to know the right thing to do than not to know it, and
> giving your Law to your human creatures would at least accomplish
> that.
But that's the point. It is *not* possible for rational people to know
that there is a God or what his will is. And the God of the Bible is
disturbingly silent on the issue of causing harm to nonhumans. He
rather seems to be in favour of animal sacrifice, actually. He also
advocates slavery, and the death penalty for adultery and
homosexuality.
I don't think he did a great job of giving our ancestors guidance. The
legacy of his revelation is not doing much by way of providing us with
moral guidance now.
I'm not impressed with his efforts to help the situation.
> But it would also place a greater responsibility on those
> humans to whom you gave the Law.
>
> If you were omnipotent and all-good, naturally you would want not only
> to inform them of what was sinful but also to help them to avoid doing
> what was sinful and to do what was virtuous instead. So you would
> likely have to institute some means of your human creatures obtaining
> for themselves, or receiving from you, the proper dispositions. You
> would want to encourage them to change, and also to help them to
> change, if they were so willing. The proper dispositions, along with
> the will to act on them, we can call, for lack of any better word,
> grace. You would find it expedient to set up channels by which your
> creatures, at least those who accepted your plan in principle, could
> receive grace from you to help them to carry that plan out. For lack
> of a better term, let us call this institution, with its channels of
> grace, your Church.
>
Yeah, well, the Church hasn't been doing such a good job lately, has
it? We've been talking about that.
> Then --- and since you are infinitely wise you would naturally
> perceive this --- once the changing of peoples' dispositions had taken
> place, those very people would be far more inclined to act on further
> graces, and eliminate each others' suffering rather than perpetuate or
> cause it. Thus would you be bringing about the security in basic
> needs that you spoke about.
>
Can't wait.
> So it seems that, if you were omnipotent, you would bring it about
> that all sentient beings were secure in their basic needs and no
> longer had any need or disposition to seriously harm one another, by
> first giving your Law and then by instituting your Church.
>
Three billion years of evolutionay history so far. Hmmm, how are we
going? Wonder if we'll get there before we make ourselves extinct.
> Would this be morally wrong? Not in the least. It is how God does
> it.
Not a very good response to the problem of human evil, and you're
completely ignoring the argument from natural evil.
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> So it seems that, if you were omnipotent, you would bring it about
> that all sentient beings were secure in their basic needs and no
> longer had any need or disposition to seriously harm one another, by
> first giving your Law and then by instituting your Church.
>
> Would this be morally wrong? Not in the least. It is how God does
> it.
Suppose you were not God but instead a headmaster of a coed boarding
school for orphans. Then, how would you run the school?
Assume that you're supplied with equipment by Omni Corporation.
Their Omniscience product contains a compact Library of Congress that
you can implant in your brain and equipment to make audiovisual
recordings of every location where students can possibly be and beam
AV footage to your brain.
Their Omnipotence toolset is actually a toolshed with every tool known
to man and then some. For example, if you want to incinerate a
student, Omnipotence has a flame thrower and if you want to perform
lifesaving operations, it has scalpels, gloves, etc.
Their Omnipresence product is an army of robots to help ensure that
you have a helper in every location so that you don't have to go there
yourself don't have to wield the Omnipotence tools yourself if you
don't want to.
Now, how would you run your school? Would you first appoint a student
as school prophet, give him your school law and appoint other students
as school priests and ask them to run your school church? If not, how
would you run it?
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Dec 30, 4:55 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> darn, i wish you wouldnt spend soooo much time repeating yourself.
If you didn't repeat the same narcissistic behaviour I wouldn't repeat
myself pointing it out.
> im starting to feel sorry for you,
Don't worry about me, I've got a lot of stamina for this sort of
thing.
> especially since i read very little of
> what you post.
I don't believe you, since you respond to pretty much everything I
say, and you even jump in when I talk to others to tell them how
"hateful" I am. It seems you care quite a bit about what I say (and
what all the atheists say, for that matter) and you try to control how
others' view you by trying to discredit me. Which is a trait of a
pathological narcissist:
"In order to protect themselves against the intolerably painful
rejection and isolation that (they imagine) would follow if others
recognized their supposedly defective nature, such people make strong
attempts to control others’ view of them and behavior towards them."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
And so instead of having a reasonable debate (as per your whine that
no one seems up to one) you demonstrate once again that you are
incapable of having one because you cannot tolerate criticism, and
react to it with disdain:
"People who are overly narcissistic commonly feel rejected, humiliated
and threatened when criticised. To protect themselves from these
dangers, they often react with disdain, rage, and/or defiance to any
slight criticism, real or imagined."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
If you were capable of a reasonable debate, you would have addressed
the fact that your analogy about Christopher Columbus was inapt, and
you might have tried to give a different example. Or you might have
ceded my point, or any number of reasonable responses. Instead you do
what you always do - respond to criticism with childish pouting and
transparent lies.
It doesn't matter to me if you read this (although I know you do),
what matters to me, as I keep repeating, is that I speak up when the
insane try to inflict their insanity upon others. And I'll repeat it
as many times as you repeat your insanity.
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>O.K.
> > Actually, you have not said you are infinitely good.
>
> No, I didn't say that. I could make myself so if I chose. But the
> question is, if I did, would I change my mind about the propose course
> of action?
>
No, but how do you differentiate your proposed course from God's
actual and current course, in light of what I've said about it?
> > You could be, if
> > you wanted it, with your omnipotence, but you haven't said that you
> > would want it.
>
> I did say elsewhere that it would be a good idea.
>
I agree.
> > Again, you are attempting to make an analogy to God,
> > so maybe, again, it is safe to assume that you are including infinite
> > goodness. But here, that seems contraindicated. Your qualifiers of
> > only basic needs and only serious harm does seem to imply limited
> > goodness on your part.
>
> Not at all, I am perfectly open to the possibility that I would do
> even more to make the world better. The question is, surely being good
> would require me to do *at least that much*. It is, as you observed,
> at attempt at a new version of the argument from evil.
>
Good. We're on the same page.
> > Given that you are absolutely omnipotent, why
> > would you choose to be less than absolutely wise and absolutely good?
>
> Never said I would.
>
O.K.
> > Can it be that you feel, even from your own current perspective, that
> > supplying every desire indiscriminately would be less than ideal? And
> > perhaps you feel that to preclude any harming whatsoever is too much
> > of an imposition on free will?
>
> Yes.
>
I'm glad you agree here.
> > Other assumptions include the idea that sentient beings do now have
> > both needs and dispositions toward seriously harming one another. I
> > would question the assumption that there is ever any such need.
>
> There is for obligate carnivores.
>
> Do you eat meat?
>
Yes. But:
Isaiah 11:7 The calf and the bear shall feed: their young ones shall
rest together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
Genesis 1:29 And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing
seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of
their own kind, to be your food; 30 and to all beasts of the earth,
and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and
wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so
done.
Even obligate carnivores need not necessarily eat meat. God can do
anything.
> > But
> > certainly, people have dispositions. People do not always choose how
> > they want to be, although, to my mind, they should. I advocate taking
> > full responsibility for oneself, which means not blaming any part of
> > your personality on your parents, or on the world, or society, or
> > anything else apart from yourself. But if this is true, then it
> > follows that those with dispositions to seriously harm others chose
> > those dispositions for themselves, with free will.
>
> No. That does not logically follow. Taking responsibility for your
> personality is great but it is certainly not true that you freely
> chose it. You can freely choose to make efforts to change it.
>
If I can freely choose to change it, can I not freely choose exactly
how to change it? And if this is so, then how do I not choose my
personality?
I recognize that there are things about me, deeply ingrained, that I
would change only with extreme difficulty, but that is a matter of the
degree of effort required, or the amount of help required, or some
combination of those. There also may be things about which I am
unaware, i.e. possible better personality traits that I could not see
because of the ones I already have. In this latter sense only, it
seems I am not free to choose my personality. But surely, I can be
made aware of things I normally could not see. It is a fundamental
tenet of Christianity, both that the personality of Jesus is perfect,
and that we are called to imitate Him.
> > And thus, to take
> > them away might require the violation of free will.
>
> You seem to be saying that everyone is born innately good and that if
> someone develops into someone who wants to rape children then that was
> his own free choice which no-one should take away from him. Well,
> that's as may be. But what about all the natural evil, and death by
> starvation, and the animals who need to eat other animals in order to
> survive?
>
There is an argument I could advance for the existence of natural evil
as a factor in evolution, and thus its value for good.
But it is not entirely clear that we ought to concern ourselves with
the suffering of beasts. I am not advocating cruelty to animals,
merely pointing out that it might not count in any Argument From
Evil. It is unclear that their suffering as such can be assigned true
meaning, since they do not have immortal souls.
The suffering experienced by human beings since the Fall is part of
the punishment incurred by that Fall. So natural evil, suffering, and
death, are all things that would not occur if there were no sin in the
world. And the suffering of these natural evils, at least in part,
repairs for sin.
> > I think that, in
> > light of what I have said about taking responsibility for oneself, to
> > claim that one had a need to harm someone is essentially a violation
> > of this.
>
> Well, I was more thinking of the nonhuman obligate carnivones, who
> don't have moral responsibility, but it would still be good if they
> didn't need to kill other sentient beings in order to survive.
>
The suffering of beasts may also be causally connected to the Fall of
Man, seeing that in Genesis, everyone was eating plants.
> I do pay other people to inflict suffering and premature death on
> sentient beings, because plant-based agriculture and electricity
> production cause those things too, but I have made a fair amount of
> effort to reduce the extent to which I do that within the constraint
> of not dropping out of technological civilisation. If I did drop out
> of technological civilisation, then I would be sacrificing
> opportunities to reduce suffering in other ways. It is *in some sense*
> true that I don't need to case harm, but that would be true if I were
> an obligate carnivore. Fortunately, humans are not.
>
Even obligate carnivores *can* survive without killing, since God is
omnipotent. And, according to Isaiah, that day will also come.
> You may perhaps be restricting your attention to harm towards humans.
> Well, that is true. In normal circumstances, humans do not need to
> harm other humans.
>
I think, for the purposes of this discussion, we should confine our
considerations to humans. Especially since it is humans,
specifically, who have the fate of the whole world in their hands.
Humans alone can assess the trouble and imagine solutions, as you are
doing here.
> > I.e., it is rejecting one's own responsibility for one's own
> > actions, attitudes, and dispositions, transferring that responsibility
> > to some necessity.
>
> I will happily take responsibility for my actions. I just think that
> if I were omnipotent it might be good to do something about the
> propensity to cause harm which seems to be quite widespread.
>
Indeed. It seems that ought to be foremost on a deity's mind.
And yet, one of the most common objections to theism is the perception
that God (or the Church) is trying to dictate morality against
people's wishes. Now, you can't have it both ways. You can't fault
God for not doing enough to correct us, if at the same time you object
to Him doing anything at all.
> I wouldn't have a problem with making everyone see the light and go
> vegan, no, I would not consider that an unacceptable violation of free
> will.
What if some, saw the light, and rejected it with free will?
> So I suppose most of you think that it's just as well that I'm
> not omnipotent.
>
I think it is a good thing that if you ever do become omnipotent, you
will also have access to infinite Wisdom. I think God has all the
bases covered.
> > Would you use your omnipotence to force everyone to own their own
> > actions, and to take responsibility?
>
> Within some constraints, yes.
>
I specifically and intentionally used the word, "force." So, you
would violate free will? Couldn't an omniscient being come up with
better than that?
> > That might be a good thing, but
> > would it involve, again, a violation of free will? Since part of the
> > problem you are trying to address involves the free actions of
> > sentient beings themselves, how would you go about altering those
> > actions to better suit your plan, without, at the same time, violating
> > the free will of those beings?
>
> I would change the circumstance that some sentient beings are not
> secure in their basic needs through no fault of their own.
Are you aware that that very circumstance provides opportunities for
the exercise of the virtue of charity? And charity, in turn, is in
reality God correcting that circumstance!
>I would
> change the circumstance that some sentient beings need to harm others
> in order to survive. And I would make sentient beings *more disposed*
> not to do harm, while still allowing them to have free will. I don't
> consider that to be objectionable.
>
So, you would increase grace.
So does God.
> > Since you are omniscient (we assume), surely you would know just what
> > things were, for lack of a better word, sins. You would have at least
> > a general idea of what would constitute proper human behavior, and you
> > would be able to express it succinctly. You could probably, I dunno,
> > sum it up in ten or so principles, and then reveal those principles to
> > the human race. Maybe write them on stone tablets and communicate
> > them to one of your prophets. That would solve the problem of the
> > ambiguity of your perceived will.
>
> Not in the least. That is exactly the issue. The authenticating
> miracle was too long ago for reasonable people to believe in it now.
>
??? Do you need proof, that good is good?
> > It would accomplish spelling out
> > clearly, for your human creatures, exactly how you would like them to
> > behave. And it wouldn't violate their free will.
>
> My suggested solution is making people a little bit less disposed to
> act in ways I don't like.
So, grace.
>Your suggested solution is to make a lot of
> people strongly disposed to inflict serious harm,
No, they do that to themselves.
>and issue
> instructions backed up by the threat of hellfire
--- Old Testament ---
>with an
> authenticating miracle which not everyone witnessed and in any case
> allegedly happened two thousand years ago. I like my solution better.
>
You are confusing Testaments here. Two thousand years ago marks the
beginning of the New Testament, which is considerably greater than
"instructions backed up by the threat of hellfire."
In any case, we were discussing the Law, as God's instruction book for
living a perfect life. Apart from grace, the Law only points out what
is sinful. Once the knowledge is imparted, it doesn't require an
authenticating miracle to judge the good as good and sin as bad. It
only takes receiving it, and a conscience, and some honesty.
> > The only problem with this scheme would be, it would only accomplish
> > the pointing out of what was sinful; it wouldn't also accomplish
> > conversion of the sinners from their sins. Knowing the right thing to
> > do, and doing the right thing, are two very different things.
>
> You're confining your attention to harms which are caused by human
> choices.
The other forms of harm are possibly included under this head.
> And for some reason you seem to think that it only matters
> when the victims are human.
Human suffering has meaning, since humans have immortal souls.
>What about harms which happen as a result
> of someone refraining to act, like innocent people dying from absolute
> poverty? What justifies God in sitting idle there?
>
How does God normally act? My answer is that He normally acts through
inspiration, so in other words, He inspires someone to do something to
alleviate that poverty. Poverty per se is not necessarily want.
Poverty per se is a good thing. Jesus said,
Matthew 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom
of heaven.
> And what about all the harms that used to occur but which no-one could
> do anything about because medical knowledge hadn't advanced that far
> yet?
>
Suffering, too, is useful for conversion from sin, in several ways.
You yourself admitted above that it might not necessarily be the
wisest course, to just grant every desire indiscriminately. But any
ungranted desire equates to some suffering. So it seems that some
suffering, at least temporarily, is a good thing.
> Pretending that the only harms to worry about are the harms that come
> to humans as a result of a decision by other humans to cause harm:
> well, was there any particular need to make some people have a strong
> desire to have sexual contact with children? God must have
> deliberately chosen to do that for some reason.
>
God doesn't do that. There are other spirits whose influence is felt
here, besides God. One such spirit is the soul of the pedophile
himself, and there are also demons.
> All seems a bit sick to me...
>
Definitely sick, but not God you're talking about.
> > Still,
> > it is better to know the right thing to do than not to know it, and
> > giving your Law to your human creatures would at least accomplish
> > that.
>
> But that's the point. It is *not* possible for rational people to know
> that there is a God or what his will is.
How is that a point? You haven't proved anything like that.
>And the God of the Bible is
> disturbingly silent on the issue of causing harm to nonhumans. He
> rather seems to be in favour of animal sacrifice, actually. He also
> advocates slavery, and the death penalty for adultery and
> homosexuality.
>
> I don't think he did a great job of giving our ancestors guidance. The
> legacy of his revelation is not doing much by way of providing us with
> moral guidance now.
>
> I'm not impressed with his efforts to help the situation.
>
Actually, the Ten Commandments is a succinct summary of proper human
morality. Chattel slavery, for example, is prohibited by the fifth
Commandment, "thou shalt not steal," since a man's freedom belongs to
himself. Other forms of slavery are not necessarily immoral in the
least, for example, the slavery that Abraham gave for seven years for
Leah and then seven more for Rachael.
The death penalty for adultery indicates that God considers it a
serious offense; the same for homosexual relations. If you were in
charge would you let your wisdom dictate the morality, or would you
leave that to the individual? If you left it to the individual, how
is that any different from the way things are now?
> > But it would also place a greater responsibility on those
> > humans to whom you gave the Law.
>
> > If you were omnipotent and all-good, naturally you would want not only
> > to inform them of what was sinful but also to help them to avoid doing
> > what was sinful and to do what was virtuous instead. So you would
> > likely have to institute some means of your human creatures obtaining
> > for themselves, or receiving from you, the proper dispositions. You
> > would want to encourage them to change, and also to help them to
> > change, if they were so willing. The proper dispositions, along with
> > the will to act on them, we can call, for lack of any better word,
> > grace. You would find it expedient to set up channels by which your
> > creatures, at least those who accepted your plan in principle, could
> > receive grace from you to help them to carry that plan out. For lack
> > of a better term, let us call this institution, with its channels of
> > grace, your Church.
>
> Yeah, well, the Church hasn't been doing such a good job lately, has
> it? We've been talking about that.
>
The channels of grace still work, despite the widespread corruption in
the Church. That is part of the beauty of the Church's design, that
our salvation does not depend on the holiness of clerics, but only on
God.
> > Then --- and since you are infinitely wise you would naturally
> > perceive this --- once the changing of peoples' dispositions had taken
> > place, those very people would be far more inclined to act on further
> > graces, and eliminate each others' suffering rather than perpetuate or
> > cause it. Thus would you be bringing about the security in basic
> > needs that you spoke about.
>
> Can't wait.
>
Then my gosh --- why wait??? What is keeping you from implementing
this solution that the actually omnipotent being has already put in
place?
> > So it seems that, if you were omnipotent, you would bring it about
> > that all sentient beings were secure in their basic needs and no
> > longer had any need or disposition to seriously harm one another, by
> > first giving your Law and then by instituting your Church.
>
> Three billion years of evolutionay history so far. Hmmm, how are we
> going? Wonder if we'll get there before we make ourselves extinct.
>
So do I. Well actually, I have hope that we will. God is more
powerful than any of our sins.
> > Would this be morally wrong? Not in the least. It is how God does
> > it.
>
> Not a very good response to the problem of human evil, and you're
> completely ignoring the argument from natural evil.
First, natural evil can be completely subsumed under human evil, since
in the Garden of Eden there was no suffering of any kind.
Then, for you to say "not a very good response" is not a very good
response. The reason it isn't very good is you don't support it with
anything. Point out what is wrong with it, point out what could be
done better. Keep in mind that you have to take everything into
account.
We have,
1. Human free will,
2. The unfortunate fact of human sin,
3. The standard of moral perfection, and
4. God's desire to bring humans to that standard.
He has to convert them from their sins, without violating their free
will. His solution is grace. What would yours be?
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>I think I made it reasonably clear in my last post, didn't I? First of
all, you see no reason to take nonhuman suffering into account, I do
see reason to take it into account. Secondly, God's current course on
your account involves allowing millions of under-five to die from
preventable causes each year, mine does not. Thirdly, you apparently
think that it would be ethically objectionable to remove some people's
dispositions to desire sexual relations with children because that
would "violate their free will". I don't really have a problem with
that. I'm not sure that they freely chose to have the dispositions in
the first place, actually.
Those are some notable points of difference, there could be others.
Well, quite, so this rather reinforces my point, doesn't it?
> > > But
> > > certainly, people have dispositions. People do not always choose how
> > > they want to be, although, to my mind, they should. I advocate taking
> > > full responsibility for oneself, which means not blaming any part of
> > > your personality on your parents, or on the world, or society, or
> > > anything else apart from yourself. But if this is true, then it
> > > follows that those with dispositions to seriously harm others chose
> > > those dispositions for themselves, with free will.
>
> > No. That does not logically follow. Taking responsibility for your
> > personality is great but it is certainly not true that you freely
> > chose it. You can freely choose to make efforts to change it.
>
> If I can freely choose to change it, can I not freely choose exactly
> how to change it? And if this is so, then how do I not choose my
> personality?
>
Let us conjecture for the sake of argument that you do not currently
regularly have strong desires to engage in homosexual activity. If
that is so then that is an aspect of your personality, is it not?
Could you freely choose to change that right now, if you entertained a
whim to do so? Is that in your option set?
You can freely choose to make efforts to change your personality in
certain ways, but it seems implausible to me that you can choose to
make any change in your personality that you like instantly. Which
would mean that there are some restrictions on your freedom to change
it in any way you want to.
> I recognize that there are things about me, deeply ingrained, that I
> would change only with extreme difficulty, but that is a matter of the
> degree of effort required, or the amount of help required, or some
> combination of those.
Well, you only have a finite time budget...
Could you freely choose to raise your IQ to 200, if only you tried
hard enough? (I apologise if I assume too much when I conjecture that
you're not already there.) Is that a personality trait?
Could you freely choose to become an atheist?
Is a propensity towards depression, or a vulnerability to psychotic
episodes, a personality trait? Can someone freely choose to change
*that* by some means other than managing it with medication?
What counts as a personality trait and what doesn't?
> There also may be things about which I am
> unaware, i.e. possible better personality traits that I could not see
> because of the ones I already have. In this latter sense only, it
> seems I am not free to choose my personality. But surely, I can be
> made aware of things I normally could not see. It is a fundamental
> tenet of Christianity, both that the personality of Jesus is perfect,
> and that we are called to imitate Him.
>
> > > And thus, to take
> > > them away might require the violation of free will.
>
> > You seem to be saying that everyone is born innately good and that if
> > someone develops into someone who wants to rape children then that was
> > his own free choice which no-one should take away from him. Well,
> > that's as may be. But what about all the natural evil, and death by
> > starvation, and the animals who need to eat other animals in order to
> > survive?
>
> There is an argument I could advance for the existence of natural evil
> as a factor in evolution, and thus its value for good.
>
But an omnipotent God could achieve whatever good has been achieved by
natural evolution without all the enormous amount of excruciating
suffering that it involves over hundreds of millions of years.
> But it is not entirely clear that we ought to concern ourselves with
> the suffering of beasts. I am not advocating cruelty to animals,
> merely pointing out that it might not count in any Argument From
> Evil. It is unclear that their suffering as such can be assigned true
> meaning, since they do not have immortal souls.
>
I find that stance rather morally repugnant.
> The suffering experienced by human beings since the Fall is part of
> the punishment incurred by that Fall.
Including in the case of innocent children under the age of five?
> So natural evil, suffering, and
> death, are all things that would not occur if there were no sin in the
> world.
But many people, including many innocent children under five, suffer
horribly when they have no moral responsibility for the sin in the
world...
> And the suffering of these natural evils, at least in part,
> repairs for sin.
>
Well, as I hope I've made clear, it wouldn't be the way I would run
things if I were omnipotent. So that answers the question you asked me
earlier.
> > > I think that, in
> > > light of what I have said about taking responsibility for oneself, to
> > > claim that one had a need to harm someone is essentially a violation
> > > of this.
>
> > Well, I was more thinking of the nonhuman obligate carnivones, who
> > don't have moral responsibility, but it would still be good if they
> > didn't need to kill other sentient beings in order to survive.
>
> The suffering of beasts may also be causally connected to the Fall of
> Man, seeing that in Genesis, everyone was eating plants.
>
Well, the nonhuman animals clearly aren't in any way morally
responsible for anything that Adam and Eve or any other human did, so
that seems rather unreasonable.
> > I do pay other people to inflict suffering and premature death on
> > sentient beings, because plant-based agriculture and electricity
> > production cause those things too, but I have made a fair amount of
> > effort to reduce the extent to which I do that within the constraint
> > of not dropping out of technological civilisation. If I did drop out
> > of technological civilisation, then I would be sacrificing
> > opportunities to reduce suffering in other ways. It is *in some sense*
> > true that I don't need to case harm, but that would be true if I were
> > an obligate carnivore. Fortunately, humans are not.
>
> Even obligate carnivores *can* survive without killing, since God is
> omnipotent.
With God's assistance, yes, on the assumption that an omnipotent God
exists. But if God exists then he is choosing not to assist them in
that way for whatever reason.
> And, according to Isaiah, that day will also come.
>
Can't wait, but what's holding him up?
> > You may perhaps be restricting your attention to harm towards humans.
> > Well, that is true. In normal circumstances, humans do not need to
> > harm other humans.
>
> I think, for the purposes of this discussion, we should confine our
> considerations to humans.
I don't see any particular reason why. I think that the argument from
evil based on nonhuman suffering is extremely strong and I find the
suggestion that the vast quantity of nonhuman suffering involved can
be ignored to be morally repugnant. However, I do think that the
argument from evil based on human suffering alone is also extremely
strong, so I suppose I could comply with your suggestion for the sake
of argument, for the moment at least.
> Especially since it is humans,
> specifically, who have the fate of the whole world in their hands.
> Humans alone can assess the trouble and imagine solutions, as you are
> doing here.
>
That is true if there is no God, as indeed there is not, certainly.
But on your view of the matter there is a God who is infinitely wise
and infinitely powerful, so it's not clear what's standing in the way
of him doing something about the problem.
There are substantial limits on the power of humans to do something
about the situation. Those limits were much stronger until quite
recently. In the late nineteenth century even the richest people in
the world had no power to prevent deaths from influenza. We certainly
could be doing a lot more about the problem. You could stop eating
meat, for example, if you wanted to, But that is hardly an answer to
the argument from evil.
> > > I.e., it is rejecting one's own responsibility for one's own
> > > actions, attitudes, and dispositions, transferring that responsibility
> > > to some necessity.
>
> > I will happily take responsibility for my actions. I just think that
> > if I were omnipotent it might be good to do something about the
> > propensity to cause harm which seems to be quite widespread.
>
> Indeed. It seems that ought to be foremost on a deity's mind.
>
> And yet, one of the most common objections to theism is the perception
> that God (or the Church) is trying to dictate morality against
> people's wishes. Now, you can't have it both ways. You can't fault
> God for not doing enough to correct us, if at the same time you object
> to Him doing anything at all.
>
No, I can't. And I never said I did. I do object to people forcing
people to comply with a moral rule that they like *on those occasions
when it seems to me to be unjustified*, certainly. But I have
indicated certain ways in which I think that it *would* be justifiable
for God to take steps which would be likely to get people to comply
with certain moral rules. That doesn't mean that I need to agree with
every moral teaching currently handed out by the Church.
> > I wouldn't have a problem with making everyone see the light and go
> > vegan, no, I would not consider that an unacceptable violation of free
> > will.
>
> What if some, saw the light, and rejected it with free will?
>
Well, you could punish them, proportionately...
> > So I suppose most of you think that it's just as well that I'm
> > not omnipotent.
>
> I think it is a good thing that if you ever do become omnipotent, you
> will also have access to infinite Wisdom. I think God has all the
> bases covered.
>
> > > Would you use your omnipotence to force everyone to own their own
> > > actions, and to take responsibility?
>
> > Within some constraints, yes.
>
> I specifically and intentionally used the word, "force." So, you
> would violate free will? Couldn't an omniscient being come up with
> better than that?
>
I don't believe that the course of action you describe is a violation
of free will.
> > > That might be a good thing, but
> > > would it involve, again, a violation of free will? Since part of the
> > > problem you are trying to address involves the free actions of
> > > sentient beings themselves, how would you go about altering those
> > > actions to better suit your plan, without, at the same time, violating
> > > the free will of those beings?
>
> > I would change the circumstance that some sentient beings are not
> > secure in their basic needs through no fault of their own.
>
> Are you aware that that very circumstance provides opportunities for
> the exercise of the virtue of charity?
Yes, but I'd rather that there was no need for the exercise of that
virtue. I don't want other sentient beings to be hideously miserable
just so that I can show how charitable I am.
> And charity, in turn, is in
> reality God correcting that circumstance!
>
Well, if he's omnipotent, he should address the problem in a different
and more effective way.
> >I would
> > change the circumstance that some sentient beings need to harm others
> > in order to survive. And I would make sentient beings *more disposed*
> > not to do harm, while still allowing them to have free will. I don't
> > consider that to be objectionable.
>
> So, you would increase grace.
>
> So does God.
>
I'm not especially impressed with the extent to which he does it,
given his omnipotence.
> > > Since you are omniscient (we assume), surely you would know just what
> > > things were, for lack of a better word, sins. You would have at least
> > > a general idea of what would constitute proper human behavior, and you
> > > would be able to express it succinctly. You could probably, I dunno,
> > > sum it up in ten or so principles, and then reveal those principles to
> > > the human race. Maybe write them on stone tablets and communicate
> > > them to one of your prophets. That would solve the problem of the
> > > ambiguity of your perceived will.
>
> > Not in the least. That is exactly the issue. The authenticating
> > miracle was too long ago for reasonable people to believe in it now.
>
> ??? Do you need proof, that good is good?
>
No. That is a tautology. The question is whether I need God's guidance
about what is morally good as opposed to exercising my own judgement.
If it is all up to my own judgement that that is fine, except that in
that case God isn't really helping me. If I need his guidance, then it
would help if I could have some rational grounds for believing that
some revelations have been authenticated by a miracle. I don't
currently have that, any alleged authenticating miracle took place too
long ago for me to have any rational grounds for believing in it.
> > > It would accomplish spelling out
> > > clearly, for your human creatures, exactly how you would like them to
> > > behave. And it wouldn't violate their free will.
>
> > My suggested solution is making people a little bit less disposed to
> > act in ways I don't like.
>
> So, grace.
>
Given the way the world is I take there to be rather strong evidence
that we could use a lot more of it. I don't think we need to be blown
away by the job God did of setting things up.
> >Your suggested solution is to make a lot of
> > people strongly disposed to inflict serious harm,
>
> No, they do that to themselves.
>
Debatable.
So, you made the suggestion that we should only talk about human
suffering, let us suppose that I go along with that for the sake of
argument. Well, ignoring nonhuman suffering we may take it that
neither you nor I have any strong disposition to *inflict* serious
harm, but we certainly could both do more to reduce human suffering,
couldn't we, I take it that on your account we freely chose to be
disposed to not do as much as we could do. But what about God's
decision to set the whole situation up in the first place whereby we
run the risk of many innocent under-five children dying painfully
because of people's failure to exercise their power to choose as well
as they could? Seems to me that that decision is a bit questionable.
Apparently it's all justified by the compensating good that people
have the opportunity to exercise the virtue of charity. I find that a
rather morally repugnant response, myself. And how about the fact that
for most of human history, many innocent under-five children and many
others died painfully and there was nothing *anyone* could do about
it? What exactly was that supposed to achieve?
> >and issue
> > instructions backed up by the threat of hellfire
>
> --- Old Testament ---
>
Oh, you deny the doctrine of hell? The Catholic Church doesn't. If you
disagree on that point then I suppose you must be claiming that God is
allowing them to preach a false doctrine.
> >with an
> > authenticating miracle which not everyone witnessed and in any case
> > allegedly happened two thousand years ago. I like my solution better.
>
> You are confusing Testaments here. Two thousand years ago marks the
> beginning of the New Testament, which is considerably greater than
> "instructions backed up by the threat of hellfire."
>
How so?
> In any case, we were discussing the Law, as God's instruction book for
> living a perfect life.
As set forth where, exactly?
> Apart from grace, the Law only points out what
> is sinful. Once the knowledge is imparted, it doesn't require an
> authenticating miracle to judge the good as good and sin as bad. It
> only takes receiving it, and a conscience, and some honesty.
>
Which bits of the Bible are you talking about here?
> > > The only problem with this scheme would be, it would only accomplish
> > > the pointing out of what was sinful; it wouldn't also accomplish
> > > conversion of the sinners from their sins. Knowing the right thing to
> > > do, and doing the right thing, are two very different things.
>
> > You're confining your attention to harms which are caused by human
> > choices.
>
> The other forms of harm are possibly included under this head.
>
?
> > And for some reason you seem to think that it only matters
> > when the victims are human.
>
> Human suffering has meaning, since humans have immortal souls.
>
"For consider: If we have immortal souls, then however bad our earthly
lives have been, however much suffering and personal tragedy we have
had to endure, we can at least look forward to the prospect of having
a joyful existence in the eternal hereafter. Not so a milk-fed veal
calf or a mouse whose internal organs burst in response to heavy doses
of paint stripper. Absent a soul, there can be no life after this one
that compensates them for their misery while on Earth. Denied the
possibility of such compensation, which we are assuming all humans
enjoy, the pain, loneliness, terror, and other evils these animals
suffer are, if anything, arguably worse than those experienced by
human beings. So, no, the soul argument will not serve the purposes of
those seeking a justification of the tyranny humans exercise over
other animals. Just the opposite."
Tom Regan, "The Animal Rights Debate".
> >What about harms which happen as a result
> > of someone refraining to act, like innocent people dying from absolute
> > poverty? What justifies God in sitting idle there?
>
> How does God normally act? My answer is that He normally acts through
> inspiration, so in other words, He inspires someone to do something to
> alleviate that poverty.
He's obviously achieving a lot less in that direction than an
omnipotent being could even now in the 21st century, let alone for
most of human history.
> Poverty per se is not necessarily want.
> Poverty per se is a good thing.
Absolute poverty, which has been extremely widespread for most of
human history and still sadly very widespread today, is not a good
thing. The effects of absolute poverty are uncontroversially very bad.
Anyone who has any conception of what absolute poverty is must realise
that it is a terrible insult to all civilised human values to say that
it is in any way good.
http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/00282/over_whatis.htm
> Jesus said,
>
> Matthew 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom
> of heaven.
>
If the nearly 10 million under-five children who die of preventable
causes every year get to go to heaven, then that's great, but that
still doesn't mean that what they went through is in any way good,
*nor* that they were in any way responsible for it, and no decent
person could possibly suggest any such thing.
Any attempt to minimise the *data* on which the argument from evil is
based is offensive in the extreme.
> > And what about all the harms that used to occur but which no-one could
> > do anything about because medical knowledge hadn't advanced that far
> > yet?
>
> Suffering, too, is useful for conversion from sin, in several ways.
> You yourself admitted above that it might not necessarily be the
> wisest course, to just grant every desire indiscriminately. But any
> ungranted desire equates to some suffering. So it seems that some
> suffering, at least temporarily, is a good thing.
>
But if you understand the forms of suffering that I'm talking about,
then what you are saying is truly disgusting. It's pretty much
impossible to concoct a response to the argument from evil without
saying things which are extremely disgusting.
> > Pretending that the only harms to worry about are the harms that come
> > to humans as a result of a decision by other humans to cause harm:
> > well, was there any particular need to make some people have a strong
> > desire to have sexual contact with children? God must have
> > deliberately chosen to do that for some reason.
>
> God doesn't do that. There are other spirits whose influence is felt
> here, besides God.
And God in his omniscience and omnipotence knows that the spirits are
having that effect and deliberately allows them to have that effect.
> One such spirit is the soul of the pedophile
> himself, and there are also demons.
>
So why does God allow it? Respect for free will?
> > All seems a bit sick to me...
>
> Definitely sick, but not God you're talking about.
>
I don't know if he can escape the charge of being sick if he
deliberately allows it to happen.
> > > Still,
> > > it is better to know the right thing to do than not to know it, and
> > > giving your Law to your human creatures would at least accomplish
> > > that.
>
> > But that's the point. It is *not* possible for rational people to know
> > that there is a God or what his will is.
>
> How is that a point? You haven't proved anything like that.
>
Well, the burden of proof is on the theist, so if I'm wrong then just
show me the least reason to think that God exists, and how I would
*rationally* go about deciding what his will is...
Didn't you yourself admit just recently that you have to take someone
at their word about the matter? Why would I have any *reason* to do
that? Why would they have any *reason* to believe it in the first
place?
> >And the God of the Bible is
> > disturbingly silent on the issue of causing harm to nonhumans. He
> > rather seems to be in favour of animal sacrifice, actually. He also
> > advocates slavery, and the death penalty for adultery and
> > homosexuality.
>
> > I don't think he did a great job of giving our ancestors guidance. The
> > legacy of his revelation is not doing much by way of providing us with
> > moral guidance now.
>
> > I'm not impressed with his efforts to help the situation.
>
> Actually, the Ten Commandments is a succinct summary of proper human
> morality. Chattel slavery, for example, is prohibited by the fifth
> Commandment, "thou shalt not steal," since a man's freedom belongs to
> himself. Other forms of slavery are not necessarily immoral in the
> least, for example, the slavery that Abraham gave for seven years for
> Leah and then seven more for Rachael.
>
That's sick. You are morally bankrupt.
> The death penalty for adultery indicates that God considers it a
> serious offense; the same for homosexual relations.
Ditto.
> If you were in
> charge would you let your wisdom dictate the morality, or would you
> leave that to the individual? If you left it to the individual, how
> is that any different from the way things are now?
>
I would make some effort to get individuals to engage in what I
regarded as morally good behaviour, but I think that the moral views
that you have just expressed are disgusting. So there is a moral
disagreement with the views actually expressed in the Bible, but also,
*supposing* contrary to fact that the Bible did actually express a
decent morality, I think that an omnipotent being could be doing more
to get people to comply, even within the constraints of respecting
free will. And also more to prevent people from unspeakable suffering
which is not due to immoral choices.
> > > But it would also place a greater responsibility on those
> > > humans to whom you gave the Law.
>
> > > If you were omnipotent and all-good, naturally you would want not only
> > > to inform them of what was sinful but also to help them to avoid doing
> > > what was sinful and to do what was virtuous instead. So you would
> > > likely have to institute some means of your human creatures obtaining
> > > for themselves, or receiving from you, the proper dispositions. You
> > > would want to encourage them to change, and also to help them to
> > > change, if they were so willing. The proper dispositions, along with
> > > the will to act on them, we can call, for lack of any better word,
> > > grace. You would find it expedient to set up channels by which your
> > > creatures, at least those who accepted your plan in principle, could
> > > receive grace from you to help them to carry that plan out. For lack
> > > of a better term, let us call this institution, with its channels of
> > > grace, your Church.
>
> > Yeah, well, the Church hasn't been doing such a good job lately, has
> > it? We've been talking about that.
>
> The channels of grace still work, despite the widespread corruption in
> the Church. That is part of the beauty of the Church's design, that
> our salvation does not depend on the holiness of clerics, but only on
> God.
>
Makes you wonder what the function of the Church is, really. To cover
up the unspeakable abuse of little children, I guess.
> > > Then --- and since you are infinitely wise you would naturally
> > > perceive this --- once the changing of peoples' dispositions had taken
> > > place, those very people would be far more inclined to act on further
> > > graces, and eliminate each others' suffering rather than perpetuate or
> > > cause it. Thus would you be bringing about the security in basic
> > > needs that you spoke about.
>
> > Can't wait.
>
> Then my gosh --- why wait??? What is keeping you from implementing
> this solution that the actually omnipotent being has already put in
> place?
>
Well, quite. I am a member of a philanthropy group.
http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/
We have been trying to do evaluation of which charities are most
effective at achieving their goals, as have these people:
And I have been looking into their research and making generous
charitable contributions. So there you go.
So that's great, but it doesn't lead me to revise what I say about the
argument from evil.
> > > So it seems that, if you were omnipotent, you would bring it about
> > > that all sentient beings were secure in their basic needs and no
> > > longer had any need or disposition to seriously harm one another, by
> > > first giving your Law and then by instituting your Church.
>
> > Three billion years of evolutionay history so far. Hmmm, how are we
> > going? Wonder if we'll get there before we make ourselves extinct.
>
> So do I. Well actually, I have hope that we will. God is more
> powerful than any of our sins.
>
If he's so powerful then I'd say his approach to the problem leaves
much to be desired...
> > > Would this be morally wrong? Not in the least. It is how God does
> > > it.
>
> > Not a very good response to the problem of human evil, and you're
> > completely ignoring the argument from natural evil.
>
> First, natural evil can be completely subsumed under human evil, since
> in the Garden of Eden there was no suffering of any kind.
>
You take the Genesis account of the matter to be *factual*? You deny
that there were many hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary
history involving excruciating suffering for many animals who could do
nothing about it before humans ever existed?
Then you're beyond hope, really, aren't you?
There's no reason why other sentient beings should have to bear the
burden of any immoral decisions that Adam and Eve allegedly made.
> Then, for you to say "not a very good response" is not a very good
> response.
Yes, it is, especially in conjunction with my other remarks.
> The reason it isn't very good is you don't support it with
> anything.
False. I argued my point of view very eloquently.
> Point out what is wrong with it,
I did.
> point out what could be
> done better.
I did. In fact I did that in my first post, and I elaborated on that
in response to you.
> Keep in mind that you have to take everything into
> account.
>
I did.
> We have,
>
> 1. Human free will,
> 2. The unfortunate fact of human sin,
> 3. The standard of moral perfection, and
> 4. God's desire to bring humans to that standard.
>
> He has to convert them from their sins, without violating their free
> will. His solution is grace. What would yours be?
I think I've made it pretty clear.
dillan
<dfernando@gmail.com>(Sorry for the delay in responding. Happy New Year !)
Well, if you choose to create matter as you described above, then
through the melania you'll change the gravitational force of the
earth, thus causing the earth to heat up, which inturn will cause all
sorts of problems. If you choose some sort of matter recycling
scenario, then you'll have to account to population growth, which will
lead to the above problem eventually.
Not to mention that if people are given for free, what they need,
eventually people will find no need to invent or progress.
Naturally you can change free will of people to do what you please,
but if you're willing to go that far, why not let everyone die and let
then not feel any pain?
These are the problems that I could find with your approach and I'm
not even that smart.
> > > > Perhaps it's possible, I'm not really sure.
>
> > > I don't know what would be the cause of confusion on that point.
>
> > > Do you have to suffer in order to have free will? Does that mean that
> > > when things are going well you no longer have free will?
>
> > Not at all. That's not what I'm saying at all. My confusion is because
> > I'm not sure whether blindly effecting changing would cause even
> > greater harm.
>
> Well, you would have to think things through about how best to help,
> as indeed I do now when I am making a charitable contribution, I try
> to find out where my money would be best spent. But if I were
> omnipotent and had the power to give myself omniscience, then I think
> that it would be feasible to work out some kind of plan.
I believe that the current approach is the only way to govern the
universe with;
1) Maintaining the free will
2) Allowing people to live free and have social progress
3) Having consistent set of natural laws to allow social progress and
in some cases free will, possible.
Naturally, if you're omnipotent, you can change the laws to whatever
way you choose, but that would not preserve the attributes I've
described above.
> > Like I said, it's difficult to change things in
> > isolation. Perhaps if we restrict our domain to just earth, we might
> > be able to perceive success, but if you're the ruler of the universe,
> > and given that there could be other sentient beings out there, how
> > could we be sure the changes you make will not effect someone/
> > something in some other part of the universe?
>
> I only had Earth in mind. It should be possible to fix Earth up
> without affecting other sentient beings in the universe.
>
> > > > > So, you feel uncertain about to what extent it is a good thing to
> > > > > alleviate the suffering in the world. Does this come up when you make
> > > > > decisions about what to do about alleviating suffering? Do you ever
> > > > > thing "I could save this starving child, but maybe it would be the
> > > > > wrong thing to do"?
>
> > > > I don't see why you had the need to make this about me. I was clearly
> > > > talking about actions based on omniscience.
>
> > > We were talking about what you feel confident about given your
> > > *current* knowledge.
>
> > You never said "current knowledge" until now. (or perhaps you implied
> > that when you said "logically possible")
>
> When I asked you that question which you found bothersome, I made it
> clear that I was talking about how you make your decisions *now*.
I mist have missed it.. my apologies.
> > That was where the confusion
> > was. My apparent confusion lied in the assumption that for an
> > omniscient being, would it be the moral course of action. I pleaded
> > ignorance on that and said perhaps it's harder than you might think.
>
> So you think that God *would* do this, but for some reason that we
> don't know about it's just too *hard*, even for an omnipotent being?
>
> Do these considerations not rather cast doubt on the rationality of
> theism?
Only if you phrase like that. What I meant was that, God could do what
he wished, but the current approach is the only possible approach
available which could preserver the attributes I mentioned above.
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Dec 30, 8:49 am, George Chalkin <georgechal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > funny, you seem to be the one spouting statistics like 'all xtians
> > lord of others...all week long' or some similar half baked concoction.
> > seems like that echoing is still going strong in yo haid... the fundie
> > statement is rather bizarre too... guess you havent seen me crashing
> > TC and others huh? wakey wakey!
>
> Your all slime, you never make a salient point. I'm sure TC et al are
> not here just to debate amonst themselves. And I'm sure once people
> realize how stupid you are, they'll start running you out of here with
> ridicule, but please stick around, I like the laughs.
Observer
You have nailed this stupid fuck's hide to your barn door.
Well done !
And I don't think there any here ,capable of thought , who could
seriously disagree with your comments .
The only thing this shit for brains has going for him is the fact that
he has shit for brains.
Regards
Psychonomist
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Dec 29, 10:12 am, George Chalkin <georgechal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Needs or Deeds Brock, we're sick or hearing your bullshit without any
> > > goods. Put up or shut up.
>
> > I've put it up nicely:
>
> > "clearly any speculation on what Rupert may or may not do if he were
> > omnipotent is inadaquate without some or all of the indicated
> > clarification."
>
> Still no evidence Brock--worse even than speculation, because it
> doesn't even follow the form of logic, nor reason. Go back into your
> delusional, dark, cave. I'm sick of hearing it. Your theological
> fountain "runneth" dry.
Observer
Ha Ha ha ha ha !
He is just a fucking zombie !
Regards
Psychonomist
>
>
>
> On Dec 29, 8:42 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:07 AM, George Chalkin
>
> > <georgechal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Needs or Deeds Brock, we're sick or hearing your bullshit without any
> > > goods. Put up or shut up.
>
> > I've put it up nicely:
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Dec 29, 1:11 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 1:12 PM, George Chalkin <georgechal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Needs or Deeds Brock, we're sick or hearing your bullshit without any
> >> > goods. Put up or shut up.
>
> >> I've put it up nicely:
>
> >> "clearly any speculation on what Rupert may or may not do if he were
> >> omnipotent is inadaquate without some or all of the indicated
> >> clarification."
>
> > Still no evidence Brock--worse even than speculation,
>
> Its not up to me to clarify Rupert's position. :)
Observer
And a damn good thing to! In as much as you have never been able to
clarify your own .
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Psychonomist
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>These are long-term issues and I would think that with omnipotence and
omniscience they are solvable.
> Not to mention that if people are given for free, what they need,
> eventually people will find no need to invent or progress.
>
But that is not what was proposed.
> Naturally you can change free will of people to do what you please,
> but if you're willing to go that far, why not let everyone die and let
> then not feel any pain?
>
Because they get benefits from being alive.
> These are the problems that I could find with your approach and I'm
> not even that smart.
>
Your objections don't strike me as especially compelling.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Perhaps it's possible, I'm not really sure.
>
> > > > I don't know what would be the cause of confusion on that point.
>
> > > > Do you have to suffer in order to have free will? Does that mean that
> > > > when things are going well you no longer have free will?
>
> > > Not at all. That's not what I'm saying at all. My confusion is because
> > > I'm not sure whether blindly effecting changing would cause even
> > > greater harm.
>
> > Well, you would have to think things through about how best to help,
> > as indeed I do now when I am making a charitable contribution, I try
> > to find out where my money would be best spent. But if I were
> > omnipotent and had the power to give myself omniscience, then I think
> > that it would be feasible to work out some kind of plan.
>
> I believe that the current approach is the only way to govern the
> universe with;
> 1) Maintaining the free will
> 2) Allowing people to live free and have social progress
> 3) Having consistent set of natural laws to allow social progress and
> in some cases free will, possible.
>
> Naturally, if you're omnipotent, you can change the laws to whatever
> way you choose, but that would not preserve the attributes I've
> described above.
>
Yes, it would.
No.
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>
Observer
Well Said ! This is one sick puppy !
The world is somewhat blessed by the fact that he is too fucking
stupid to present much that could dangerous as did those other
psychotic shit heads which you listed.
Small favors Hugh?
Regards
Psychonomist
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>dangerous" .... yeah, i understand that statement. well thought out
and brilliantly presented, as usual. hahahahaha ;^-)
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>Yup. Next question then becomes, what is the nature of his sickness?
> The world is somewhat blessed by the fact that he is too fucking
> stupid to present much that could dangerous as did those other
> psychotic shit heads which you listed.
I lean toward him being not charismatic enough rather than not
intelligent enough to be dangerous. Jim Jones, David Karesh, and
Applewhite, even Jesus (allegedly), were just as nuts but they could
attract a following (Warren Jeffs has zero charisma but he took over
an existing cult in a Machiavellian manouver - not hard to do when
your target has been taught to be gullible for their entire lives via
religion, and he did have nepotism on his side). E_space has revealed
a suicidal side just like they did, but the difference is that those
guys managed to attract a following and he can't. I don't see either
theists or atheists lining up to hire him as the spirit guide he's
pitching himself as at every opportunity. And he's obviously failed to
do this elsewhere, otherwise he wouldn't be seeking converts over the
internet.
As for intelligence, since he advocates "not learning from others" I
don't know how intelligent he could possibly be, since a lot(most?) of
our knowledge is learned, so he's missing out on that aspect of
intelligence at the very least. But his goal isn't academic, his goal
is to con others into adopting his religion, so his intelligence must
be measured against how well he does that.
> Small favors Huh?
Completely agree.
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>shallow, insignificant, wildly misguided, self-doubting, comlex-
filled, and hateful. gee neil, thanks for the lessons! how can i ever
repay you??? not to worry though. all i need to do to remove those
lessons is to go sit on the potty.... hahahaha ;^-)
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Jan 2, 4:53 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> wrong ... ive learned about you neily boy! what did i learn? how to be
> shallow, insignificant, wildly misguided, self-doubting, comlex-
> filled, and hateful. gee neil, thanks for the lessons! how can i ever
> repay you??? not to worry though. all i need to do to remove those
> lessons is to go sit on the potty.... hahahaha ;^-)
"People who are overly narcissistic commonly feel rejected, humiliated
and threatened when criticised. To protect themselves from these
dangers, they often react with disdain, rage, and/or defiance to any
slight criticism, real or imagined."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
Immature, childish rage is still rage.
This is also applicable:
"Tu quoque is a Latin term that describes a kind of logical fallacy. A
tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by
asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that
position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies
equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem
argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its
positions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
Whatever I may or may not be does not refute that the only difference
between you and Jim Jones is a cult following.
dj Briscoe
<sandsands.briscoe4@gmail.com>--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>> Leave my WIKI,alone:(chuckle):}...dj
It's not "your" Wiki.
dj Briscoe
<sandsands.briscoe4@gmail.com>Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>> Yes it is I have a huge,huge,huge,Wiki dictionary. Almost a story high..It
> is mine..no one else seems to give it credit...dj (chuckle)....
Theist attempts at humour can be so revealing.
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>You speculate there may be a reason to take it into account.
Consider:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm
The nature and degree of pain in lower animals is very obscure, and in
the necessary absence of data it is difficult to say whether it should
rightly be classed with the merely formal evil which belongs to
inanimate objects, or with the suffering of human beings. The latter
view was generally held in ancient times, and may perhaps he referred
to the anthropomorphic tendency of primitive minds which appears in
the doctrine of metempsychosis. Thus it has often been supposed that
animal suffering, together with many of the imperfections of inanimate
nature, was due to the fall of man, with whose welfare, as the chief
part of creation, were bound up the fortunes of the rest (see Theoph.
Antioch., Ad Autolyc., II; cf. Genesis 3 and 1 Corinthians 9). The
opposite view is taken by St. Thomas (I, Q. xcvi, a. 1,2). Descartes
supposed that animals were merely machines, without sensation or
consciousness; he was closely followed by Malebranche and Cartesians
generally. Leibniz grants sensation to animals, but considers that
mere sense-perception, unaccompanied by reflexion, cannot cause either
pain or pleasure; in any case he holds the pain and pleasure of
animals to be parable in degree to those resulting from reflex action
in man (see also Maher, Psychology, Supp't. A, London, 1903).
(end quote from C.E.)
So there is a question as to whether there is anything in an animal
that can suffer. Certainly, we observe what appears to be suffering
in them, and we experience compassion on them because we assume that
that appearance equates to what it is like for us to suffer. But what
is it in us that suffers? Is it more than just a complex series of
chemical reactions? It seems it must be, because chemicals themselves
do not appear capable of experiencing pleasure or pain. It is not the
chemical processes connected with pain, in us, that suffer. Rather,
it is we who suffer, when those chemical processes occur. A self who
is a subject, suffers. Then the question is whether there is anything
in an animal that we could call a subjective self. Is an animal
*just* a collection of chemical processes, or does it have a soul?
It seems there are three possibilites: either both ourselves and
animals have souls, or, we have souls and animals do not, or, there is
no such thing as a soul. If there is no such thing as a soul, then
there is nothing at all that can possibly suffer, and the AFE loses
its force completely. The AFE is based, not only on the supposition
of real suffering, but also on the idea that such ought not to be the
case. But if all that is happening is reduced to physics and
chemistry, it is hard to make the case that there is anything that
"ought not to be the case," at all. Such entails a moral judgment,
and that is strictly the province of a soul. Of course, we are here
assuming a premise that usually comes from atheists, and the AFE
assumes from the start that there is God, in order to disprove Him by
contradiction. So it seems that "no souls" will not serve us as a
useful assumption, at all.
What about, then, the possibility that animals have souls just as we
do? This seems to point to ideas of reincarnation, with animal life
being one of the possibilities. To imagine that there are immortal
souls in animals who are destined to remain animals forever, seems
arbitrarily cruel. If we also wish to account gradual evolution here,
then it does seem that some immortal souls have suffered for eons,
without any immediate possibility of release. This would point to a
deistic sort of god, if any. In such a case, there is no reason to
assume that such a god would have any interest in relieving our
suffering at all. It would seem that, in such a case, it is up to us,
that we are the entirety of anything that could be called "God." The
point of suffering, in such a case, would be to ascend, to evolve, to
attain to a human incarnation, and possibly beyond, if anything beyond
can be conceived to exist. Then, the responsibility for suffering
falls, not on some external "God," but squarely on ourselves. So here
also, the AFE loses its force.
Catholic Doctrine points to the middle idea, that human beings have
immortal souls and animals do not. This is principally why I do not
believe we ought to take animal suffering into account. I hold it as
extremely likely that gradual evolution did occur in the way that
biological science posits it. The soul, I believe, did not similarly
evolve, but was created directly by God and infused in the body of the
hominid that became Adam. Or alternatively, Adam was created directly
from the dust of the ground, and only bore a superficial resemblance
to certain animals. But I see no good reason to reject the Theory of
Evolution, so for the time being let us grant that Adam's body evolved
gradually over many millions of years. Now evolution as a process
entails natural selection, which means that some forms survive, and by
corollary, others do not. So it seems that death, inadequacy to
survive, and all the suffering connected with those two facts, is part
of the process of evolution.
Now it seems unnecessarily cruel for God to inflict eons of suffering
on myriad creatures just in order to produce hominid bodies. It seems
more likely that the evolution of the hominid body was a chemical
process, not a spiritual one, in other words, it involved *only*
matter, and not suffering souls. The suffering of animals, then, is
something that evokes compassion in us, and that is natural, and we
ought not to be cruel to animals, but there is nothing actually in
them that experiences suffering analogous to our own.
If you insist that they do suffer just as we do, then it seems that we
must back away from the position of a theistic God to a deistic one,
as elucidated in the paragraph beginning, "What about, then, the
possibility that animals have souls just as we do?" If it were proved
that this is the case, that would not eliminate the Catholic Church
nor its usefulness as a force to improve humanity, it would just take
away from the absolute truth of her doctrines. Or, possibly, it would
simply require us to see them in a different light. It is still
possible that such a view could be reconciled with Catholicism, I just
do not, for my part, presently see exactly and fully how.
In any case, and since the aim of the AFE is to discredit the God of
the Church, it seems we should deal in the argument with that concept
of God and that concept of the universe, and here is the way that view
addresses the issue of animal suffering: it either should, or should
not be taken into account; but if it is, it is intimately connected to
our own actions as the stewards of this world. If we are to solve the
problem of animal suffering, it will only be by solving the problem of
human sin. That, as previously explained, is God's actual solution to
the Problem of Evil. In a word, Grace.
>Secondly, God's current course on
> your account involves allowing millions of under-five to die from
> preventable causes each year, mine does not.
Now, you are switching gears. Your first objection was about how we
ought to approach the argument, but here, you are making somewhat of
an argument. So, rather than address this as part of the set-up for
the argument, I will simply address it as part of the argument.
To put it briefly, you are talking about suffering. Suffering is part
of the world of good and evil. The world of good and evil is where we
are, since our first parents sinned and were expelled from the Garden
of Paradise.
Particular kinds of suffering are simply particular manifestations of
the consequences of the world of good and evil. It is not relevant to
the argument, what degree of suffering takes place, or who suffers.
Suffering, in general, is a natural consequence of our expulsion from
Paradise.
It is certainly an appeal to emotion, to bring up the suffering of
innocent children. But let's see if we can stick with arguing
logically rather than emotionally. Logically, suffering is
suffering. In Eden, there was none. In the world of good and evil,
there is some. Either any amount of suffering is fuel for an argument
about the nature of God, or, there is required a certain level of
suffering before we can make that argument. Either way, the argument
has been made, so evidently the amount of suffering in the world is
sufficient for the argument to be made. *More* suffering, does not
increase the weight of the argument, which either stands or falls on
the strength or weakness of a theodicy, which is what the argument
calls for by way of refutation.
>Thirdly, you apparently
> think that it would be ethically objectionable to remove some people's
> dispositions to desire sexual relations with children because that
> would "violate their free will". I don't really have a problem with
> that. I'm not sure that they freely chose to have the dispositions in
> the first place, actually.
>
Again: this is an evil, and evils will necessarily exist in a world of
good and evil. It is an unconscionable evil, sure enough. But that
fact does not, by itself, give it more weight in an AFE.
The question is whether an omnipotent, all-good, all-wise being should
directly intervene, to stop the natural course of events, or whether,
in His Wisdom, He might not have a better plan to change things that
would involve, possibly, a greater degree of co-operation from his
creature with free will.
> Those are some notable points of difference, there could be others.
>
You are not infinitely wise, and because of that, you are unable to
imagine what you would do if you were. You might imagine what you
would do with omnipotence, but it is impossible in principle for you
to imagine what you would do with infinite Wisdom.
It goes to my point that the word "need" should not be applied to the
inflicting of harm.
> > > > But
> > > > certainly, people have dispositions. People do not always choose how
> > > > they want to be, although, to my mind, they should. I advocate taking
> > > > full responsibility for oneself, which means not blaming any part of
> > > > your personality on your parents, or on the world, or society, or
> > > > anything else apart from yourself. But if this is true, then it
> > > > follows that those with dispositions to seriously harm others chose
> > > > those dispositions for themselves, with free will.
>
> > > No. That does not logically follow. Taking responsibility for your
> > > personality is great but it is certainly not true that you freely
> > > chose it. You can freely choose to make efforts to change it.
>
> > If I can freely choose to change it, can I not freely choose exactly
> > how to change it? And if this is so, then how do I not choose my
> > personality?
>
> Let us conjecture for the sake of argument that you do not currently
> regularly have strong desires to engage in homosexual activity. If
> that is so then that is an aspect of your personality, is it not?
> Could you freely choose to change that right now, if you entertained a
> whim to do so? Is that in your option set?
>
If God commanded it, I would.
He wouldn't, but that is beside the point you were trying to make.
> You can freely choose to make efforts to change your personality in
> certain ways, but it seems implausible to me that you can choose to
> make any change in your personality that you like instantly. Which
> would mean that there are some restrictions on your freedom to change
> it in any way you want to.
>
Time.
> > I recognize that there are things about me, deeply ingrained, that I
> > would change only with extreme difficulty, but that is a matter of the
> > degree of effort required, or the amount of help required, or some
> > combination of those.
>
> Well, you only have a finite time budget...
>
Only according to you. According to my belief, I will be around
forever.
> Could you freely choose to raise your IQ to 200, if only you tried
> hard enough? (I apologise if I assume too much when I conjecture that
> you're not already there.) Is that a personality trait?
>
Maybe. I wonder. There are dietary considerations, and there are
mental exercises. Currently, I can't (at least I don't think I can)
lift 500 pounds, but if I worked out and built up my muscles, I could
reach that point. I don't have a motive to do so, so I probably
won't, but there is nothing I know of that makes it impossible. Maybe
the same is true of mental prowess, maybe the reason more people don;t
do just htat is that the efforts required are not perceived as
commensurate with the goal.
But I would call that not so much a personality trait as an ability.
My personality would be more the thing that would determine whether or
not I might pursue such a course, and not, rather, the fact of whether
I possessed a particular ability.
> Could you freely choose to become an atheist?
>
Not if God has anything to say about it!
Seriously, the only reason I'm not an atheist is *because* there is
God, and He keeps me. Otherwise, sure, and by that token, the answer
to your question is yes, I certainly could. I just *would* not.
> Is a propensity towards depression, or a vulnerability to psychotic
> episodes, a personality trait?
Not so much. Handicaps, I would say. Same for homosexuality. Since
God does not command it, the propensity towards it is a handicap.
> Can someone freely choose to change
> *that* by some means other than managing it with medication?
>
Well, case in point, me. I was diagnosed in the past with several
different, even contradictory, psychiatric conditions. I no longer
experience any symptoms, and haven't for about fifteen years. I don't
take medication. I was told, by the professionals, that I would
require medication for the rest of my life, "just like a diabetic
needs to take insulin." I didn't buy it. I asked God in prayer to
remove the condition. He did. I don't need their medication.
For the opposite account of my history, just consult Neil Kelsey!!
> What counts as a personality trait and what doesn't?
>
I would call personality traits, "how" you are, rather than what
abilities or handicaps you have. What kind of a person are you? That
is what I mean by your personality.
> > There also may be things about which I am
> > unaware, i.e. possible better personality traits that I could not see
> > because of the ones I already have. In this latter sense only, it
> > seems I am not free to choose my personality. But surely, I can be
> > made aware of things I normally could not see. It is a fundamental
> > tenet of Christianity, both that the personality of Jesus is perfect,
> > and that we are called to imitate Him.
>
> > > > And thus, to take
> > > > them away might require the violation of free will.
>
> > > You seem to be saying that everyone is born innately good and that if
> > > someone develops into someone who wants to rape children then that was
> > > his own free choice which no-one should take away from him. Well,
> > > that's as may be. But what about all the natural evil, and death by
> > > starvation, and the animals who need to eat other animals in order to
> > > survive?
>
> > There is an argument I could advance for the existence of natural evil
> > as a factor in evolution, and thus its value for good.
>
> But an omnipotent God could achieve whatever good has been achieved by
> natural evolution without all the enormous amount of excruciating
> suffering that it involves over hundreds of millions of years.
>
Begging two questions:
1. How do you know there was anyone to suffer all of that "suffering?"
2. How?
> > But it is not entirely clear that we ought to concern ourselves with
> > the suffering of beasts. I am not advocating cruelty to animals,
> > merely pointing out that it might not count in any Argument From
> > Evil. It is unclear that their suffering as such can be assigned true
> > meaning, since they do not have immortal souls.
>
> I find that stance rather morally repugnant.
>
Because you think you can identify with animal suffering. But really,
you can't. You can feel compassion, because of the similitude between
us and the animals, but you can't actually identify with their
suffering, if it exists, because you don't know what it's like to be
an animal, or whether indeed there is any such thing as "what it's
like."
> > The suffering experienced by human beings since the Fall is part of
> > the punishment incurred by that Fall.
>
> Including in the case of innocent children under the age of five?
>
Is it part of the natural consequence of living in a world of good and
evil? Then yes.
> > So natural evil, suffering, and
> > death, are all things that would not occur if there were no sin in the
> > world.
>
> But many people, including many innocent children under five, suffer
> horribly when they have no moral responsibility for the sin in the
> world...
>
And:
> > And the suffering of these natural evils, at least in part,
> > repairs for sin.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
There's that.
>
> Well, as I hope I've made clear, it wouldn't be the way I would run
> things if I were omnipotent. So that answers the question you asked me
> earlier.
>
But you don't actually have a clue what you might do if you were both
omnipotent and infinitely wise.
> > > > I think that, in
> > > > light of what I have said about taking responsibility for oneself, to
> > > > claim that one had a need to harm someone is essentially a violation
> > > > of this.
>
> > > Well, I was more thinking of the nonhuman obligate carnivones, who
> > > don't have moral responsibility, but it would still be good if they
> > > didn't need to kill other sentient beings in order to survive.
>
> > The suffering of beasts may also be causally connected to the Fall of
> > Man, seeing that in Genesis, everyone was eating plants.
>
> Well, the nonhuman animals clearly aren't in any way morally
> responsible for anything that Adam and Eve or any other human did, so
> that seems rather unreasonable.
>
But either they suffer because they have souls like us, in which case
we are hopefully going to take them along with us on our spiritual
journey, or, they don't have souls like us, and therefore do not
suffer in a way analogous to our suffering.
> > > I do pay other people to inflict suffering and premature death on
> > > sentient beings, because plant-based agriculture and electricity
> > > production cause those things too, but I have made a fair amount of
> > > effort to reduce the extent to which I do that within the constraint
> > > of not dropping out of technological civilisation. If I did drop out
> > > of technological civilisation, then I would be sacrificing
> > > opportunities to reduce suffering in other ways. It is *in some sense*
> > > true that I don't need to case harm, but that would be true if I were
> > > an obligate carnivore. Fortunately, humans are not.
>
> > Even obligate carnivores *can* survive without killing, since God is
> > omnipotent.
>
> With God's assistance, yes, on the assumption that an omnipotent God
> exists. But if God exists then he is choosing not to assist them in
> that way for whatever reason.
>
> > And, according to Isaiah, that day will also come.
>
> Can't wait, but what's holding him up?
>
Your sins, among the sins of many.
> > > You may perhaps be restricting your attention to harm towards humans.
> > > Well, that is true. In normal circumstances, humans do not need to
> > > harm other humans.
>
> > I think, for the purposes of this discussion, we should confine our
> > considerations to humans.
>
> I don't see any particular reason why.
Because only in humans can there be a solution for us, since we are
humans.
> I think that the argument from
> evil based on nonhuman suffering is extremely strong and I find the
> suggestion that the vast quantity of nonhuman suffering involved can
> be ignored to be morally repugnant.
Because you are convinced you can identify, but that is far from
clear.
>However, I do think that the
> argument from evil based on human suffering alone is also extremely
> strong, so I suppose I could comply with your suggestion for the sake
> of argument, for the moment at least.
>
O.K.
> > Especially since it is humans,
> > specifically, who have the fate of the whole world in their hands.
> > Humans alone can assess the trouble and imagine solutions, as you are
> > doing here.
>
> That is true if there is no God,
How is it not true if there is God?
> as indeed there is not, certainly.
According to your pitifully limited thought.
> But on your view of the matter there is a God who is infinitely wise
> and infinitely powerful, so it's not clear what's standing in the way
> of him doing something about the problem.
>
Sin.
> There are substantial limits on the power of humans to do something
> about the situation. Those limits were much stronger until quite
> recently. In the late nineteenth century even the richest people in
> the world had no power to prevent deaths from influenza. We certainly
> could be doing a lot more about the problem. You could stop eating
> meat, for example, if you wanted to, But that is hardly an answer to
> the argument from evil.
>
The worst evil in the world is not suffering, the worst evil in the
world is sin. God is eliminating sin. Suffering will go by the
wayside, when sin does. And that, is the definitive answer to the
AFE.
> > > > I.e., it is rejecting one's own responsibility for one's own
> > > > actions, attitudes, and dispositions, transferring that responsibility
> > > > to some necessity.
>
> > > I will happily take responsibility for my actions. I just think that
> > > if I were omnipotent it might be good to do something about the
> > > propensity to cause harm which seems to be quite widespread.
>
> > Indeed. It seems that ought to be foremost on a deity's mind.
>
> > And yet, one of the most common objections to theism is the perception
> > that God (or the Church) is trying to dictate morality against
> > people's wishes. Now, you can't have it both ways. You can't fault
> > God for not doing enough to correct us, if at the same time you object
> > to Him doing anything at all.
>
> No, I can't. And I never said I did. I do object to people forcing
> people to comply with a moral rule that they like *on those occasions
> when it seems to me to be unjustified*, certainly. But I have
> indicated certain ways in which I think that it *would* be justifiable
> for God to take steps which would be likely to get people to comply
> with certain moral rules. That doesn't mean that I need to agree with
> every moral teaching currently handed out by the Church.
>
But if not, you necessarily set yourself up as the standard or
morality. And by any idea of justice, then, you would have to extend
the same to every human being, including the Mansons and the Hitlers.
Either morality is personal and subjective, or it is not. If not,
then why should you be allowed to pick and choose what you like, but
not others? Or if so, then how can you call anything "unjustified,"
as if that held objective weight?
> > > I wouldn't have a problem with making everyone see the light and go
> > > vegan, no, I would not consider that an unacceptable violation of free
> > > will.
>
> > What if some, saw the light, and rejected it with free will?
>
> Well, you could punish them, proportionately...
>
To my understanding, the Catholic Church has an open door. Hell, is
simply that condition of being in any proximity to that open door, and
categorically refusing to step through it, ever.
> > > So I suppose most of you think that it's just as well that I'm
> > > not omnipotent.
>
> > I think it is a good thing that if you ever do become omnipotent, you
> > will also have access to infinite Wisdom. I think God has all the
> > bases covered.
>
> > > > Would you use your omnipotence to force everyone to own their own
> > > > actions, and to take responsibility?
>
> > > Within some constraints, yes.
>
> > I specifically and intentionally used the word, "force." So, you
> > would violate free will? Couldn't an omniscient being come up with
> > better than that?
>
> I don't believe that the course of action you describe is a violation
> of free will.
>
How would you force someone who does not wish to take responsibility,
to take it, without violating their free will?
> > > > That might be a good thing, but
> > > > would it involve, again, a violation of free will? Since part of the
> > > > problem you are trying to address involves the free actions of
> > > > sentient beings themselves, how would you go about altering those
> > > > actions to better suit your plan, without, at the same time, violating
> > > > the free will of those beings?
>
> > > I would change the circumstance that some sentient beings are not
> > > secure in their basic needs through no fault of their own.
>
> > Are you aware that that very circumstance provides opportunities for
> > the exercise of the virtue of charity?
>
> Yes, but I'd rather that there was no need for the exercise of that
> virtue.
Charity is kindness. Surely you do not propose eliminating kindness!
Charity is that which alone remains, when all sin and wrongdoing shall
be eliminated. There will *always* be the virtue of charity. Heaven
consists in it entirely.
Now surely, you mean that you wish there were no suffering, and that
sentiment is charitable, but only if it is connected with a similar
sentiment that you wish there to be no sin.
For you to wish that suffering would be eliminated, but sin left
alone, is for one thing a contradiction in terms, and for another, not
wise. That is why God doesn't do it. And that is why there is still
suffering in the world.
> I don't want other sentient beings to be hideously miserable
> just so that I can show how charitable I am.
>
But misery can improve you by providing you with the opportunity to
alleviate it. And since that is reality, don't you think it would be
better to do that, than to complain about how unfair God is because of
it?
> > And charity, in turn, is in
> > reality God correcting that circumstance!
>
> Well, if he's omnipotent, he should address the problem in a different
> and more effective way.
>
There is a possible better way than charity? What, pray tell??
It is easy to accuse God, from your comfortable armchair, of not doing
things right. It is more difficult to recognize that maybe, you don't
actually know what you're talking about.
> > >I would
> > > change the circumstance that some sentient beings need to harm others
> > > in order to survive. And I would make sentient beings *more disposed*
> > > not to do harm, while still allowing them to have free will. I don't
> > > consider that to be objectionable.
>
> > So, you would increase grace.
>
> > So does God.
>
> I'm not especially impressed with the extent to which he does it,
> given his omnipotence.
>
I am going to assume here that you haven't asked Him for any, at all.
In which case, it is you, who are not doing enough. God is the
infinite source of grace, so there is enough grace available in God to
completely eliminate all sin and, by that, all suffering. But people
are not willing to ask Him for it. You are a case in point. Evil in
the world can be blamed on you and your lack of prayer.
> > > > Since you are omniscient (we assume), surely you would know just what
> > > > things were, for lack of a better word, sins. You would have at least
> > > > a general idea of what would constitute proper human behavior, and you
> > > > would be able to express it succinctly. You could probably, I dunno,
> > > > sum it up in ten or so principles, and then reveal those principles to
> > > > the human race. Maybe write them on stone tablets and communicate
> > > > them to one of your prophets. That would solve the problem of the
> > > > ambiguity of your perceived will.
>
> > > Not in the least. That is exactly the issue. The authenticating
> > > miracle was too long ago for reasonable people to believe in it now.
>
> > ??? Do you need proof, that good is good?
>
> No. That is a tautology. The question is whether I need God's guidance
> about what is morally good as opposed to exercising my own judgement.
> If it is all up to my own judgement that that is fine, except that in
> that case God isn't really helping me.
And, as pointed out, how is your morality any better than Manson's or
Hitler's?
> If I need his guidance, then it
> would help if I could have some rational grounds for believing that
> some revelations have been authenticated by a miracle.
John 4:48 Jesus therefore said to him: Unless you see signs and
wonders, you believe not.
> I don't
> currently have that, any alleged authenticating miracle took place too
> long ago for me to have any rational grounds for believing in it.
>
But if good is good, as you admit, then you should be able to examine
the Law itself, and marvel at its perfection and simplicity.
> > > > It would accomplish spelling out
> > > > clearly, for your human creatures, exactly how you would like them to
> > > > behave. And it wouldn't violate their free will.
>
> > > My suggested solution is making people a little bit less disposed to
> > > act in ways I don't like.
>
> > So, grace.
>
> Given the way the world is I take there to be rather strong evidence
> that we could use a lot more of it.
YES! Yes indeed! Wow, we are practically on the same page here!
Sadly, I plan on doing something about it, while you plan on
complaining and doing nothing.
> I don't think we need to be blown
> away by the job God did of setting things up.
>
There is nothing wrong with the channels of grace. The Sacraments are
all intact. The Saints are ready and willing and able to help us.
There is just lack of co-operation, on the part of humans such as
yourself, with graces already received. And the only way to obtain
more graces, is to pray, which is the accepting of a grace already
received.
> > >Your suggested solution is to make a lot of
> > > people strongly disposed to inflict serious harm,
>
> > No, they do that to themselves.
>
> Debatable.
>
> So, you made the suggestion that we should only talk about human
> suffering, let us suppose that I go along with that for the sake of
> argument. Well, ignoring nonhuman suffering we may take it that
> neither you nor I have any strong disposition to *inflict* serious
> harm, but we certainly could both do more to reduce human suffering,
> couldn't we, I take it that on your account we freely chose to be
> disposed to not do as much as we could do.
Sadly, yes. But if we pray, God will change us.
> But what about God's
> decision to set the whole situation up in the first place whereby we
> run the risk of many innocent under-five children dying painfully
> because of people's failure to exercise their power to choose as well
> as they could?
Just suffering, nothing more or less.
> Seems to me that that decision is a bit questionable.
> Apparently it's all justified by the compensating good that people
> have the opportunity to exercise the virtue of charity.
No, there is also the fact that God accepts suffering as reparation
for sin. Primary in this regard, is Himself, when He suffered and
died for us, to redeem us from our sins. God did not spare Himself
the literally excruciating suffering of the Cross (the root of the
word 'excruciating.') by it, He redeemed the world. And He said,
John 14:12 . . . Amen, amen, I say to you, he that believes in me, the
works that I do, he also shall do: and greater than these shall he do.
> I find that a
> rather morally repugnant response, myself.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."
> And how about the fact that
> for most of human history, many innocent under-five children and many
> others died painfully and there was nothing *anyone* could do about
> it? What exactly was that supposed to achieve?
>
Reparation.
> > >and issue
> > > instructions backed up by the threat of hellfire
>
> > --- Old Testament ---
>
> Oh, you deny the doctrine of hell?
Not in the least. But in the New Testament, is grace, to avoid hell.
>The Catholic Church doesn't. If you
> disagree on that point then I suppose you must be claiming that God is
> allowing them to preach a false doctrine.
>
Stop being so silly.
> > >with an
> > > authenticating miracle which not everyone witnessed and in any case
> > > allegedly happened two thousand years ago. I like my solution better.
>
> > You are confusing Testaments here. Two thousand years ago marks the
> > beginning of the New Testament, which is considerably greater than
> > "instructions backed up by the threat of hellfire."
>
> How so?
>
Grace.
> > In any case, we were discussing the Law, as God's instruction book for
> > living a perfect life.
>
> As set forth where, exactly?
>
Exodus 20:1-17.
> > Apart from grace, the Law only points out what
> > is sinful. Once the knowledge is imparted, it doesn't require an
> > authenticating miracle to judge the good as good and sin as bad. It
> > only takes receiving it, and a conscience, and some honesty.
>
> Which bits of the Bible are you talking about here?
>
see above.
> > > > The only problem with this scheme would be, it would only accomplish
> > > > the pointing out of what was sinful; it wouldn't also accomplish
> > > > conversion of the sinners from their sins. Knowing the right thing to
> > > > do, and doing the right thing, are two very different things.
>
> > > You're confining your attention to harms which are caused by human
> > > choices.
>
> > The other forms of harm are possibly included under this head.
>
> ?
>
If man is the steward of Creation, it follows that the rest of
Creation follows after man. If man incurs suffering by his sin, all
of Creation suffers.
> > > And for some reason you seem to think that it only matters
> > > when the victims are human.
>
> > Human suffering has meaning, since humans have immortal souls.
>
> "For consider: If we have immortal souls, then however bad our earthly
> lives have been, however much suffering and personal tragedy we have
> had to endure, we can at least look forward to the prospect of having
> a joyful existence in the eternal hereafter. Not so a milk-fed veal
> calf or a mouse whose internal organs burst in response to heavy doses
> of paint stripper. Absent a soul, there can be no life after this one
> that compensates them for their misery while on Earth. Denied the
> possibility of such compensation, which we are assuming all humans
> enjoy, the pain, loneliness, terror, and other evils these animals
> suffer are, if anything, arguably worse than those experienced by
> human beings. So, no, the soul argument will not serve the purposes of
> those seeking a justification of the tyranny humans exercise over
> other animals. Just the opposite."
>
> Tom Regan, "The Animal Rights Debate".
>
Absent a soul, it is hard to make the case that there is anything in
them that can suffer.
Don't take me wrong. I am not advocating animal cruelty. I am kind
to animals. I have compassion. I am just not under the illusion that
my compassion on an animal is compassion on a suffering soul.
> > >What about harms which happen as a result
> > > of someone refraining to act, like innocent people dying from absolute
> > > poverty? What justifies God in sitting idle there?
>
> > How does God normally act? My answer is that He normally acts through
> > inspiration, so in other words, He inspires someone to do something to
> > alleviate that poverty.
>
> He's obviously achieving a lot less in that direction than an
> omnipotent being could even now in the 21st century, let alone for
> most of human history.
>
Well, lack of co-operation. We could solve all the world's problems,
with God's help. Two problems with that:
1. For the most part, it appears that we don't want to.
2. For the most part, we do not ask Him for His help.
> > Poverty per se is not necessarily want.
> > Poverty per se is a good thing.
>
> Absolute poverty, which has been extremely widespread for most of
> human history and still sadly very widespread today, is not a good
> thing. The effects of absolute poverty are uncontroversially very bad.
> Anyone who has any conception of what absolute poverty is must realise
> that it is a terrible insult to all civilised human values to say that
> it is in any way good.
>
> http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/00282/over_whatis.htm
>
You are talking, not about poverty per se, but about want.
Now it is true that we often use the word that way. But that isn't
what I was talking about when I referred to poverty --- abject
spiritual poverty --- as a good thing. Poverty, in this use of it,
mean absolute dependence on God for everything. We are already
absolutely dependent on God. But to be poor in spirit means to
acknowledge the fact, and to adjust your attitude accordingly.
> > Jesus said,
>
> > Matthew 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom
> > of heaven.
>
> If the nearly 10 million under-five children who die of preventable
> causes every year get to go to heaven, then that's great, but that
> still doesn't mean that what they went through is in any way good,
> *nor* that they were in any way responsible for it, and no decent
> person could possibly suggest any such thing.
>
But I will nonetheless point out that,
1. It happens, and
2. God can find a use for it.
> Any attempt to minimise the *data* on which the argument from evil is
> based is offensive in the extreme.
>
Emotionally laden arguments do tend to poison the well. The principal
datum in the AFE is the fact that there is evil. In the form you have
presented it, it is the fact that there is suffering.
The theodicy is that there is suffering, because there is sin, and
once there is no more sin, there will be no more suffering. This does
not minimize data at all, but you have in fact minimized, by
completely failing to acknowledge, the datum that there is sin.
Without the acknowledgment of sin, granted, the existence of an all-
good God is inconsistent with the fact of suffering. But given the
fact of sin, it rather becomes the case that a world without
suffering, with sin in it, is inconsistent with an all-good God. Were
there no suffering, but still sin, we should be forced to argue
against God on that basis.
> > > And what about all the harms that used to occur but which no-one could
> > > do anything about because medical knowledge hadn't advanced that far
> > > yet?
>
> > Suffering, too, is useful for conversion from sin, in several ways.
> > You yourself admitted above that it might not necessarily be the
> > wisest course, to just grant every desire indiscriminately. But any
> > ungranted desire equates to some suffering. So it seems that some
> > suffering, at least temporarily, is a good thing.
>
> But if you understand the forms of suffering that I'm talking about,
> then what you are saying is truly disgusting. It's pretty much
> impossible to concoct a response to the argument from evil without
> saying things which are extremely disgusting.
>
Poisoning the Well.
But, the theodicy remains intact: there is suffering, because there is
sin. There is a LOT of HORRIBLE suffering, because there is a LOT of
HORRIBLE sin!!!
> > > Pretending that the only harms to worry about are the harms that come
> > > to humans as a result of a decision by other humans to cause harm:
> > > well, was there any particular need to make some people have a strong
> > > desire to have sexual contact with children? God must have
> > > deliberately chosen to do that for some reason.
>
> > God doesn't do that. There are other spirits whose influence is felt
> > here, besides God.
>
> And God in his omniscience and omnipotence knows that the spirits are
> having that effect and deliberately allows them to have that effect.
>
Yep.
> > One such spirit is the soul of the pedophile
> > himself, and there are also demons.
>
> So why does God allow it? Respect for free will?
>
Partly. Partly because God's Plan involves nature enlightened by
grace. Normally, He lets nature take its course, and He always offers
grace. It is a matter of free will, whether a person accepts grace.
If a person rejects all grace with finality, they become more or less
evil incarnate, just walking around inflicting evil wherever they go,
until finally God dies them and they are in hell for all eternity.
What would such a person *NOT* do??? Should God make an exception to
letting nature run its course, only in certain cases? Why should He
do that, if there is value in suffering? If there is value in
suffering, then the suffering inflicted by evil souls has value, and
increases God's justification for granting more graces to those
willing to accept them. The evil soul itself has already rejected all
possibility of grace, and so doesn't receive any, but others do, and
so even the evil inflicted by such a soul can be used by God to work
good.
> > > All seems a bit sick to me...
>
> > Definitely sick, but not God you're talking about.
>
> I don't know if he can escape the charge of being sick if he
> deliberately allows it to happen.
>
It's kind of irrelevant, ultimately, what kind of judgment you wish to
pass on God, since He isn't subject to your judgment. You could
poison yourself against Him, though, and for that reason I do not
recommend it. God is all-good, and in His omnipotence, He is able to
use even the worst of evils in His Plan, to work good. You don't
always see how. But that does not mean it doesn't happen. Despite
the arrogance of those on this group, God is not, in fact, on trial.
Read the Book of Job.
> > > > Still,
> > > > it is better to know the right thing to do than not to know it, and
> > > > giving your Law to your human creatures would at least accomplish
> > > > that.
>
> > > But that's the point. It is *not* possible for rational people to know
> > > that there is a God or what his will is.
>
> > How is that a point? You haven't proved anything like that.
>
> Well, the burden of proof is on the theist, so if I'm wrong then just
> show me the least reason to think that God exists, and how I would
> *rationally* go about deciding what his will is...
>
God has revealed Himself and His Will to the whole world, and the
Saints have taken Him in earnest, put His grace into operation, and
attained to perfection with His help.
So read the Saints!
> Didn't you yourself admit just recently that you have to take someone
> at their word about the matter?
Yes.
>Why would I have any *reason* to do
> that?
Because holiness ought both to appeal to you as a desirable state, and
to be apparent to you in them. Their writings have value in this.
>Why would they have any *reason* to believe it in the first
> place?
>
They believed because of other Saints. The Apostles believed because
of the Prophets and because of Christ. All the way back, Seth
believed because of Adam, and Adam remembered God.
> > >And the God of the Bible is
> > > disturbingly silent on the issue of causing harm to nonhumans. He
> > > rather seems to be in favour of animal sacrifice, actually. He also
> > > advocates slavery, and the death penalty for adultery and
> > > homosexuality.
>
> > > I don't think he did a great job of giving our ancestors guidance. The
> > > legacy of his revelation is not doing much by way of providing us with
> > > moral guidance now.
>
> > > I'm not impressed with his efforts to help the situation.
>
> > Actually, the Ten Commandments is a succinct summary of proper human
> > morality. Chattel slavery, for example, is prohibited by the fifth
> > Commandment, "thou shalt not steal," since a man's freedom belongs to
> > himself. Other forms of slavery are not necessarily immoral in the
> > least, for example, the slavery that Abraham gave for seven years for
> > Leah and then seven more for Rachael.
>
> That's sick. You are morally bankrupt.
Sorry, it wasn't Abraham, it was Jacob. But really! Who forced Jacob
to toil? Who took away his freedom? Did he not volunteer? How is a
man exercising his free will and serving another man in return for a
favor, "sick" or "morally bankrupt?" What the heck are you even
talking about, here?
> > The death penalty for adultery indicates that God considers it a
> > serious offense; the same for homosexual relations.
>
> Ditto.
>
Is it sick to punish sin, or is not sin itself sick? It seems to me
you've stopped thinking about things at all, and are now just blindly
calling names.
> > If you were in
> > charge would you let your wisdom dictate the morality, or would you
> > leave that to the individual? If you left it to the individual, how
> > is that any different from the way things are now?
>
> I would make some effort to get individuals to engage in what I
> regarded as morally good behaviour, but I think that the moral views
> that you have just expressed are disgusting.
Poisoning the well. Oh well.
You are judging things from your utterly limited human perspective,
which says that nothing could ever be worse than for you to be
killed. But something could be worse: you could commit a sin. That
would be worse. Human life is not the ultimate value; virtue, is.
> So there is a moral
> disagreement with the views actually expressed in the Bible, but also,
> *supposing* contrary to fact that the Bible did actually express a
> decent morality, I think that an omnipotent being could be doing more
> to get people to comply, even within the constraints of respecting
> free will. And also more to prevent people from unspeakable suffering
> which is not due to immoral choices.
>
All you are saying is more grace. More grace is in fact available,
for the asking. YOU fail to ask. So, you have no one to blame, but
yourself.
> > > > But it would also place a greater responsibility on those
> > > > humans to whom you gave the Law.
>
> > > > If you were omnipotent and all-good, naturally you would want not only
> > > > to inform them of what was sinful but also to help them to avoid doing
> > > > what was sinful and to do what was virtuous instead. So you would
> > > > likely have to institute some means of your human creatures obtaining
> > > > for themselves, or receiving from you, the proper dispositions. You
> > > > would want to encourage them to change, and also to help them to
> > > > change, if they were so willing. The proper dispositions, along with
> > > > the will to act on them, we can call, for lack of any better word,
> > > > grace. You would find it expedient to set up channels by which your
> > > > creatures, at least those who accepted your plan in principle, could
> > > > receive grace from you to help them to carry that plan out. For lack
> > > > of a better term, let us call this institution, with its channels of
> > > > grace, your Church.
>
> > > Yeah, well, the Church hasn't been doing such a good job lately, has
> > > it? We've been talking about that.
>
> > The channels of grace still work, despite the widespread corruption in
> > the Church. That is part of the beauty of the Church's design, that
> > our salvation does not depend on the holiness of clerics, but only on
> > God.
>
> Makes you wonder what the function of the Church is, really. To cover
> up the unspeakable abuse of little children, I guess.
>
You might well wonder, had I not already told you with crystal
clarity.
Grace, is the whole function of the Church. All your red herrings
aside.
No one is denying the horror of the sin of child molesting, nor the
horror and scandal that inflicts on the Church when it is done by her
clerics. But this is quite beside the point. I have already posted a
page about Catholic Doctrine regarding these things. It is not the
topic of this thread, it is your intentional distraction from the
point.
> > > > Then --- and since you are infinitely wise you would naturally
> > > > perceive this --- once the changing of peoples' dispositions had taken
> > > > place, those very people would be far more inclined to act on further
> > > > graces, and eliminate each others' suffering rather than perpetuate or
> > > > cause it. Thus would you be bringing about the security in basic
> > > > needs that you spoke about.
>
> > > Can't wait.
>
> > Then my gosh --- why wait??? What is keeping you from implementing
> > this solution that the actually omnipotent being has already put in
> > place?
>
> Well, quite. I am a member of a philanthropy group.
>
> http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/
>
> We have been trying to do evaluation of which charities are most
> effective at achieving their goals, as have these people:
>
> http://givewell.net
>
> And I have been looking into their research and making generous
> charitable contributions. So there you go.
>
Yet, you still do not pray. So your solutions are somewhat akin to
chopping down an oak tree with a nail file.
Good for you, by the way, that you contribute to charities, and even
better, that you make sure your money is being used well. but an
omnipotent Being would have a more complete and permanent solution,
which He does, which you apparently want no part of.
> So that's great, but it doesn't lead me to revise what I say about the
> argument from evil.
>
All the evil in the world is either sin, or because of sin. Eliminate
sin, and you eliminate evil. God eliminates sin by giving grace.
Pray, and you obtain more grace. So pray! That is the whole
solution. Nothing is lacking on God's part. But there is severe lack
of prayer, on your part, and, well, on the part of most people.
I should pray more, myself. I do ask God for the grace to pray more
than I do.
> > > > So it seems that, if you were omnipotent, you would bring it about
> > > > that all sentient beings were secure in their basic needs and no
> > > > longer had any need or disposition to seriously harm one another, by
> > > > first giving your Law and then by instituting your Church.
>
> > > Three billion years of evolutionay history so far. Hmmm, how are we
> > > going? Wonder if we'll get there before we make ourselves extinct.
>
> > So do I. Well actually, I have hope that we will. God is more
> > powerful than any of our sins.
>
> If he's so powerful then I'd say his approach to the problem leaves
> much to be desired...
>
A desire you can obtain, if you are willing. That's the beauty of it!
> > > > Would this be morally wrong? Not in the least. It is how God does
> > > > it.
>
> > > Not a very good response to the problem of human evil, and you're
> > > completely ignoring the argument from natural evil.
>
> > First, natural evil can be completely subsumed under human evil, since
> > in the Garden of Eden there was no suffering of any kind.
>
> You take the Genesis account of the matter to be *factual*?
Um, it's in the Bible, isn't it?
Did you think I thought it was a collection of myths?
>You deny
> that there were many hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary
> history involving excruciating suffering for many animals who could do
> nothing about it before humans ever existed?
>
No, I believe evolution most likely occurred, and is accounted in the
Bible by saying God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and
also, that God commanded the water and the earth to bring forth
creatures. It does not say He created them from nothing, it says He
commanded the water and the earth to produce them --- consistent with
evolution.
I have gone into some detail, above, about the so-called "excruciating
suffering" of animals.
> Then you're beyond hope, really, aren't you?
>
I have a lot of hope. You don't appear to have much, to tell the
truth.
> There's no reason why other sentient beings should have to bear the
> burden of any immoral decisions that Adam and Eve allegedly made.
>
Why not, if it repairs for sin? Jesus was a sentient being, was He
not? And He bore the burden of Adam and Eve's sin, Himself.
> > Then, for you to say "not a very good response" is not a very good
> > response.
>
> Yes, it is, especially in conjunction with my other remarks.
>
> > The reason it isn't very good is you don't support it with
> > anything.
>
> False. I argued my point of view very eloquently.
>
> > Point out what is wrong with it,
>
> I did.
>
> > point out what could be
> > done better.
>
> I did. In fact I did that in my first post, and I elaborated on that
> in response to you.
>
> > Keep in mind that you have to take everything into
> > account.
>
> I did.
>
> > We have,
>
> > 1. Human free will,
> > 2. The unfortunate fact of human sin,
> > 3. The standard of moral perfection, and
> > 4. God's desire to bring humans to that standard.
>
> > He has to convert them from their sins, without violating their free
> > will. His solution is grace. What would yours be?
>
> I think I've made it pretty clear.
I must have missed it. Or, you failed to read the list of four
points, just above, and address it. I think the latter far more
likely.
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>the way you have described them, seem more cumbersome to me than
useful. I'd probably throw them all away and hire some good
schoolteachers.
How would a school prophet, school priests, school church, etc., have
any connection with the normal function of a school? If this was
supposed to be a clever analogy, it seems to me it's a little too
heavy on the clever and light on the analogy. Maybe, you should get
more sleep, before you post. . .?
On Dec 30 2009, 8:35 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
dj Briscoe
<sandsands.briscoe4@gmail.com>Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>> And who is the Theist? dj....
the⋅ism – noun (from dictionary.com)
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe,
without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>
>
> On Dec 29, 3:16 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 5:27 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > their basic needs and no longer had any need or disposition to
>>
>> > Would this be morally wrong?
>>
>
> I don't think I get what's being claimed here.
Well, I'm not sure what precisely you mean by the statement. Further,
I consider that it faces issues of over constraint that threatens to
make the claim simply a nebulous wish.
>> Of course, the speculation rests on a conjectural condition that is
>> ambiguous at best. What do you mean by omnipotent?
>
> This is one attempt to clarify the concept:
>
> http://books.google.com.au/books?id=rqGqEfDk8-oC&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=Richard+Swinburne+omnipotence&source=bl&ots=TxZqVCxx1S&sig=zTcpFo81ox4z_xwmuiwFiXKLV80&hl=en&ei=TYM6S_moEYrU7AOD-p2ZDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CB8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
>
> I don't really have a problem with the idea that the notion as
> Swinburne defines it is coherent. I welcome clarification about
> whether you believe that there is a God who is omnipotent in this
> sense.
Thanks for the reference, that is the specificity for omnipotent I was
looking for. :)
>
>> What do you mean
>> by "secure"? Basic needs?
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secure?db=dictionary
> http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/basic+human+needs
Ok, thanks, how does Maslow's hierarchy fit into your conception?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
>> Disposition to harm?
>
> I don't know how I can help you, really. Are you able to give me some
> hints about what the point of confusion is? I did say "seriously
> harm". Perhaps you need clarification about what counts as a serious
> harm? I'm not talking about declining an invitation to a social
> engagement. I agree that that point could use some clarification.
Yea, again, I'm wondering if the condition is not seriously
over-constrained. Particularly in the area of rights, where a
Christian might maintain that particular rights are important, while a
non-believer might claim a similar importance that the rights are not
allowed, so I was interested in that part of it.
> I don't know, if you love precise definitions so much maybe we should
> talk about maths instead. You claim to have an interest in recursion
> theory and the lambda calculus.
I find a lot of personal enjoyment and profit in reading about and
considering various aspects of functional programming[1] and symbolic
logic.
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>
>
> On Dec 30, 3:42 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:07 AM, George Chalkin
>>
>> <georgechal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Needs or Deeds Brock, we're sick or hearing your bullshit without any
>> > goods. Put up or shut up.
>>
>> I've put it up nicely:
>>
>> "clearly any speculation on what Rupert may or may not do if he were
>> omnipotent is inadaquate without some or all of the indicated
>> clarification."
>>
>
Yes, they have, thank you. :)
Regards,
Brock
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>I don't attach great weight to that particular source. The scientific
consensus is that all vertebrates can suffer.
> So there is a question as to whether there is anything in an animal
> that can suffer. Certainly, we observe what appears to be suffering
> in them, and we experience compassion on them because we assume that
> that appearance equates to what it is like for us to suffer. But what
> is it in us that suffers? Is it more than just a complex series of
> chemical reactions? It seems it must be, because chemicals themselves
> do not appear capable of experiencing pleasure or pain. It is not the
> chemical processes connected with pain, in us, that suffer. Rather,
> it is we who suffer, when those chemical processes occur. A self who
> is a subject, suffers. Then the question is whether there is anything
> in an animal that we could call a subjective self. Is an animal
> *just* a collection of chemical processes, or does it have a soul?
>
Just because you are just a collection of chemical processes doesn't
mean you can't suffer. I think it quite likely that you and I are just
collections of chemical processes. I don't know what you mean by
"soul".
> It seems there are three possibilites: either both ourselves and
> animals have souls, or, we have souls and animals do not, or, there is
> no such thing as a soul. If there is no such thing as a soul, then
> there is nothing at all that can possibly suffer,
False.
> and the AFE loses
> its force completely. The AFE is based, not only on the supposition
> of real suffering, but also on the idea that such ought not to be the
> case. But if all that is happening is reduced to physics and
> chemistry, it is hard to make the case that there is anything that
> "ought not to be the case," at all.
False.
> Such entails a moral judgment,
> and that is strictly the province of a soul.
False.
> Of course, we are here
> assuming a premise that usually comes from atheists, and the AFE
> assumes from the start that there is God, in order to disprove Him by
> contradiction. So it seems that "no souls" will not serve us as a
> useful assumption, at all.
>
You are asserting that there are no grounds for making moral
judgements if there are no souls. There is just no reason to think
that to be the case. You haven't defined "soul", anyway.
> What about, then, the possibility that animals have souls just as we
> do? This seems to point to ideas of reincarnation, with animal life
> being one of the possibilities. To imagine that there are immortal
> souls in animals who are destined to remain animals forever, seems
> arbitrarily cruel.
Peter Unger thinks that they have immortal souls which have the same
propensities as the souls humans have, if only they were hooked up to
"better brains".
> If we also wish to account gradual evolution here,
> then it does seem that some immortal souls have suffered for eons,
> without any immediate possibility of release. This would point to a
> deistic sort of god, if any. In such a case, there is no reason to
> assume that such a god would have any interest in relieving our
> suffering at all.
The whole point of the AFE is that the evidence is absolutely
overwhelming that there is no god who is in any way interested in
relieving our suffering at all.
> It would seem that, in such a case, it is up to us,
> that we are the entirety of anything that could be called "God." The
> point of suffering, in such a case, would be to ascend, to evolve, to
> attain to a human incarnation, and possibly beyond, if anything beyond
> can be conceived to exist. Then, the responsibility for suffering
> falls, not on some external "God," but squarely on ourselves. So here
> also, the AFE loses its force.
>
No, you conceded that on this scenario theism is false, which is what
the AFE aspires to prove. So it hardly "loses its force". It succeeds.
> Catholic Doctrine points to the middle idea, that human beings have
> immortal souls and animals do not. This is principally why I do not
> believe we ought to take animal suffering into account.
If you saw someone applying a blowtorch to a stray dog, would you call
the police? If so, why?
What's the Catholic Church been doing from humanity lately?
> it would just take
> away from the absolute truth of her doctrines.
Quite. Which was the whole point.
> Or, possibly, it would
> simply require us to see them in a different light. It is still
> possible that such a view could be reconciled with Catholicism, I just
> do not, for my part, presently see exactly and fully how.
>
Well, the scientific consensus is that vertebrates can suffer. And in
my view this makes the force of the AFE absolutely overwhelming. So I
guess I win.
But that is morally bankrupt, because the children who suffer are not
*responsible* for any wrongdoing...
> It is certainly an appeal to emotion, to bring up the suffering of
> innocent children. But let's see if we can stick with arguing
> logically rather than emotionally. Logically, suffering is
> suffering. In Eden, there was none. In the world of good and evil,
> there is some. Either any amount of suffering is fuel for an argument
> about the nature of God, or, there is required a certain level of
> suffering before we can make that argument. Either way, the argument
> has been made, so evidently the amount of suffering in the world is
> sufficient for the argument to be made. *More* suffering, does not
> increase the weight of the argument,
Yes, it does. More suffering might make some theodicies
unsatisfactory.
> which either stands or falls on
> the strength or weakness of a theodicy, which is what the argument
> calls for by way of refutation.
>
But all theodicies are pitiful.
> >Thirdly, you apparently
> > think that it would be ethically objectionable to remove some people's
> > dispositions to desire sexual relations with children because that
> > would "violate their free will". I don't really have a problem with
> > that. I'm not sure that they freely chose to have the dispositions in
> > the first place, actually.
>
> Again: this is an evil, and evils will necessarily exist in a world of
> good and evil. It is an unconscionable evil, sure enough. But that
> fact does not, by itself, give it more weight in an AFE.
>
Yes, it does. Because God could have chosen to prevent that evil.
> The question is whether an omnipotent, all-good, all-wise being should
> directly intervene, to stop the natural course of events, or whether,
> in His Wisdom, He might not have a better plan to change things that
> would involve, possibly, a greater degree of co-operation from his
> creature with free will.
>
And when you consider what's at stake, the answer is obvious: he would
directly intervene.
> > Those are some notable points of difference, there could be others.
>
> You are not infinitely wise, and because of that, you are unable to
> imagine what you would do if you were.
I have some knowledge and therefore some idea.
Yes, it should, in the absence of assistance from God, which is the
actual situation.
> > > > > But
> > > > > certainly, people have dispositions. People do not always choose how
> > > > > they want to be, although, to my mind, they should. I advocate taking
> > > > > full responsibility for oneself, which means not blaming any part of
> > > > > your personality on your parents, or on the world, or society, or
> > > > > anything else apart from yourself. But if this is true, then it
> > > > > follows that those with dispositions to seriously harm others chose
> > > > > those dispositions for themselves, with free will.
>
> > > > No. That does not logically follow. Taking responsibility for your
> > > > personality is great but it is certainly not true that you freely
> > > > chose it. You can freely choose to make efforts to change it.
>
> > > If I can freely choose to change it, can I not freely choose exactly
> > > how to change it? And if this is so, then how do I not choose my
> > > personality?
>
> > Let us conjecture for the sake of argument that you do not currently
> > regularly have strong desires to engage in homosexual activity. If
> > that is so then that is an aspect of your personality, is it not?
> > Could you freely choose to change that right now, if you entertained a
> > whim to do so? Is that in your option set?
>
> If God commanded it, I would.
>
How would you go about doing it?
> He wouldn't, but that is beside the point you were trying to make.
>
> > You can freely choose to make efforts to change your personality in
> > certain ways, but it seems implausible to me that you can choose to
> > make any change in your personality that you like instantly. Which
> > would mean that there are some restrictions on your freedom to change
> > it in any way you want to.
>
> Time.
>
More than that, I would think.
So if you decided that God had commanded you to become homosexual,
you would be able to manage it before you die?
How exactly?
> > > I recognize that there are things about me, deeply ingrained, that I
> > > would change only with extreme difficulty, but that is a matter of the
> > > degree of effort required, or the amount of help required, or some
> > > combination of those.
>
> > Well, you only have a finite time budget...
>
> Only according to you. According to my belief, I will be around
> forever.
>
> > Could you freely choose to raise your IQ to 200, if only you tried
> > hard enough? (I apologise if I assume too much when I conjecture that
> > you're not already there.) Is that a personality trait?
>
> Maybe. I wonder. There are dietary considerations, and there are
> mental exercises. Currently, I can't (at least I don't think I can)
> lift 500 pounds, but if I worked out and built up my muscles, I could
> reach that point.
But not 500,000. So there are some limits.
> I don't have a motive to do so, so I probably
> won't, but there is nothing I know of that makes it impossible. Maybe
> the same is true of mental prowess, maybe the reason more people don;t
> do just htat is that the efforts required are not perceived as
> commensurate with the goal.
>
I think there is pretty strong evidence to the contrary, really.
Discussed above. The scientific evidence is overwhelming.
> 2. How?
>
It's obvious. An omnipotent being would not need to bring about all
that evolutionary process in order to achieve the desired outcome.
> > > But it is not entirely clear that we ought to concern ourselves with
> > > the suffering of beasts. I am not advocating cruelty to animals,
> > > merely pointing out that it might not count in any Argument From
> > > Evil. It is unclear that their suffering as such can be assigned true
> > > meaning, since they do not have immortal souls.
>
> > I find that stance rather morally repugnant.
>
> Because you think you can identify with animal suffering. But really,
> you can't. You can feel compassion, because of the similitude between
> us and the animals, but you can't actually identify with their
> suffering, if it exists, because you don't know what it's like to be
> an animal, or whether indeed there is any such thing as "what it's
> like."
I do know that it is like something. The difficulties in knowing what
it is like are the same as with a baby. For that matter I have fairly
limited insight into what it is like to be you.
>
> > > The suffering experienced by human beings since the Fall is part of
> > > the punishment incurred by that Fall.
>
> > Including in the case of innocent children under the age of five?
>
> Is it part of the natural consequence of living in a world of good and
> evil? Then yes.
>
Well, that is pretty morally repugnant as well.
As I say, it's very hard to mount a response to the AFE without saying
a lot of things that are quite morally repugnant.
> > > So natural evil, suffering, and
> > > death, are all things that would not occur if there were no sin in the
> > > world.
>
> > But many people, including many innocent children under five, suffer
> > horribly when they have no moral responsibility for the sin in the
> > world...
>
> And:
>
> > > And the suffering of these natural evils, at least in part,
> > > repairs for sin.
>
> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
> There's that.
>
See above.
>
>
> > Well, as I hope I've made clear, it wouldn't be the way I would run
> > things if I were omnipotent. So that answers the question you asked me
> > earlier.
>
> But you don't actually have a clue what you might do if you were both
> omnipotent and infinitely wise.
>
Yes, I do. I do know *something* about it, because I know *something*
now.
> > > > > I think that, in
> > > > > light of what I have said about taking responsibility for oneself, to
> > > > > claim that one had a need to harm someone is essentially a violation
> > > > > of this.
>
> > > > Well, I was more thinking of the nonhuman obligate carnivones, who
> > > > don't have moral responsibility, but it would still be good if they
> > > > didn't need to kill other sentient beings in order to survive.
>
> > > The suffering of beasts may also be causally connected to the Fall of
> > > Man, seeing that in Genesis, everyone was eating plants.
>
> > Well, the nonhuman animals clearly aren't in any way morally
> > responsible for anything that Adam and Eve or any other human did, so
> > that seems rather unreasonable.
>
> But either they suffer because they have souls like us, in which case
> we are hopefully going to take them along with us on our spiritual
> journey, or, they don't have souls like us, and therefore do not
> suffer in a way analogous to our suffering.
>
The evidence is overwhelming that they do suffer, and as I say, to
suggest that a just God could inflict such suffering on them is
morally repugnant. Same with the innocent five-year-old children.
> > > > I do pay other people to inflict suffering and premature death on
> > > > sentient beings, because plant-based agriculture and electricity
> > > > production cause those things too, but I have made a fair amount of
> > > > effort to reduce the extent to which I do that within the constraint
> > > > of not dropping out of technological civilisation. If I did drop out
> > > > of technological civilisation, then I would be sacrificing
> > > > opportunities to reduce suffering in other ways. It is *in some sense*
> > > > true that I don't need to case harm, but that would be true if I were
> > > > an obligate carnivore. Fortunately, humans are not.
>
> > > Even obligate carnivores *can* survive without killing, since God is
> > > omnipotent.
>
> > With God's assistance, yes, on the assumption that an omnipotent God
> > exists. But if God exists then he is choosing not to assist them in
> > that way for whatever reason.
>
> > > And, according to Isaiah, that day will also come.
>
> > Can't wait, but what's holding him up?
>
> Your sins, among the sins of many.
>
Do you have any thoughts about when my most recent sin was? Do you
feel confident that I've sinned in the last six months? Would you care
to elaborate on what you think I've done?
> > > > You may perhaps be restricting your attention to harm towards humans.
> > > > Well, that is true. In normal circumstances, humans do not need to
> > > > harm other humans.
>
> > > I think, for the purposes of this discussion, we should confine our
> > > considerations to humans.
>
> > I don't see any particular reason why.
>
> Because only in humans can there be a solution for us, since we are
> humans.
>
That is true on the *atheistic* worldview, yes, but if there is an
omnipotent God...
> > I think that the argument from
> > evil based on nonhuman suffering is extremely strong and I find the
> > suggestion that the vast quantity of nonhuman suffering involved can
> > be ignored to be morally repugnant.
>
> Because you are convinced you can identify, but that is far from
> clear.
>
My reasons for thinking animals suffer are pretty similar to my
reasons for thinking you can, really.
> >However, I do think that the
> > argument from evil based on human suffering alone is also extremely
> > strong, so I suppose I could comply with your suggestion for the sake
> > of argument, for the moment at least.
>
> O.K.
>
> > > Especially since it is humans,
> > > specifically, who have the fate of the whole world in their hands.
> > > Humans alone can assess the trouble and imagine solutions, as you are
> > > doing here.
>
> > That is true if there is no God,
>
> How is it not true if there is God?
>
Because if there is God, then God can assess the trouble and imagine
solutions, and if he is perfectly good and omnipotent then he should.
> > as indeed there is not, certainly.
>
> According to your pitifully limited thought.
>
Well, that's not what I'd call civil. Why do you suppose that you are
entitled to call my thought "pitifully limited" because I believe that
God doesn't exist when you have never offered the *slightest reason*
for thinking that he exists?
> > But on your view of the matter there is a God who is infinitely wise
> > and infinitely powerful, so it's not clear what's standing in the way
> > of him doing something about the problem.
>
> Sin.
>
Why is that a barrier to implementing my proposed solution?
> > There are substantial limits on the power of humans to do something
> > about the situation. Those limits were much stronger until quite
> > recently. In the late nineteenth century even the richest people in
> > the world had no power to prevent deaths from influenza. We certainly
> > could be doing a lot more about the problem. You could stop eating
> > meat, for example, if you wanted to, But that is hardly an answer to
> > the argument from evil.
>
> The worst evil in the world is not suffering, the worst evil in the
> world is sin.
I don't agree. My sins are not as bad as 30,000 under-five children
painfully dying every day. God should sort out his priorities.
> God is eliminating sin.
Not much evidence of that either, really...
> Suffering will go by the
> wayside, when sin does. And that, is the definitive answer to the
> AFE.
>
Pretty pitiful from where I'm standing.
> > > > > I.e., it is rejecting one's own responsibility for one's own
> > > > > actions, attitudes, and dispositions, transferring that responsibility
> > > > > to some necessity.
>
> > > > I will happily take responsibility for my actions. I just think that
> > > > if I were omnipotent it might be good to do something about the
> > > > propensity to cause harm which seems to be quite widespread.
>
> > > Indeed. It seems that ought to be foremost on a deity's mind.
>
> > > And yet, one of the most common objections to theism is the perception
> > > that God (or the Church) is trying to dictate morality against
> > > people's wishes. Now, you can't have it both ways. You can't fault
> > > God for not doing enough to correct us, if at the same time you object
> > > to Him doing anything at all.
>
> > No, I can't. And I never said I did. I do object to people forcing
> > people to comply with a moral rule that they like *on those occasions
> > when it seems to me to be unjustified*, certainly. But I have
> > indicated certain ways in which I think that it *would* be justifiable
> > for God to take steps which would be likely to get people to comply
> > with certain moral rules. That doesn't mean that I need to agree with
> > every moral teaching currently handed out by the Church.
>
> But if not, you necessarily set yourself up as the standard or
> morality.
If that's what you call exercising my own judgement, yes. Better than
taking the Church's every pronouncement as gospel without question.
> And by any idea of justice, then, you would have to extend
> the same to every human being, including the Mansons and the Hitlers.
Nonsense. Exercising my own moral judgement does not stop me from
taking the view that some people have bad moral judgement or none at
all.
> Either morality is personal and subjective, or it is not.
That is not the issue under discussion. The issue of whether you
should exercise your own moral judgement is not the same as the
objectivism/subjectivism debate.
I exercise my own mathematical judgement too, but I am not a
mathematical subjectivist.
You are deeply confused.
> If not,
> then why should you be allowed to pick and choose what you like, but
> not others?
Others *are* allowed to pick and choose what they like, but they must
suffer the consequences if others judge that they have done wrong.
Everyone *does* pick and choose what they like. That's just the
reality. But that doesn't mean that you can't do so in accordance with
standards of rationality, as in other spheres of inquiry.
> Or if so, then how can you call anything "unjustified,"
> as if that held objective weight?
>
You *can* be a second order moral skeptic without being a first order
one, as discussed by Mackie in "Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong",
but the point is moot because I'm not a moral subjectivist.
> > > > I wouldn't have a problem with making everyone see the light and go
> > > > vegan, no, I would not consider that an unacceptable violation of free
> > > > will.
>
> > > What if some, saw the light, and rejected it with free will?
>
> > Well, you could punish them, proportionately...
>
> To my understanding, the Catholic Church has an open door. Hell, is
> simply that condition of being in any proximity to that open door, and
> categorically refusing to step through it, ever.
>
But the idea that eternal torment is a proportionate punishment for
anything is yet another morally repugnant idea.
You're coming on pretty thick and fast with these morally repugnant
ideas. Tends to be the way when you try to defend Catholic doctrine.
> > > > So I suppose most of you think that it's just as well that I'm
> > > > not omnipotent.
>
> > > I think it is a good thing that if you ever do become omnipotent, you
> > > will also have access to infinite Wisdom. I think God has all the
> > > bases covered.
>
> > > > > Would you use your omnipotence to force everyone to own their own
> > > > > actions, and to take responsibility?
>
> > > > Within some constraints, yes.
>
> > > I specifically and intentionally used the word, "force." So, you
> > > would violate free will? Couldn't an omniscient being come up with
> > > better than that?
>
> > I don't believe that the course of action you describe is a violation
> > of free will.
>
> How would you force someone who does not wish to take responsibility,
> to take it, without violating their free will?
>
Don't we all have to take responsibility anyway, in the sense of
accepting the consequences of our actions?
I might have misunderstood what you meant by "taking responsibility".
> > > > > That might be a good thing, but
> > > > > would it involve, again, a violation of free will? Since part of the
> > > > > problem you are trying to address involves the free actions of
> > > > > sentient beings themselves, how would you go about altering those
> > > > > actions to better suit your plan, without, at the same time, violating
> > > > > the free will of those beings?
>
> > > > I would change the circumstance that some sentient beings are not
> > > > secure in their basic needs through no fault of their own.
>
> > > Are you aware that that very circumstance provides opportunities for
> > > the exercise of the virtue of charity?
>
> > Yes, but I'd rather that there was no need for the exercise of that
> > virtue.
>
> Charity is kindness. Surely you do not propose eliminating kindness!
>
No, but I'd rather that no-one *needed* to save innocent children from
painfully dying. I'd rather that we showed kindness in other ways.
I don't think the fact that the deaths of innocent children provide us
with opportunities to be charitable is in any way a cause for
celebration.
> Charity is that which alone remains, when all sin and wrongdoing shall
> be eliminated. There will *always* be the virtue of charity. Heaven
> consists in it entirely.
>
> Now surely, you mean that you wish there were no suffering, and that
> sentiment is charitable, but only if it is connected with a similar
> sentiment that you wish there to be no sin.
>
No wrongdoing sounds great as well.
But the suffering in the world is first no my list.
> For you to wish that suffering would be eliminated, but sin left
> alone, is for one thing a contradiction in terms, and for another, not
> wise. That is why God doesn't do it. And that is why there is still
> suffering in the world.
>
Doesn't sound morally defensible to me.
> > I don't want other sentient beings to be hideously miserable
> > just so that I can show how charitable I am.
>
> But misery can improve you by providing you with the opportunity to
> alleviate it. And since that is reality, don't you think it would be
> better to do that, than to complain about how unfair God is because of
> it?
>
What are you talking about? I *am* alleviating misery, as I discussed.
> > > And charity, in turn, is in
> > > reality God correcting that circumstance!
>
> > Well, if he's omnipotent, he should address the problem in a different
> > and more effective way.
>
> There is a possible better way than charity? What, pray tell??
>
I said that in my initial post and have been trying to drill it into
your thick skull ever since.
> It is easy to accuse God, from your comfortable armchair, of not doing
> things right. It is more difficult to recognize that maybe, you don't
> actually know what you're talking about.
>
But I do.
You haven't offered any reason to think that there's anything wrong
with my initial proposal.
> > > >I would
> > > > change the circumstance that some sentient beings need to harm others
> > > > in order to survive. And I would make sentient beings *more disposed*
> > > > not to do harm, while still allowing them to have free will. I don't
> > > > consider that to be objectionable.
>
> > > So, you would increase grace.
>
> > > So does God.
>
> > I'm not especially impressed with the extent to which he does it,
> > given his omnipotence.
>
> I am going to assume here that you haven't asked Him for any, at all.
> In which case, it is you, who are not doing enough. God is the
> infinite source of grace, so there is enough grace available in God to
> completely eliminate all sin and, by that, all suffering. But people
> are not willing to ask Him for it. You are a case in point. Evil in
> the world can be blamed on you and your lack of prayer.
>
There is no particular reason to think that prayer achieves anything.
I believe that I can take credit for reducing the amount of evil in
the world in the ways that I have good reason to think are effective.
> > > > > Since you are omniscient (we assume), surely you would know just what
> > > > > things were, for lack of a better word, sins. You would have at least
> > > > > a general idea of what would constitute proper human behavior, and you
> > > > > would be able to express it succinctly. You could probably, I dunno,
> > > > > sum it up in ten or so principles, and then reveal those principles to
> > > > > the human race. Maybe write them on stone tablets and communicate
> > > > > them to one of your prophets. That would solve the problem of the
> > > > > ambiguity of your perceived will.
>
> > > > Not in the least. That is exactly the issue. The authenticating
> > > > miracle was too long ago for reasonable people to believe in it now.
>
> > > ??? Do you need proof, that good is good?
>
> > No. That is a tautology. The question is whether I need God's guidance
> > about what is morally good as opposed to exercising my own judgement.
> > If it is all up to my own judgement that that is fine, except that in
> > that case God isn't really helping me.
>
> And, as pointed out, how is your morality any better than Manson's or
> Hitler's?
>
That is a ridiculous question.
Do you imagine that I'd have some difficulty in defending that
proposition, do you?
I have never said anything to indicate that moral reasoning is
impossible, quite the reverse.
> > If I need his guidance, then it
> > would help if I could have some rational grounds for believing that
> > some revelations have been authenticated by a miracle.
>
> John 4:48 Jesus therefore said to him: Unless you see signs and
> wonders, you believe not.
>
Unless I see *reasons*, I believe not.
Sounds like a good policy to me.
> > I don't
> > currently have that, any alleged authenticating miracle took place too
> > long ago for me to have any rational grounds for believing in it.
>
> But if good is good, as you admit, then you should be able to examine
> the Law itself, and marvel at its perfection and simplicity.
>
As I believe I said before, which bits of the Bible do you have in
mind?
Quite a lot in the Bible strikes me as morally repugnant.
> > > > > It would accomplish spelling out
> > > > > clearly, for your human creatures, exactly how you would like them to
> > > > > behave. And it wouldn't violate their free will.
>
> > > > My suggested solution is making people a little bit less disposed to
> > > > act in ways I don't like.
>
> > > So, grace.
>
> > Given the way the world is I take there to be rather strong evidence
> > that we could use a lot more of it.
>
> YES! Yes indeed! Wow, we are practically on the same page here!
> Sadly, I plan on doing something about it, while you plan on
> complaining and doing nothing.
>
Well, I don't believe in God. I take plenty of steps to reduce the
amount of suffering in the world that *I* think will be effective.
You apparently think you do more than me, but I've yet to see any
reason for that contention...
> > I don't think we need to be blown
> > away by the job God did of setting things up.
>
> There is nothing wrong with the channels of grace. The Sacraments are
> all intact. The Saints are ready and willing and able to help us.
> There is just lack of co-operation, on the part of humans such as
> yourself, with graces already received. And the only way to obtain
> more graces, is to pray, which is the accepting of a grace already
> received.
>
But you haven't offered me the slightest reason to think that would
achieve anything.
There are plenty of things that I do which I *do* have good reason to
think would achieve something...
> > > >Your suggested solution is to make a lot of
> > > > people strongly disposed to inflict serious harm,
>
> > > No, they do that to themselves.
>
> > Debatable.
>
> > So, you made the suggestion that we should only talk about human
> > suffering, let us suppose that I go along with that for the sake of
> > argument. Well, ignoring nonhuman suffering we may take it that
> > neither you nor I have any strong disposition to *inflict* serious
> > harm, but we certainly could both do more to reduce human suffering,
> > couldn't we, I take it that on your account we freely chose to be
> > disposed to not do as much as we could do.
>
> Sadly, yes. But if we pray, God will change us.
>
So you say.
> > But what about God's
> > decision to set the whole situation up in the first place whereby we
> > run the risk of many innocent under-five children dying painfully
> > because of people's failure to exercise their power to choose as well
> > as they could?
>
> Just suffering, nothing more or less.
>
I don't understand this answer.
> > Seems to me that that decision is a bit questionable.
> > Apparently it's all justified by the compensating good that people
> > have the opportunity to exercise the virtue of charity.
>
> No, there is also the fact that God accepts suffering as reparation
> for sin. Primary in this regard, is Himself, when He suffered and
> died for us, to redeem us from our sins. God did not spare Himself
> the literally excruciating suffering of the Cross (the root of the
> word 'excruciating.') by it, He redeemed the world. And He said,
>
> John 14:12 . . . Amen, amen, I say to you, he that believes in me, the
> works that I do, he also shall do: and greater than these shall he do.
>
But the children didn't consent to take on that burden, so he has no
business allowing them to endure it.
> > I find that a
> > rather morally repugnant response, myself.
>
> "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."
>
I'm not trying to hurt you; why would I do that? I'm pointing out what
I see as shortcomings in your argument, in the hope that you will re-
examine it with a critical eye. Probably a rather futile hope, but
there you go.
> > And how about the fact that
> > for most of human history, many innocent under-five children and many
> > others died painfully and there was nothing *anyone* could do about
> > it? What exactly was that supposed to achieve?
>
> Reparation.
>
Well, that strikes me as morally disgusting.
> > > >and issue
> > > > instructions backed up by the threat of hellfire
>
> > > --- Old Testament ---
>
> > Oh, you deny the doctrine of hell?
>
> Not in the least. But in the New Testament, is grace, to avoid hell.
>
It looks like my description of the situation was correct, then.
> >The Catholic Church doesn't. If you
> > disagree on that point then I suppose you must be claiming that God is
> > allowing them to preach a false doctrine.
>
> Stop being so silly.
>
> > > >with an
> > > > authenticating miracle which not everyone witnessed and in any case
> > > > allegedly happened two thousand years ago. I like my solution better.
>
> > > You are confusing Testaments here. Two thousand years ago marks the
> > > beginning of the New Testament, which is considerably greater than
> > > "instructions backed up by the threat of hellfire."
>
> > How so?
>
> Grace.
>
Don't see how that's supposed to make any difference, myself.
Why? I thought you said that they were capable of suffering. So what's
the point?
> I have compassion.
Are you not contradicting yourself? How can you be compassionate
towards a being that is incapable of suffering?
Better make up your mind.
> I am just not under the illusion that
> my compassion on an animal is compassion on a suffering soul.
>
What's the meaning of "compassion" then? You do know the etymology of
the word, don't you? Shared suffering?
But not if he is *good*. If he were *good* then he would stop it from
happening.
> > Any attempt to minimise the *data* on which the argument from evil is
> > based is offensive in the extreme.
>
> Emotionally laden arguments do tend to poison the well. The principal
> datum in the AFE is the fact that there is evil. In the form you have
> presented it, it is the fact that there is suffering.
>
> The theodicy is that there is suffering, because there is sin, and
> once there is no more sin, there will be no more suffering. This does
> not minimize data at all, but you have in fact minimized, by
> completely failing to acknowledge, the datum that there is sin.
Of course I acknowledge that, but I deny that that *justifies* God in
not preventing the suffering.
Which is not consistent with his being good.
> > > One such spirit is the soul of the pedophile
> > > himself, and there are also demons.
>
> > So why does God allow it? Respect for free will?
>
> Partly. Partly because God's Plan involves nature enlightened by
> grace. Normally, He lets nature take its course, and He always offers
> grace. It is a matter of free will, whether a person accepts grace.
> If a person rejects all grace with finality, they become more or less
> evil incarnate, just walking around inflicting evil wherever they go,
> until finally God dies them and they are in hell for all eternity.
> What would such a person *NOT* do??? Should God make an exception to
> letting nature run its course, only in certain cases? Why should He
> do that, if there is value in suffering? If there is value in
> suffering, then the suffering inflicted by evil souls has value, and
> increases God's justification for granting more graces to those
> willing to accept them. The evil soul itself has already rejected all
> possibility of grace, and so doesn't receive any, but others do, and
> so even the evil inflicted by such a soul can be used by God to work
> good.
>
I find your take on life very warped.
> > > > All seems a bit sick to me...
>
> > > Definitely sick, but not God you're talking about.
>
> > I don't know if he can escape the charge of being sick if he
> > deliberately allows it to happen.
>
> It's kind of irrelevant, ultimately, what kind of judgment you wish to
> pass on God, since He isn't subject to your judgment. You could
> poison yourself against Him, though, and for that reason I do not
> recommend it. God is all-good, and in His omnipotence, He is able to
> use even the worst of evils in His Plan, to work good. You don't
> always see how. But that does not mean it doesn't happen. Despite
> the arrogance of those on this group, God is not, in fact, on trial.
> Read the Book of Job.
>
Well, the AFE is relevant to the question of whether you and I have
reason to think that God exists. Seems to me that we have overwhelming
reason to think that the Christian God does not exist.
> > > > > Still,
> > > > > it is better to know the right thing to do than not to know it, and
> > > > > giving your Law to your human creatures would at least accomplish
> > > > > that.
>
> > > > But that's the point. It is *not* possible for rational people to know
> > > > that there is a God or what his will is.
>
> > > How is that a point? You haven't proved anything like that.
>
> > Well, the burden of proof is on the theist, so if I'm wrong then just
> > show me the least reason to think that God exists, and how I would
> > *rationally* go about deciding what his will is...
>
> God has revealed Himself and His Will to the whole world, and the
> Saints have taken Him in earnest, put His grace into operation, and
> attained to perfection with His help.
>
> So read the Saints!
>
> > Didn't you yourself admit just recently that you have to take someone
> > at their word about the matter?
>
> Yes.
>
> >Why would I have any *reason* to do
> > that?
>
> Because holiness ought both to appeal to you as a desirable state, and
> to be apparent to you in them. Their writings have value in this.
>
Which writings do you have in mind?
Why would their alleged holiness have any bearing on the truth of
their doctrine?
Dad getting to decide who his daughter marries.
> > > The death penalty for adultery indicates that God considers it a
> > > serious offense; the same for homosexual relations.
>
> > Ditto.
>
> Is it sick to punish sin, or is not sin itself sick? It seems to me
> you've stopped thinking about things at all, and are now just blindly
> calling names.
>
Wrong.
What *reason* do you have to offer me that prayer would do any good?
> Good for you, by the way, that you contribute to charities, and even
> better, that you make sure your money is being used well. but an
> omnipotent Being would have a more complete and permanent solution,
> which He does, which you apparently want no part of.
>
Because I do not see the slightest reason to think that he exists, and
I see overwhelming reason to think that he doesn't exist as outlined
in this thread. So I don't see any reason to think that your suggested
course of action would help.
Yes. I thought you were a rational person. Bit silly, really.
> >You deny
> > that there were many hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary
> > history involving excruciating suffering for many animals who could do
> > nothing about it before humans ever existed?
>
> No, I believe evolution most likely occurred, and is accounted in the
> Bible by saying God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and
> also, that God commanded the water and the earth to bring forth
> creatures. It does not say He created them from nothing, it says He
> commanded the water and the earth to produce them --- consistent with
> evolution.
>
> I have gone into some detail, above, about the so-called "excruciating
> suffering" of animals.
>
> > Then you're beyond hope, really, aren't you?
>
> I have a lot of hope. You don't appear to have much, to tell the
> truth.
>
Why not? I take steps to make the world a better place and feel good
about doing it. Seems pretty optimistic to me. A lot more hopeful than
praying.
> > There's no reason why other sentient beings should have to bear the
> > burden of any immoral decisions that Adam and Eve allegedly made.
>
> Why not, if it repairs for sin? Jesus was a sentient being, was He
> not? And He bore the burden of Adam and Eve's sin, Himself.
>
That was consensual, wasn't it?
> > > Then, for you to say "not a very good response" is not a very good
> > > response.
>
> > Yes, it is, especially in conjunction with my other remarks.
>
> > > The reason it isn't very good is you don't support it with
> > > anything.
>
> > False. I argued my point of view very eloquently.
>
> > > Point out what is wrong with it,
>
> > I did.
>
> > > point out what could be
> > > done better.
>
> > I did. In fact I did that in my first post, and I elaborated on that
> > in response to you.
>
> > > Keep in mind that you have to take everything into
> > > account.
>
> > I did.
>
> > > We have,
>
> > > 1. Human free will,
> > > 2. The unfortunate fact of human sin,
> > > 3. The standard of moral perfection, and
> > > 4. God's desire to bring humans to that standard.
>
> > > He has to convert them from their sins, without violating their free
> > > will. His solution is grace. What would yours be?
>
> > I think I've made it pretty clear.
>
> I must have missed it.
You haven't been listening. Oh, well.
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>On Jan 5, 3:11 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 29, 3:16 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 28, 5:27 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > ... I would bring it about that all sentient beings were secure in
> >> > their basic needs and no longer had any need or disposition to
> >> > seriously harm one another.
>
> >> > Would this be morally wrong?
>
> >> Overly simplistic, perhaps.
>
> > I don't think I get what's being claimed here.
>
> Well, I'm not sure what precisely you mean by the statement. Further,
> I consider that it faces issues of over constraint that threatens to
> make the claim simply a nebulous wish.
>
Don't understand.
> >> Of course, the speculation rests on a conjectural condition that is
> >> ambiguous at best. What do you mean by omnipotent?
>
> > This is one attempt to clarify the concept:
>
> >http://books.google.com.au/books?id=rqGqEfDk8-oC&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&d...
>
> > I don't really have a problem with the idea that the notion as
> > Swinburne defines it is coherent. I welcome clarification about
> > whether you believe that there is a God who is omnipotent in this
> > sense.
>
> Thanks for the reference, that is the specificity for omnipotent I was
> looking for. :)
>
>
>
> >> What do you mean
> >> by "secure"? Basic needs?
>
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secure?db=dictionary
> >http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/basic+human+needs
>
> Ok, thanks, how does Maslow's hierarchy fit into your conception?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
>
Well, let's say we just cover physiological and safety.
> >> Disposition to harm?
>
> > I don't know how I can help you, really. Are you able to give me some
> > hints about what the point of confusion is? I did say "seriously
> > harm". Perhaps you need clarification about what counts as a serious
> > harm? I'm not talking about declining an invitation to a social
> > engagement. I agree that that point could use some clarification.
>
> Yea, again, I'm wondering if the condition is not seriously
> over-constrained. Particularly in the area of rights, where a
> Christian might maintain that particular rights are important, while a
> non-believer might claim a similar importance that the rights are not
> allowed, so I was interested in that part of it.
>
What rights are you talking about?
> > I don't know, if you love precise definitions so much maybe we should
> > talk about maths instead. You claim to have an interest in recursion
> > theory and the lambda calculus.
>
> I find a lot of personal enjoyment and profit in reading about and
> considering various aspects of functional programming[1] and symbolic
> logic.
>
Which texts in symbolic logic have you been reading lately?
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>
>
> On Jan 5, 3:11 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 29, 3:16 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Dec 28, 5:27 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > ... I would bring it about that all sentient beings were secure in
>> >> > their basic needs and no longer had any need or disposition to
>> >> > seriously harm one another.
>>
>> >> > Would this be morally wrong?
>>
>> >> Overly simplistic, perhaps.
>>
>> > I don't think I get what's being claimed here.
>>
>> Well, I'm not sure what precisely you mean by the statement. Further,
>> I consider that it faces issues of over constraint that threatens to
>> make the claim simply a nebulous wish.
>
> Don't understand.
I consider your statement faces the same kind of danger that someone
who dreams of winning the lottery might face: "If I had millions of
dollars I would do <insert multiple dream goals here>"
The reality of what such a lottery winners would do with their
winnings might not match the dream. :)
>> >> Disposition to harm?
>>
>> > I don't know how I can help you, really. Are you able to give me some
>> > hints about what the point of confusion is? I did say "seriously
>> > harm". Perhaps you need clarification about what counts as a serious
>> > harm? I'm not talking about declining an invitation to a social
>> > engagement. I agree that that point could use some clarification.
>>
>> Yea, again, I'm wondering if the condition is not seriously
>> over-constrained. Particularly in the area of rights, where a
>> Christian might maintain that particular rights are important, while a
>> non-believer might claim a similar importance that the rights are not
>> allowed, so I was interested in that part of it.
>>
>
> What rights are you talking about?
I'm specifically considering issues of church and state (note I didn't
say separation of!) and how a non-believer might measure or evaluate
"disposition to harm".
>> > I don't know, if you love precise definitions so much maybe we should
>> > talk about maths instead. You claim to have an interest in recursion
>> > theory and the lambda calculus.
>>
>> I find a lot of personal enjoyment and profit in reading about and
>> considering various aspects of functional programming[1] and symbolic
>> logic.
>>
>
> Which texts in symbolic logic have you been reading lately?
http://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Semantics-Studies-Foundations-Mathematics/dp/0444875085
Regards,
Brock
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>How do chemicals suffer?
> > So there is a question as to whether there is anything in an animal
> > that can suffer. Certainly, we observe what appears to be suffering
> > in them, and we experience compassion on them because we assume that
> > that appearance equates to what it is like for us to suffer. But what
> > is it in us that suffers? Is it more than just a complex series of
> > chemical reactions? It seems it must be, because chemicals themselves
> > do not appear capable of experiencing pleasure or pain. It is not the
> > chemical processes connected with pain, in us, that suffer. Rather,
> > it is we who suffer, when those chemical processes occur. A self who
> > is a subject, suffers. Then the question is whether there is anything
> > in an animal that we could call a subjective self. Is an animal
> > *just* a collection of chemical processes, or does it have a soul?
>
> Just because you are just a collection of chemical processes doesn't
> mean you can't suffer.
I am not a collection of chemical processes. Only my body is that.
Since I am connected to my body, I suffer when there are certain
electrical impulses in my nerves. But I am not under any delusion
that those electrical impulses suffer, or that the chemical reactions
they create, suffer. Only a being can possibly suffer.
>I think it quite likely that you and I are just
> collections of chemical processes. I don't know what you mean by
> "soul".
>
The non-material part of a human being. The aware subject. That
which feels, wills, thinks, and experiences suffering or joy.
> > It seems there are three possibilites: either both ourselves and
> > animals have souls, or, we have souls and animals do not, or, there is
> > no such thing as a soul. If there is no such thing as a soul, then
> > there is nothing at all that can possibly suffer,
>
> False.
>
How do chemicals suffer anything? The only reason you suspect there
is any such thing as suffering, is that you experience it. When an
animal undergoes the same kinds of chemical reactions that, in you,
would cause you to suffer, you experience compassion on that animal.
If there is a subjective experiencer of the animal's physiological
states, then that subjective experiencer (i.e., soul) suffers. If
not, then the only suffering connected with those physiological states
is in a human soul, by way of compassion.
> > and the AFE loses
> > its force completely. The AFE is based, not only on the supposition
> > of real suffering, but also on the idea that such ought not to be the
> > case. But if all that is happening is reduced to physics and
> > chemistry, it is hard to make the case that there is anything that
> > "ought not to be the case," at all.
>
> False.
>
How do chemicals answer to moral standards?
> > Such entails a moral judgment,
> > and that is strictly the province of a soul.
>
> False.
>
How do chemicals make moral judgments?
> > Of course, we are here
> > assuming a premise that usually comes from atheists, and the AFE
> > assumes from the start that there is God, in order to disprove Him by
> > contradiction. So it seems that "no souls" will not serve us as a
> > useful assumption, at all.
>
> You are asserting that there are no grounds for making moral
> judgements if there are no souls.
Yes.
>There is just no reason to think
> that to be the case.
The fact that a chemical doesn't do anything except react in
predictable ways, would seem to be a reason to think that there is
more to a moral judgment than neuro-chemistry.
>You haven't defined "soul", anyway.
>
I did, above. The thinking, feeling, knowing, experiencing subject.
> > What about, then, the possibility that animals have souls just as we
> > do? This seems to point to ideas of reincarnation, with animal life
> > being one of the possibilities. To imagine that there are immortal
> > souls in animals who are destined to remain animals forever, seems
> > arbitrarily cruel.
>
> Peter Unger thinks that they have immortal souls which have the same
> propensities as the souls humans have, if only they were hooked up to
> "better brains".
>
That would point to transmigration, possibly. I am not discounting
the possibility, even though I don't hold it to be the case. But *if*
it is the case, then animal suffering is inextricably bound to human
sin, and the animal state is just karma, which could be a form of
Purgatory.
> > If we also wish to account gradual evolution here,
> > then it does seem that some immortal souls have suffered for eons,
> > without any immediate possibility of release. This would point to a
> > deistic sort of god, if any. In such a case, there is no reason to
> > assume that such a god would have any interest in relieving our
> > suffering at all.
>
> The whole point of the AFE is that the evidence is absolutely
> overwhelming that there is no god who is in any way interested in
> relieving our suffering at all.
>
In that case, there wouldn't be the Church. But, there is the Church;
therefore, that can't be the case.
> > It would seem that, in such a case, it is up to us,
> > that we are the entirety of anything that could be called "God." The
> > point of suffering, in such a case, would be to ascend, to evolve, to
> > attain to a human incarnation, and possibly beyond, if anything beyond
> > can be conceived to exist. Then, the responsibility for suffering
> > falls, not on some external "God," but squarely on ourselves. So here
> > also, the AFE loses its force.
>
> No, you conceded that on this scenario theism is false, which is what
> the AFE aspires to prove. So it hardly "loses its force". It succeeds.
>
No, this scenario is based on the initial *assumption* that theism is
false. The AFE makes the initial assumption that theism is true, and
tries to arrive at a contradiction. The initial assumption that
theism is not true precludes the AFE from ever being made.
> > Catholic Doctrine points to the middle idea, that human beings have
> > immortal souls and animals do not. This is principally why I do not
> > believe we ought to take animal suffering into account.
>
> If you saw someone applying a blowtorch to a stray dog, would you call
> the police? If so, why?
>
Yes, along with more immediate action. Because it would bother me to
witness cruelty to an animal, because my nervous system is hard-wired
to experience compassion on animals.
Providing the Mass and the Sacraments, along with the Communion of
Saints. Just like always.
> > it would just take
> > away from the absolute truth of her doctrines.
>
> Quite. Which was the whole point.
>
But, again, this is based on a contrary initial assumption, not a
conclusion.
> > Or, possibly, it would
> > simply require us to see them in a different light. It is still
> > possible that such a view could be reconciled with Catholicism, I just
> > do not, for my part, presently see exactly and fully how.
>
> Well, the scientific consensus is that vertebrates can suffer.
No, the scientific consensus --- and the dictate of common sense ---
is that they present the appearance of suffering. Science hasn't
proven they have souls.
It is one thing to observe a phenomenon. It is quite another to
assign a definite noumenon to a phenomenon. To do the latter,
requires making certain assumptions, and it is unclear that the
assumptions that call our observation of animal suffering the
observing of the actual suffering of beings like ourselves, is valid.
>And in
> my view this makes the force of the AFE absolutely overwhelming. So I
> guess I win.
>
You haven't proved it is anything beyond chemicals, and no one has
demonstrated any way in which chemicals themselves can possibly
suffer.
True, and neither was Job, and neither was Christ. But they suffered,
too. It is an unfortunate fact, and a consequence of the Fall, that
children suffer. But it is, for all its unfortunateness, a fact. If
God has a plan that includes their suffering, then He has a plan. The
moral bankruptcy isn't in God, who is only interested in healing the
whole world of its sins. The moral bankruptcy would be in a person
who, aware that sin is the root of suffering, would then categorically
refuse to give up his sins.
God, in the first place, avoided placing man in the world of good and
evil, by planting the Garden of Paradise and putting him there
instead. The first man sinned, and lost that privilege for himself
and all his progeny. It is a terrible thing, to be born into a world
of good and evil. We are not well-suited to it, having been created
initially for Paradise. So given that we are born into what does not
suit us, it is obvious that we will suffer. And since all of us start
out as children, it is obvious that children will suffer, too. The
question is, once you grow up, what are you going to do about it?
> > It is certainly an appeal to emotion, to bring up the suffering of
> > innocent children. But let's see if we can stick with arguing
> > logically rather than emotionally. Logically, suffering is
> > suffering. In Eden, there was none. In the world of good and evil,
> > there is some. Either any amount of suffering is fuel for an argument
> > about the nature of God, or, there is required a certain level of
> > suffering before we can make that argument. Either way, the argument
> > has been made, so evidently the amount of suffering in the world is
> > sufficient for the argument to be made. *More* suffering, does not
> > increase the weight of the argument,
>
> Yes, it does. More suffering might make some theodicies
> unsatisfactory.
>
But my theodicy acknowledges *any* amount of suffering, even more than
actually exists, in principle.
> > which either stands or falls on
> > the strength or weakness of a theodicy, which is what the argument
> > calls for by way of refutation.
>
> But all theodicies are pitiful.
>
A theodicy should, first of all, be realistic. That means it should
take the world into account as it is. The world, as it is, contains
suffering. A theodicy demonstrates how the fact of suffering is
consistent with a good God.
If you think that to attempt to reconcile the fact of suffering with a
good God in any way is automatically pitiful, then of course you will
think all theodicies are pitiful. But there isn't any way around
facts, and suffering in the world is a fact. The question for a
theodicy is, is there any good way to deal with that fact? If you
assume there can be no good way, then oh well, reality sucks for you
and there's nothing you can do about it. But my theodicy is based on
the idea that there is something *I* can do about it, and God has
provided that something.
> > >Thirdly, you apparently
> > > think that it would be ethically objectionable to remove some people's
> > > dispositions to desire sexual relations with children because that
> > > would "violate their free will". I don't really have a problem with
> > > that. I'm not sure that they freely chose to have the dispositions in
> > > the first place, actually.
>
> > Again: this is an evil, and evils will necessarily exist in a world of
> > good and evil. It is an unconscionable evil, sure enough. But that
> > fact does not, by itself, give it more weight in an AFE.
>
> Yes, it does. Because God could have chosen to prevent that evil.
>
And did not. So the question is, why? And the theodicy gives a
coherent answer to that question. The theodicy does not eliminate
suffering, so if that was what you were looking for, you are bound to
be disappointed. But the theodicy makes sense of suffering in a way
that does not preclude the possibility of a good God, and that is all
it needs to do.
God could have prevented any and all evil. The question is not one of
degree, but of the fact itself. Can there be a good reason to allow
evil? And the fact of reparation for sin says, yes.
> > The question is whether an omnipotent, all-good, all-wise being should
> > directly intervene, to stop the natural course of events, or whether,
> > in His Wisdom, He might not have a better plan to change things that
> > would involve, possibly, a greater degree of co-operation from his
> > creature with free will.
>
> And when you consider what's at stake, the answer is obvious: he would
> directly intervene.
>
No, the fact is, you haven't taken into account, all that is at stake,
since you have no way of accessing all the facts. God, does.
> > > Those are some notable points of difference, there could be others.
>
> > You are not infinitely wise, and because of that, you are unable to
> > imagine what you would do if you were.
>
> I have some knowledge and therefore some idea.
>
There are factors that would be known to a being of infinite wisdom
that you could not possibly know about. So no, "some knowledge" and
"some idea" wouldn't cut it in this case.
It isn't the same thing as imagining what you would do if you knew the
solution to a problem. Here, the very solution you would come up with
*depends* on you actually possessing the necessary wisdom. So, your
imagination would not be adequate to the task. It is not enough to be
capable of imagining what you might do; the possibilities of what you
might do would not be apparent to you unless you actually possessed
the wisdom.
You can't assume your conclusion.
> > > > > > But
> > > > > > certainly, people have dispositions. People do not always choose how
> > > > > > they want to be, although, to my mind, they should. I advocate taking
> > > > > > full responsibility for oneself, which means not blaming any part of
> > > > > > your personality on your parents, or on the world, or society, or
> > > > > > anything else apart from yourself. But if this is true, then it
> > > > > > follows that those with dispositions to seriously harm others chose
> > > > > > those dispositions for themselves, with free will.
>
> > > > > No. That does not logically follow. Taking responsibility for your
> > > > > personality is great but it is certainly not true that you freely
> > > > > chose it. You can freely choose to make efforts to change it.
>
> > > > If I can freely choose to change it, can I not freely choose exactly
> > > > how to change it? And if this is so, then how do I not choose my
> > > > personality?
>
> > > Let us conjecture for the sake of argument that you do not currently
> > > regularly have strong desires to engage in homosexual activity. If
> > > that is so then that is an aspect of your personality, is it not?
> > > Could you freely choose to change that right now, if you entertained a
> > > whim to do so? Is that in your option set?
>
> > If God commanded it, I would.
>
> How would you go about doing it?
>
Just do it. If I did it, I'd probably like it.
> > He wouldn't, but that is beside the point you were trying to make.
>
> > > You can freely choose to make efforts to change your personality in
> > > certain ways, but it seems implausible to me that you can choose to
> > > make any change in your personality that you like instantly. Which
> > > would mean that there are some restrictions on your freedom to change
> > > it in any way you want to.
>
> > Time.
>
> More than that, I would think.
>
> So if you decided that God had commanded you to become homosexual,
> you would be able to manage it before you die?
>
Why not?
> How exactly?
>
Engaging in homosexual sex. There is nothing in principle repulsive
to me about a man. I find women more aesthetically pleasing, but, I
suspect the same is true of heterosexual women, and they seem to be
o.k. with having sex with men anyway. Contrary to the current
propaganda, I place a pretty high premium on personal choice.
> > > > I recognize that there are things about me, deeply ingrained, that I
> > > > would change only with extreme difficulty, but that is a matter of the
> > > > degree of effort required, or the amount of help required, or some
> > > > combination of those.
>
> > > Well, you only have a finite time budget...
>
> > Only according to you. According to my belief, I will be around
> > forever.
>
> > > Could you freely choose to raise your IQ to 200, if only you tried
> > > hard enough? (I apologise if I assume too much when I conjecture that
> > > you're not already there.) Is that a personality trait?
>
> > Maybe. I wonder. There are dietary considerations, and there are
> > mental exercises. Currently, I can't (at least I don't think I can)
> > lift 500 pounds, but if I worked out and built up my muscles, I could
> > reach that point.
>
> But not 500,000. So there are some limits.
>
Sure. Probably couldn't raise my i.q. to 20,000, either. 200 might
even be a stretch. But I think I could improve my intelligence.
> > I don't have a motive to do so, so I probably
> > won't, but there is nothing I know of that makes it impossible. Maybe
> > the same is true of mental prowess, maybe the reason more people don;t
> > do just htat is that the efforts required are not perceived as
> > commensurate with the goal.
>
> I think there is pretty strong evidence to the contrary, really.
>
Actually, there are definite practices that seem to increase one's
intelligence. Reading, for example. I don't mean increasing
information, I mean actually increasing intelligence.
Begging the question, once again, how can chemicals possibly
experience suffering?
> > 2. How?
>
> It's obvious. An omnipotent being would not need to bring about all
> that evolutionary process in order to achieve the desired outcome.
>
How would He do it? It might be a logical impossibility. Have you
examined potential ways?
> > > > But it is not entirely clear that we ought to concern ourselves with
> > > > the suffering of beasts. I am not advocating cruelty to animals,
> > > > merely pointing out that it might not count in any Argument From
> > > > Evil. It is unclear that their suffering as such can be assigned true
> > > > meaning, since they do not have immortal souls.
>
> > > I find that stance rather morally repugnant.
>
> > Because you think you can identify with animal suffering. But really,
> > you can't. You can feel compassion, because of the similitude between
> > us and the animals, but you can't actually identify with their
> > suffering, if it exists, because you don't know what it's like to be
> > an animal, or whether indeed there is any such thing as "what it's
> > like."
>
> I do know that it is like something. The difficulties in knowing what
> it is like are the same as with a baby. For that matter I have fairly
> limited insight into what it is like to be you.
>
True, but you know I am a human being like you, and the same for a
baby. You don't know that an animal is a human being like you.
>
>
> > > > The suffering experienced by human beings since the Fall is part of
> > > > the punishment incurred by that Fall.
>
> > > Including in the case of innocent children under the age of five?
>
> > Is it part of the natural consequence of living in a world of good and
> > evil? Then yes.
>
> Well, that is pretty morally repugnant as well.
>
Why?
> As I say, it's very hard to mount a response to the AFE without saying
> a lot of things that are quite morally repugnant.
>
Just realism. The fact is, there is suffering. The fact is, the fact
of suffering can be reconciled with the idea of a good God.
"Morally repugnant" is a judgment, and assumes that there is validity
to a moral judgment, which in turn assumes a transcendent moral
standard, and that again is God.
> > > > So natural evil, suffering, and
> > > > death, are all things that would not occur if there were no sin in the
> > > > world.
>
> > > But many people, including many innocent children under five, suffer
> > > horribly when they have no moral responsibility for the sin in the
> > > world...
>
> > And:
>
> > > > And the suffering of these natural evils, at least in part,
> > > > repairs for sin.
>
> > ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
> > There's that.
>
> See above.
>
It is a theological fact, that God accepts suffering as reparation for
sin. If your only response is, "morally repugnant!" then it seems we
have reached an impasse. If you can't say why, if it is just a
feeling in you, then that is all it is, your feeling, your immediate
emotional response to something that is unfamiliar to your way of
thinking.
If, on the other hand, you can say why, then go ahead.
>
>
> > > Well, as I hope I've made clear, it wouldn't be the way I would run
> > > things if I were omnipotent. So that answers the question you asked me
> > > earlier.
>
> > But you don't actually have a clue what you might do if you were both
> > omnipotent and infinitely wise.
>
> Yes, I do. I do know *something* about it, because I know *something*
> now.
>
Not enough, as pointed out earlier.
> > > > > > I think that, in
> > > > > > light of what I have said about taking responsibility for oneself, to
> > > > > > claim that one had a need to harm someone is essentially a violation
> > > > > > of this.
>
> > > > > Well, I was more thinking of the nonhuman obligate carnivones, who
> > > > > don't have moral responsibility, but it would still be good if they
> > > > > didn't need to kill other sentient beings in order to survive.
>
> > > > The suffering of beasts may also be causally connected to the Fall of
> > > > Man, seeing that in Genesis, everyone was eating plants.
>
> > > Well, the nonhuman animals clearly aren't in any way morally
> > > responsible for anything that Adam and Eve or any other human did, so
> > > that seems rather unreasonable.
>
> > But either they suffer because they have souls like us, in which case
> > we are hopefully going to take them along with us on our spiritual
> > journey, or, they don't have souls like us, and therefore do not
> > suffer in a way analogous to our suffering.
>
> The evidence is overwhelming that they do suffer, and as I say, to
> suggest that a just God could inflict such suffering on them is
> morally repugnant. Same with the innocent five-year-old children.
>
Again: say why. Otherwise, this appears to be an impasse, and perhaps
there is nothing more for us to discuss.
> > > > > I do pay other people to inflict suffering and premature death on
> > > > > sentient beings, because plant-based agriculture and electricity
> > > > > production cause those things too, but I have made a fair amount of
> > > > > effort to reduce the extent to which I do that within the constraint
> > > > > of not dropping out of technological civilisation. If I did drop out
> > > > > of technological civilisation, then I would be sacrificing
> > > > > opportunities to reduce suffering in other ways. It is *in some sense*
> > > > > true that I don't need to case harm, but that would be true if I were
> > > > > an obligate carnivore. Fortunately, humans are not.
>
> > > > Even obligate carnivores *can* survive without killing, since God is
> > > > omnipotent.
>
> > > With God's assistance, yes, on the assumption that an omnipotent God
> > > exists. But if God exists then he is choosing not to assist them in
> > > that way for whatever reason.
>
> > > > And, according to Isaiah, that day will also come.
>
> > > Can't wait, but what's holding him up?
>
> > Your sins, among the sins of many.
>
> Do you have any thoughts about when my most recent sin was? Do you
> feel confident that I've sinned in the last six months? Would you care
> to elaborate on what you think I've done?
>
Is your moral behavior impeccable? If so, how did you achieve that?
But I have my doubts, not based on anything I've seen you do, but
based on the simple principle that "all have sinned." (Romans 3:23)
> > > > > You may perhaps be restricting your attention to harm towards humans.
> > > > > Well, that is true. In normal circumstances, humans do not need to
> > > > > harm other humans.
>
> > > > I think, for the purposes of this discussion, we should confine our
> > > > considerations to humans.
>
> > > I don't see any particular reason why.
>
> > Because only in humans can there be a solution for us, since we are
> > humans.
>
> That is true on the *atheistic* worldview, yes, but if there is an
> omnipotent God...
>
The solution still lies with us.
> > > I think that the argument from
> > > evil based on nonhuman suffering is extremely strong and I find the
> > > suggestion that the vast quantity of nonhuman suffering involved can
> > > be ignored to be morally repugnant.
>
> > Because you are convinced you can identify, but that is far from
> > clear.
>
> My reasons for thinking animals suffer are pretty similar to my
> reasons for thinking you can, really.
>
You are assuming that physical objects, essentially chemicals, can
suffer. But how?
> > >However, I do think that the
> > > argument from evil based on human suffering alone is also extremely
> > > strong, so I suppose I could comply with your suggestion for the sake
> > > of argument, for the moment at least.
>
> > O.K.
>
> > > > Especially since it is humans,
> > > > specifically, who have the fate of the whole world in their hands.
> > > > Humans alone can assess the trouble and imagine solutions, as you are
> > > > doing here.
>
> > > That is true if there is no God,
>
> > How is it not true if there is God?
>
> Because if there is God, then God can assess the trouble and imagine
> solutions, and if he is perfectly good and omnipotent then he should.
>
And He has. So all that remains is your implementation of that
solution, which you are resisting.
> > > as indeed there is not, certainly.
>
> > According to your pitifully limited thought.
>
> Well, that's not what I'd call civil. Why do you suppose that you are
> entitled to call my thought "pitifully limited" because I believe that
> God doesn't exist when you have never offered the *slightest reason*
> for thinking that he exists?
>
First of all, don't take offense. *My* thought is similarly pitifully
limited. It is only human thought, after all.
But I would not make a statement like, "indeed, there is no God,"
since I have strong reasons to think there is.
The Saints. That is a good place to start. In the Saints, perhaps
more than anywhere else, we can see evidence of God.
> > > But on your view of the matter there is a God who is infinitely wise
> > > and infinitely powerful, so it's not clear what's standing in the way
> > > of him doing something about the problem.
>
> > Sin.
>
> Why is that a barrier to implementing my proposed solution?
>
What proposed solution was that?
> > > There are substantial limits on the power of humans to do something
> > > about the situation. Those limits were much stronger until quite
> > > recently. In the late nineteenth century even the richest people in
> > > the world had no power to prevent deaths from influenza. We certainly
> > > could be doing a lot more about the problem. You could stop eating
> > > meat, for example, if you wanted to, But that is hardly an answer to
> > > the argument from evil.
>
> > The worst evil in the world is not suffering, the worst evil in the
> > world is sin.
>
> I don't agree. My sins are not as bad as 30,000 under-five children
> painfully dying every day. God should sort out his priorities.
>
You, in your less-than-infinite wisdom, apparently disagree with the
all-wise God.
This goes to my point that without infinite wisdom, you could not even
imagine what you would think with it.
I did not imagine it for myself, I have it on the strength of
revelation, that sin is the worst evil in God's eyes.
> > God is eliminating sin.
>
> Not much evidence of that either, really...
>
Lack of co-operation from human beings. But God is correcting that
now, too. You are just missing out, due to your lack of prayer.
> > Suffering will go by the
> > wayside, when sin does. And that, is the definitive answer to the
> > AFE.
>
> Pretty pitiful from where I'm standing.
>
From the perspective of one who does not even try? That's pretty
pitiful.
> > > > > > I.e., it is rejecting one's own responsibility for one's own
> > > > > > actions, attitudes, and dispositions, transferring that responsibility
> > > > > > to some necessity.
>
> > > > > I will happily take responsibility for my actions. I just think that
> > > > > if I were omnipotent it might be good to do something about the
> > > > > propensity to cause harm which seems to be quite widespread.
>
> > > > Indeed. It seems that ought to be foremost on a deity's mind.
>
> > > > And yet, one of the most common objections to theism is the perception
> > > > that God (or the Church) is trying to dictate morality against
> > > > people's wishes. Now, you can't have it both ways. You can't fault
> > > > God for not doing enough to correct us, if at the same time you object
> > > > to Him doing anything at all.
>
> > > No, I can't. And I never said I did. I do object to people forcing
> > > people to comply with a moral rule that they like *on those occasions
> > > when it seems to me to be unjustified*, certainly. But I have
> > > indicated certain ways in which I think that it *would* be justifiable
> > > for God to take steps which would be likely to get people to comply
> > > with certain moral rules. That doesn't mean that I need to agree with
> > > every moral teaching currently handed out by the Church.
>
> > But if not, you necessarily set yourself up as the standard or
> > morality.
>
> If that's what you call exercising my own judgement, yes. Better than
> taking the Church's every pronouncement as gospel without question.
>
Arguably not.
> > And by any idea of justice, then, you would have to extend
> > the same to every human being, including the Mansons and the Hitlers.
>
> Nonsense. Exercising my own moral judgement does not stop me from
> taking the view that some people have bad moral judgement or none at
> all.
>
But it does prevent you from having any basis of justification for
that opinion.
> > Either morality is personal and subjective, or it is not.
>
> That is not the issue under discussion. The issue of whether you
> should exercise your own moral judgement is not the same as the
> objectivism/subjectivism debate.
>
> I exercise my own mathematical judgement too, but I am not a
> mathematical subjectivist.
>
> You are deeply confused.
>
No, in mathematics, there is proof. We intuitively accept logic as
valid.
In morality, by contrast, there is either a standard similar to logic
for mathematics, or, there is not. Subjective moral judgments do not
a standard make. Either there is a standard that is valid, or, we are
on our own.
I do not intuitively accept your moral judgment as valid, and that is
the difference between morality and mathematics. Your analogy falls
flat.
> > If not,
> > then why should you be allowed to pick and choose what you like, but
> > not others?
>
> Others *are* allowed to pick and choose what they like, but they must
> suffer the consequences if others judge that they have done wrong.
>
> Everyone *does* pick and choose what they like. That's just the
> reality. But that doesn't mean that you can't do so in accordance with
> standards of rationality, as in other spheres of inquiry.
>
I have heard tell that "is" statements and "ought" statements, don't
mix.
Personally, I do have a standard that I judge by, but to the point,
you don't.
> > Or if so, then how can you call anything "unjustified,"
> > as if that held objective weight?
>
> You *can* be a second order moral skeptic without being a first order
> one, as discussed by Mackie in "Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong",
> but the point is moot because I'm not a moral subjectivist.
>
Then are you a moral objectivist? And if so, what is your standard?
I will have to do some research into what Mackie wrote, thanks for the
tip.
> > > > > I wouldn't have a problem with making everyone see the light and go
> > > > > vegan, no, I would not consider that an unacceptable violation of free
> > > > > will.
>
> > > > What if some, saw the light, and rejected it with free will?
>
> > > Well, you could punish them, proportionately...
>
> > To my understanding, the Catholic Church has an open door. Hell, is
> > simply that condition of being in any proximity to that open door, and
> > categorically refusing to step through it, ever.
>
> But the idea that eternal torment is a proportionate punishment for
> anything is yet another morally repugnant idea.
>
> You're coming on pretty thick and fast with these morally repugnant
> ideas. Tends to be the way when you try to defend Catholic doctrine.
>
You plainly did not understand my statement about the open door.
If damnation consists in never entering the Catholic Church, and if no
one except the one refusing to enter prevents him, the all damnation
is self-inflicted. God, doesn't have to do anything, except invite
you in. It is your own fault, if you decide to never take him up on
it. It will be torment for you, and you can stop the torment at any
time, by accepting the invitation, but if you never do, how is that
God's doing?
> > > > > So I suppose most of you think that it's just as well that I'm
> > > > > not omnipotent.
>
> > > > I think it is a good thing that if you ever do become omnipotent, you
> > > > will also have access to infinite Wisdom. I think God has all the
> > > > bases covered.
>
> > > > > > Would you use your omnipotence to force everyone to own their own
> > > > > > actions, and to take responsibility?
>
> > > > > Within some constraints, yes.
>
> > > > I specifically and intentionally used the word, "force." So, you
> > > > would violate free will? Couldn't an omniscient being come up with
> > > > better than that?
>
> > > I don't believe that the course of action you describe is a violation
> > > of free will.
>
> > How would you force someone who does not wish to take responsibility,
> > to take it, without violating their free will?
>
> Don't we all have to take responsibility anyway, in the sense of
> accepting the consequences of our actions?
>
Some, do all they can to avoid those consequences.
> I might have misunderstood what you meant by "taking responsibility".
>
To acknowledge that your own sins are your own, and that they are
sins. To accept the fact of your having done wrong. To desire to
change, and do what is right. To accept whatever help you can find,
in doing what is right. To ask for such help, seeing that you are
incapable of doing right all on your own.
> > > > > > That might be a good thing, but
> > > > > > would it involve, again, a violation of free will? Since part of the
> > > > > > problem you are trying to address involves the free actions of
> > > > > > sentient beings themselves, how would you go about altering those
> > > > > > actions to better suit your plan, without, at the same time, violating
> > > > > > the free will of those beings?
>
> > > > > I would change the circumstance that some sentient beings are not
> > > > > secure in their basic needs through no fault of their own.
>
> > > > Are you aware that that very circumstance provides opportunities for
> > > > the exercise of the virtue of charity?
>
> > > Yes, but I'd rather that there was no need for the exercise of that
> > > virtue.
>
> > Charity is kindness. Surely you do not propose eliminating kindness!
>
> No, but I'd rather that no-one *needed* to save innocent children from
> painfully dying. I'd rather that we showed kindness in other ways.
>
Sure. That would be great. But it isn't current reality.
> I don't think the fact that the deaths of innocent children provide us
> with opportunities to be charitable is in any way a cause for
> celebration.
>
Nor do I. But it also isn't a cause for rejecting God, or His help.
> > Charity is that which alone remains, when all sin and wrongdoing shall
> > be eliminated. There will *always* be the virtue of charity. Heaven
> > consists in it entirely.
>
> > Now surely, you mean that you wish there were no suffering, and that
> > sentiment is charitable, but only if it is connected with a similar
> > sentiment that you wish there to be no sin.
>
> No wrongdoing sounds great as well.
>
> But the suffering in the world is first no my list.
>
Well, your priorities appear to be reversed from God's.
That appears to be the crux of all your objections, too.
Are you willing to admit, even possibly, that you might be wrong?
> > For you to wish that suffering would be eliminated, but sin left
> > alone, is for one thing a contradiction in terms, and for another, not
> > wise. That is why God doesn't do it. And that is why there is still
> > suffering in the world.
>
> Doesn't sound morally defensible to me.
>
Punishment for wrongdoing isn't morally defensible?
Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam has become as one of us, knowing
good and evil: now therefore lest perhaps he put forth his hand and
take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. 23 And the
Lord God sent him out of the paradise of pleasure, to till the earth
from which he was taken. 24 And he cast out Adam: and placed before
the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every
way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
> > > I don't want other sentient beings to be hideously miserable
> > > just so that I can show how charitable I am.
>
> > But misery can improve you by providing you with the opportunity to
> > alleviate it. And since that is reality, don't you think it would be
> > better to do that, than to complain about how unfair God is because of
> > it?
>
> What are you talking about? I *am* alleviating misery, as I discussed.
>
But in ways akin to chopping down an oak with a nail file, as I've
said.
Not that I am saying you should stop your charitable contributions.
By no means! Just, you should add prayer to what you do.
> > > > And charity, in turn, is in
> > > > reality God correcting that circumstance!
>
> > > Well, if he's omnipotent, he should address the problem in a different
> > > and more effective way.
>
> > There is a possible better way than charity? What, pray tell??
>
> I said that in my initial post and have been trying to drill it into
> your thick skull ever since.
>
You described a course of action identical with God's. It is the
means of carrying it out that we are discussing now. God's method is
charity. You have a better way? What, pray tell? How would you
effect, to "bring it about that all sentient beings were secure in
their basic needs and no longer had any need or disposition to
seriously harm one another?"
> > It is easy to accuse God, from your comfortable armchair, of not doing
> > things right. It is more difficult to recognize that maybe, you don't
> > actually know what you're talking about.
>
> But I do.
>
> You haven't offered any reason to think that there's anything wrong
> with my initial proposal.
>
Indeed, I have pointed out that your initial proposal is identical
with God's plan.
But your initial proposal does not include a means for its
implementation, and apparently, you think you have a better idea than
what God is already doing. So, out with it! You would give money to
selected charities? So far, that's all you've offered by way of means
to the end.
> > > > >I would
> > > > > change the circumstance that some sentient beings need to harm others
> > > > > in order to survive. And I would make sentient beings *more disposed*
> > > > > not to do harm, while still allowing them to have free will. I don't
> > > > > consider that to be objectionable.
>
> > > > So, you would increase grace.
>
> > > > So does God.
>
> > > I'm not especially impressed with the extent to which he does it,
> > > given his omnipotence.
>
> > I am going to assume here that you haven't asked Him for any, at all.
> > In which case, it is you, who are not doing enough. God is the
> > infinite source of grace, so there is enough grace available in God to
> > completely eliminate all sin and, by that, all suffering. But people
> > are not willing to ask Him for it. You are a case in point. Evil in
> > the world can be blamed on you and your lack of prayer.
>
> There is no particular reason to think that prayer achieves anything.
>
> I believe that I can take credit for reducing the amount of evil in
> the world in the ways that I have good reason to think are effective.
>
I have good reason to believe you'd be more effective, if you prayed.
> > > > > > Since you are omniscient (we assume), surely you would know just what
> > > > > > things were, for lack of a better word, sins. You would have at least
> > > > > > a general idea of what would constitute proper human behavior, and you
> > > > > > would be able to express it succinctly. You could probably, I dunno,
> > > > > > sum it up in ten or so principles, and then reveal those principles to
> > > > > > the human race. Maybe write them on stone tablets and communicate
> > > > > > them to one of your prophets. That would solve the problem of the
> > > > > > ambiguity of your perceived will.
>
> > > > > Not in the least. That is exactly the issue. The authenticating
> > > > > miracle was too long ago for reasonable people to believe in it now.
>
> > > > ??? Do you need proof, that good is good?
>
> > > No. That is a tautology. The question is whether I need God's guidance
> > > about what is morally good as opposed to exercising my own judgement.
> > > If it is all up to my own judgement that that is fine, except that in
> > > that case God isn't really helping me.
>
> > And, as pointed out, how is your morality any better than Manson's or
> > Hitler's?
>
> That is a ridiculous question.
>
> Do you imagine that I'd have some difficulty in defending that
> proposition, do you?
>
> I have never said anything to indicate that moral reasoning is
> impossible, quite the reverse.
>
Go ahead and present some logical reason to think that your morality
is better in fact than either of those two generally-believed-to-be-
immoral men.
> > > If I need his guidance, then it
> > > would help if I could have some rational grounds for believing that
> > > some revelations have been authenticated by a miracle.
>
> > John 4:48 Jesus therefore said to him: Unless you see signs and
> > wonders, you believe not.
>
> Unless I see *reasons*, I believe not.
>
> Sounds like a good policy to me.
>
The Saints.
> > > I don't
> > > currently have that, any alleged authenticating miracle took place too
> > > long ago for me to have any rational grounds for believing in it.
>
> > But if good is good, as you admit, then you should be able to examine
> > the Law itself, and marvel at its perfection and simplicity.
>
> As I believe I said before, which bits of the Bible do you have in
> mind?
>
The Law. Exodus 20:1-17.
> Quite a lot in the Bible strikes me as morally repugnant.
>
> > > > > > It would accomplish spelling out
> > > > > > clearly, for your human creatures, exactly how you would like them to
> > > > > > behave. And it wouldn't violate their free will.
>
> > > > > My suggested solution is making people a little bit less disposed to
> > > > > act in ways I don't like.
>
> > > > So, grace.
>
> > > Given the way the world is I take there to be rather strong evidence
> > > that we could use a lot more of it.
>
> > YES! Yes indeed! Wow, we are practically on the same page here!
> > Sadly, I plan on doing something about it, while you plan on
> > complaining and doing nothing.
>
> Well, I don't believe in God. I take plenty of steps to reduce the
> amount of suffering in the world that *I* think will be effective.
>
> You apparently think you do more than me, but I've yet to see any
> reason for that contention...
>
I don't necessarily think that I do. But I do more than I otherwise
would, because I pray.
> > > I don't think we need to be blown
> > > away by the job God did of setting things up.
>
> > There is nothing wrong with the channels of grace. The Sacraments are
> > all intact. The Saints are ready and willing and able to help us.
> > There is just lack of co-operation, on the part of humans such as
> > yourself, with graces already received. And the only way to obtain
> > more graces, is to pray, which is the accepting of a grace already
> > received.
>
> But you haven't offered me the slightest reason to think that would
> achieve anything.
>
The Saints say it would, and the Saints did achieve great things, via
prayer.
> There are plenty of things that I do which I *do* have good reason to
> think would achieve something...
>
Prayer would not take away any of those, such as are authentic.
> > > > >Your suggested solution is to make a lot of
> > > > > people strongly disposed to inflict serious harm,
>
> > > > No, they do that to themselves.
>
> > > Debatable.
>
> > > So, you made the suggestion that we should only talk about human
> > > suffering, let us suppose that I go along with that for the sake of
> > > argument. Well, ignoring nonhuman suffering we may take it that
> > > neither you nor I have any strong disposition to *inflict* serious
> > > harm, but we certainly could both do more to reduce human suffering,
> > > couldn't we, I take it that on your account we freely chose to be
> > > disposed to not do as much as we could do.
>
> > Sadly, yes. But if we pray, God will change us.
>
> So you say.
>
Yep. And in this, I only echo God's Saints.
> > > But what about God's
> > > decision to set the whole situation up in the first place whereby we
> > > run the risk of many innocent under-five children dying painfully
> > > because of people's failure to exercise their power to choose as well
> > > as they could?
>
> > Just suffering, nothing more or less.
>
> I don't understand this answer.
>
The fact alluded to you by you above is just a fact of suffering. It
is not more than suffering. It is not less than suffering. It is
suffering. It falls under the general head of, "suffering."
> > > Seems to me that that decision is a bit questionable.
> > > Apparently it's all justified by the compensating good that people
> > > have the opportunity to exercise the virtue of charity.
>
> > No, there is also the fact that God accepts suffering as reparation
> > for sin. Primary in this regard, is Himself, when He suffered and
> > died for us, to redeem us from our sins. God did not spare Himself
> > the literally excruciating suffering of the Cross (the root of the
> > word 'excruciating.') by it, He redeemed the world. And He said,
>
> > John 14:12 . . . Amen, amen, I say to you, he that believes in me, the
> > works that I do, he also shall do: and greater than these shall he do.
>
> But the children didn't consent to take on that burden, so he has no
> business allowing them to endure it.
>
God has absolute dominion over all things. Whether or not you think
He should, He does in fact, accept suffering --- even suffering that
was not consented to --- as reparation for sin. Most probably, if He
waited for consent, no one would ever give it. So He accomplishes His
Will in ways that are logically possible.
> > > I find that a
> > > rather morally repugnant response, myself.
>
> > "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."
>
> I'm not trying to hurt you; why would I do that? I'm pointing out what
> I see as shortcomings in your argument, in the hope that you will re-
> examine it with a critical eye. Probably a rather futile hope, but
> there you go.
>
I have an idea. Rather than claim, "that is morally repugnant," say
exactly why. Back up your assertions with some argument or other.
> > > And how about the fact that
> > > for most of human history, many innocent under-five children and many
> > > others died painfully and there was nothing *anyone* could do about
> > > it? What exactly was that supposed to achieve?
>
> > Reparation.
>
> Well, that strikes me as morally disgusting.
>
Ditto as above.
> > > > >and issue
> > > > > instructions backed up by the threat of hellfire
>
> > > > --- Old Testament ---
>
> > > Oh, you deny the doctrine of hell?
>
> > Not in the least. But in the New Testament, is grace, to avoid hell.
>
> It looks like my description of the situation was correct, then.
>
Grace, is more than the Law and the threat of punishment. I assumed
that by "instructions," you meant the Law.
> > >The Catholic Church doesn't. If you
> > > disagree on that point then I suppose you must be claiming that God is
> > > allowing them to preach a false doctrine.
>
> > Stop being so silly.
>
> > > > >with an
> > > > > authenticating miracle which not everyone witnessed and in any case
> > > > > allegedly happened two thousand years ago. I like my solution better.
>
> > > > You are confusing Testaments here. Two thousand years ago marks the
> > > > beginning of the New Testament, which is considerably greater than
> > > > "instructions backed up by the threat of hellfire."
>
> > > How so?
>
> > Grace.
>
> Don't see how that's supposed to make any difference, myself.
>
It is the difference between not possibly being able to live up to the
moral standard, and possibly being able to live up to it. It is the
difference between sin never ending, and sin coming to an end. Seems
pretty key, to me.
> > > > In any case, we were discussing the Law, as God's instruction book for
> > > > living a perfect life.
>
> > > As set forth where, exactly?
>
> > Exodus 20:1-17.
>
Gee, I see I did already give you this, so maybe you should pay more
attention, so as not to keep repeating already-answered questions.
They evoke compassion in me.
> I thought you said that they were capable of suffering. So what's
> the point?
>
> > I have compassion.
>
> Are you not contradicting yourself? How can you be compassionate
> towards a being that is incapable of suffering?
>
I feel it, so I can't deny I feel it. It is a natural response.
Animals look enough like me to evoke it.
> Better make up your mind.
>
I'm pretty clear on what I think. Your insinuation of some
contradiction doesn't change that clarity.
I feel compassion on an animal, because animals are similar in
appearance to humans. Intellectually, I hold that they have no souls,
and thus do not suffer in ways analogous to human suffering. But if I
were cruel to an animal, *I* would be acting contrary to what I feel,
and why would I do that?
> > I am just not under the illusion that
> > my compassion on an animal is compassion on a suffering soul.
>
> What's the meaning of "compassion" then? You do know the etymology of
> the word, don't you? Shared suffering?
>
Maybe compassion isn't the right word. It feels like compassion,
though. I want to alleviate the suffering of an animal just as if the
animal really had a soul. It seems to me that they do, but, I
maintain that the Church is correct, rather than my own judgment by
appearances.
So actually, maybe I do fall under that illusion, that an animal
really suffers. Awareness that it is an illusion doesn't eliminate
the illusion, it just has me think that the appearance of things is
deceiving. That happens quite often in other contexts, so why not
this one?
Why? Why is this particular thing so different from all the other
effects of the Fall from Grace, that God should prevent it,
specifically, but not the rest of those things?
> > > Any attempt to minimise the *data* on which the argument from evil is
> > > based is offensive in the extreme.
>
> > Emotionally laden arguments do tend to poison the well. The principal
> > datum in the AFE is the fact that there is evil. In the form you have
> > presented it, it is the fact that there is suffering.
>
> > The theodicy is that there is suffering, because there is sin, and
> > once there is no more sin, there will be no more suffering. This does
> > not minimize data at all, but you have in fact minimized, by
> > completely failing to acknowledge, the datum that there is sin.
>
> Of course I acknowledge that, but I deny that that *justifies* God in
> not preventing the suffering.
>
You apparently don't think sin is such a big deal, or at least that it
is less of a big deal than suffering. God, on the other hand, appears
to think the opposite. So if God is infinitely wise, then it seems
plain that you aren't seeing things quite correctly.
What would lead you to minimize the wrongness of sin, so much so that
you thought suffering was worse?
Sure it is. The influence of evil spirits is one more effect of the
Fall. What would justify God in keeping from man the knowledge of
good and evil, after man had chosen it for himself?
> > > > One such spirit is the soul of the pedophile
> > > > himself, and there are also demons.
>
> > > So why does God allow it? Respect for free will?
>
> > Partly. Partly because God's Plan involves nature enlightened by
> > grace. Normally, He lets nature take its course, and He always offers
> > grace. It is a matter of free will, whether a person accepts grace.
> > If a person rejects all grace with finality, they become more or less
> > evil incarnate, just walking around inflicting evil wherever they go,
> > until finally God dies them and they are in hell for all eternity.
> > What would such a person *NOT* do??? Should God make an exception to
> > letting nature run its course, only in certain cases? Why should He
> > do that, if there is value in suffering? If there is value in
> > suffering, then the suffering inflicted by evil souls has value, and
> > increases God's justification for granting more graces to those
> > willing to accept them. The evil soul itself has already rejected all
> > possibility of grace, and so doesn't receive any, but others do, and
> > so even the evil inflicted by such a soul can be used by God to work
> > good.
>
> I find your take on life very warped.
>
I fail to see how realism is warped.
I find the position that my realism is warped, warped. Right back
atcha!
> > > > > All seems a bit sick to me...
>
> > > > Definitely sick, but not God you're talking about.
>
> > > I don't know if he can escape the charge of being sick if he
> > > deliberately allows it to happen.
>
> > It's kind of irrelevant, ultimately, what kind of judgment you wish to
> > pass on God, since He isn't subject to your judgment. You could
> > poison yourself against Him, though, and for that reason I do not
> > recommend it. God is all-good, and in His omnipotence, He is able to
> > use even the worst of evils in His Plan, to work good. You don't
> > always see how. But that does not mean it doesn't happen. Despite
> > the arrogance of those on this group, God is not, in fact, on trial.
> > Read the Book of Job.
>
> Well, the AFE is relevant to the question of whether you and I have
> reason to think that God exists.
No it isn't. The Cosmological Argument shows us that God exists. The
Argument From Evil is an attempt to rationalize an excuse to refuse to
serve Him.
> Seems to me that we have overwhelming
> reason to think that the Christian God does not exist.
>
Well, *I* don't, so, "we" don't. And I'm not convinced you do. I
think you've got rationalizations why you wish not to serve Him.
> > > > > > Still,
> > > > > > it is better to know the right thing to do than not to know it, and
> > > > > > giving your Law to your human creatures would at least accomplish
> > > > > > that.
>
> > > > > But that's the point. It is *not* possible for rational people to know
> > > > > that there is a God or what his will is.
>
> > > > How is that a point? You haven't proved anything like that.
>
> > > Well, the burden of proof is on the theist, so if I'm wrong then just
> > > show me the least reason to think that God exists, and how I would
> > > *rationally* go about deciding what his will is...
>
> > God has revealed Himself and His Will to the whole world, and the
> > Saints have taken Him in earnest, put His grace into operation, and
> > attained to perfection with His help.
>
> > So read the Saints!
>
> > > Didn't you yourself admit just recently that you have to take someone
> > > at their word about the matter?
>
> > Yes.
>
> > >Why would I have any *reason* to do
> > > that?
>
> > Because holiness ought both to appeal to you as a desirable state, and
> > to be apparent to you in them. Their writings have value in this.
>
> Which writings do you have in mind?
>
Writings of Saints. So many to choose from. No doubt you can find
one who appeals to you.
> Why would their alleged holiness have any bearing on the truth of
> their doctrine?
>
Because it is impossible for anyone to attain to holiness. Only God
has it, and only God can give it. Therefore, the holiness of the
Saints is *yet another* reason to believe God is real.
Oh come on! Really?? You do realize this is the way it has been for
most of the history of mankind, right?
Nice shifting of gears there, though. You had me convinced you were
talking about the immorality of *slavery.* Maybe it was your
statement that began this part of our thread: "He also advocates
slavery, and the death penalty for adultery and homosexuality."
So, I guess slavery isn't really the issue? It's arranged marriages,
now?
> > > > The death penalty for adultery indicates that God considers it a
> > > > serious offense; the same for homosexual relations.
>
> > > Ditto.
>
> > Is it sick to punish sin, or is not sin itself sick? It seems to me
> > you've stopped thinking about things at all, and are now just blindly
> > calling names.
>
> Wrong.
>
Why should God kowtow to your personal morality?
It has done much good, for centuries. Read the Saints!!!!!
That is a reason: the reason you might think it will do some good now,
is the fact that it has done some good in the past. The evidence that
it has done some good in the past, is the lives of the Saints, who
obtained everything through prayer. So read them, and you will find
the reason you seek.
> > Good for you, by the way, that you contribute to charities, and even
> > better, that you make sure your money is being used well. but an
> > omnipotent Being would have a more complete and permanent solution,
> > which He does, which you apparently want no part of.
>
> Because I do not see the slightest reason to think that he exists, and
> I see overwhelming reason to think that he doesn't exist as outlined
> in this thread. So I don't see any reason to think that your suggested
> course of action would help.
>
Nonsense. You wanted to argue from the fact of evil to the fact of no
good God. It was pointed out to you that that doesn't follow, because
God does eliminate evil, in His ways. But His ways, it is pointed
out, involve your co-operation. So now, you want no part of it.
You could contribute to the saving of this world. You could be right
inside God's Will. You could be His chosen instrument for change.
All of this is consistent with His plan for eliminating suffering in
the world. But you would rather argue that, since He hasn't already
done it without you, you have no reason to believe He exists. And in
so arguing, you are not going to prove He doesn't exist, you're just
going to prove that you are unwilling to be His instrument of change,
because that takes faith, and you want none of it.
No, you were correct, I am a rational person. That is why I don't buy
the unproven propaganda that the events in the Bible are impossible
for an omnipotent God.
> > >You deny
> > > that there were many hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary
> > > history involving excruciating suffering for many animals who could do
> > > nothing about it before humans ever existed?
>
> > No, I believe evolution most likely occurred, and is accounted in the
> > Bible by saying God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and
> > also, that God commanded the water and the earth to bring forth
> > creatures. It does not say He created them from nothing, it says He
> > commanded the water and the earth to produce them --- consistent with
> > evolution.
>
> > I have gone into some detail, above, about the so-called "excruciating
> > suffering" of animals.
>
> > > Then you're beyond hope, really, aren't you?
>
> > I have a lot of hope. You don't appear to have much, to tell the
> > truth.
>
> Why not? I take steps to make the world a better place and feel good
> about doing it. Seems pretty optimistic to me.
Sure.
> A lot more hopeful than
> praying.
>
Not really. You just discount the value of prayer, despite the
overwhelming evidence that prayer works. There are many, many books
written by Saints.
> > > There's no reason why other sentient beings should have to bear the
> > > burden of any immoral decisions that Adam and Eve allegedly made.
>
> > Why not, if it repairs for sin? Jesus was a sentient being, was He
> > not? And He bore the burden of Adam and Eve's sin, Himself.
>
> That was consensual, wasn't it?
>
Yes. But suffering is not gone, yet. And the question is whether or
not you will suffer. The question is, what will you do with your
suffering? The saints offered theirs up in union with the sufferings
of Christ, to repair for sin. But some, it seems, would rather turn
it around into an excuse not to serve God. It not a matter of your
free will, whether or not you will suffer. It is a matter of your
free will, what you will do with it.
You gave a plan identical with the plan that God carries out via
grace, but you have not said how you would implement it differently.
Or actually, if your plan specifically discludes eliminating sin, then
your plan is immoral. It is wrong, to eliminate suffering, which is
after all a punishment for sin, without eliminating sin.
And the Argument From Evil, to be coherent, needs to take into account
not only physical, but also moral, evil.
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>
Observer
Once again well said .
And an excellent response.
Psychonomist
> ...
>
> read more »
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>That wasn't really the claim under discussion. The scientific
consensus is that all vertebrates suffer and *some* claim that all
vertebrates including humans are purely physical beings. If you think
that there's some reason why a purely physical being couldn't suffer
then maybe you could elaborate.
> > > So there is a question as to whether there is anything in an animal
> > > that can suffer. Certainly, we observe what appears to be suffering
> > > in them, and we experience compassion on them because we assume that
> > > that appearance equates to what it is like for us to suffer. But what
> > > is it in us that suffers? Is it more than just a complex series of
> > > chemical reactions? It seems it must be, because chemicals themselves
> > > do not appear capable of experiencing pleasure or pain. It is not the
> > > chemical processes connected with pain, in us, that suffer. Rather,
> > > it is we who suffer, when those chemical processes occur. A self who
> > > is a subject, suffers. Then the question is whether there is anything
> > > in an animal that we could call a subjective self. Is an animal
> > > *just* a collection of chemical processes, or does it have a soul?
>
> > Just because you are just a collection of chemical processes doesn't
> > mean you can't suffer.
>
> I am not a collection of chemical processes. Only my body is that.
> Since I am connected to my body, I suffer when there are certain
> electrical impulses in my nerves. But I am not under any delusion
> that those electrical impulses suffer, or that the chemical reactions
> they create, suffer. Only a being can possibly suffer.
>
See above. Why is it not possible that you are a purely physical
being?
> >I think it quite likely that you and I are just
> > collections of chemical processes. I don't know what you mean by
> > "soul".
>
> The non-material part of a human being.
Whose existence needs to be argued...
> The aware subject. That
> which feels, wills, thinks, and experiences suffering or joy.
>
As remarked a few times, the proposition that conscious experiences
are not physical processes needs to be argued.
> > > It seems there are three possibilites: either both ourselves and
> > > animals have souls, or, we have souls and animals do not, or, there is
> > > no such thing as a soul. If there is no such thing as a soul, then
> > > there is nothing at all that can possibly suffer,
>
> > False.
>
> How do chemicals suffer anything? The only reason you suspect there
> is any such thing as suffering, is that you experience it. When an
> animal undergoes the same kinds of chemical reactions that, in you,
> would cause you to suffer, you experience compassion on that animal.
The reasons I have for thinking that the nonhuman animal suffers are
pretty similar to the reasons that I would have for thinking that
*you* are suffering if I were to observe you suffering. In both cases
I observe behaviour which I know typically accompanies instances of
suffering in *my* case. I would probably also be able to detect
neurophysiological processes in both cases which I would be able to
confirm are similar to the neurophysiological processes that typically
accompany suffering in my case. You unlike the nonhuman animal are a
language-user and presumably would be able to *report* that you are
suffering; that is some additional evidence. But there is substantial
commonality of evidence between the two cases as well. There is really
no good reason to think that nonhuman animals are incapable of
suffering, regardless of what your take is on the question of which
animals if any are purely physical beings.
> If there is a subjective experiencer of the animal's physiological
> states, then that subjective experiencer (i.e., soul) suffers. If
> not, then the only suffering connected with those physiological states
> is in a human soul, by way of compassion.
>
As remarked, there is no particularly good reason for me to think that
the subjective aspect to the experience is lacking in the nonhuman
animal's case, any more than in your case.
> > > and the AFE loses
> > > its force completely. The AFE is based, not only on the supposition
> > > of real suffering, but also on the idea that such ought not to be the
> > > case. But if all that is happening is reduced to physics and
> > > chemistry, it is hard to make the case that there is anything that
> > > "ought not to be the case," at all.
>
> > False.
>
> How do chemicals answer to moral standards?
>
That's a pretty silly question, really. Why don't you have a go at
telling me why a purely physical ontology makes it *more* difficult to
make sense of moral discourse? How does having non-physical aspects to
your ontology help you with that?
> > > Such entails a moral judgment,
> > > and that is strictly the province of a soul.
>
> > False.
>
> How do chemicals make moral judgments?
>
Again, it's a silly question. You might as well ask "How do souls make
moral judgments?" The task of explaining the universe with a purely
physical ontology would be complex, but you have offered no
particularly good reason to think that it can't be done. An expression
of incredulity is not an argument.
> > > Of course, we are here
> > > assuming a premise that usually comes from atheists, and the AFE
> > > assumes from the start that there is God, in order to disprove Him by
> > > contradiction. So it seems that "no souls" will not serve us as a
> > > useful assumption, at all.
>
> > You are asserting that there are no grounds for making moral
> > judgements if there are no souls.
>
> Yes.
>
> >There is just no reason to think
> > that to be the case.
>
> The fact that a chemical doesn't do anything except react in
> predictable ways, would seem to be a reason to think that there is
> more to a moral judgment than neuro-chemistry.
>
Are you trying to make some sort of argument based on determinism
here?
Well, first of all, you might want to look at the article by Conway et
al. we were discussing round here before about "The Strong Free Will
Theorem", which suggests that determinism, or determinism combined
with purely stochastic elements, is still an open question, and
secondly, you might want to have a look at the philosophical tradition
which seeks to *reconcile* moral responsibility with determinism. And
thirdly, even if I became convinced that hard determinism was the
truth and that I had no moral responsibility, I'm still not sure that
you'd need to abandon the idea that certain forms of conduct are
morally wrong, it is just that the agent would not be blameworthy.
However all that may be, it does not undermine the AFE because the AFE
is an ad hominem argument. It seeks to show that the theist's
worldview leads to a contradiction. The fact that not all of the
theist's premises are shared by the atheist is neither here nor there.
But, as I say, you haven't identified any conclusive objections to the
possibility of reconciling a purely physical ontology with making
sense of moral discourse.
> >You haven't defined "soul", anyway.
>
> I did, above. The thinking, feeling, knowing, experiencing subject.
>
On that definition, it will be widely agreed that the soul exists, but
on that definition we should be open to the possibility that it is a
purely physical phenomenon...
It's a bit of a red herring, anyway. This disagreement about whether a
purely physical ontology is viable doesn't really bear on any of our
other disagreements. I could grant you substance dualism for the sake
of argument and still continue to hold that the evidence for suffering
in nonhuman animals is about as good as the evidence I have that you
are suffering. It's a distracting digression, really.
> > > What about, then, the possibility that animals have souls just as we
> > > do? This seems to point to ideas of reincarnation, with animal life
> > > being one of the possibilities. To imagine that there are immortal
> > > souls in animals who are destined to remain animals forever, seems
> > > arbitrarily cruel.
>
> > Peter Unger thinks that they have immortal souls which have the same
> > propensities as the souls humans have, if only they were hooked up to
> > "better brains".
>
> That would point to transmigration, possibly. I am not discounting
> the possibility, even though I don't hold it to be the case. But *if*
> it is the case, then animal suffering is inextricably bound to human
> sin, and the animal state is just karma, which could be a form of
> Purgatory.
>
No. That does not logically follow. Peter Unger is an atheist and
thinks that most of the suffering in the world is undeserved and not
the consequence of any moral evil.
*You* think that all the suffering in the world is the consequence of
moral evil, but you have not defended this view especially well, and
it's also pretty hard to make sense of why a just God would allow the
suffering to be inflicted on individuals who are not responsible for
the moral evil.
> > > If we also wish to account gradual evolution here,
> > > then it does seem that some immortal souls have suffered for eons,
> > > without any immediate possibility of release. This would point to a
> > > deistic sort of god, if any. In such a case, there is no reason to
> > > assume that such a god would have any interest in relieving our
> > > suffering at all.
>
> > The whole point of the AFE is that the evidence is absolutely
> > overwhelming that there is no god who is in any way interested in
> > relieving our suffering at all.
>
> In that case, there wouldn't be the Church. But, there is the Church;
> therefore, that can't be the case.
>
Rubbish.
> > > It would seem that, in such a case, it is up to us,
> > > that we are the entirety of anything that could be called "God." The
> > > point of suffering, in such a case, would be to ascend, to evolve, to
> > > attain to a human incarnation, and possibly beyond, if anything beyond
> > > can be conceived to exist. Then, the responsibility for suffering
> > > falls, not on some external "God," but squarely on ourselves. So here
> > > also, the AFE loses its force.
>
> > No, you conceded that on this scenario theism is false, which is what
> > the AFE aspires to prove. So it hardly "loses its force". It succeeds.
>
> No, this scenario is based on the initial *assumption* that theism is
> false. The AFE makes the initial assumption that theism is true, and
> tries to arrive at a contradiction. The initial assumption that
> theism is not true precludes the AFE from ever being made.
>
The goal of the AFE is to show that theism is false. If you entertain
a scenario and find that it leads to the conclusion that theism is
false then the AFE's goal has been achieved. It may be that on this
scenario you would not argue the point in the way done in the AFE. But
that does not mean that it is correct to say that the AFE has "lost
its force". Its goal has been *achieved*.
> > > Catholic Doctrine points to the middle idea, that human beings have
> > > immortal souls and animals do not. This is principally why I do not
> > > believe we ought to take animal suffering into account.
>
> > If you saw someone applying a blowtorch to a stray dog, would you call
> > the police? If so, why?
>
> Yes, along with more immediate action. Because it would bother me to
> witness cruelty to an animal, because my nervous system is hard-wired
> to experience compassion on animals.
>
I'm not sure that it's "hard-wired" behaviour...
Do you grant that on your account of the matter there is *no good
reason* for this behavioural propensity of yours?
Where is the evidence that that does anyone any good?
> > > it would just take
> > > away from the absolute truth of her doctrines.
>
> > Quite. Which was the whole point.
>
> But, again, this is based on a contrary initial assumption, not a
> conclusion.
>
> > > Or, possibly, it would
> > > simply require us to see them in a different light. It is still
> > > possible that such a view could be reconciled with Catholicism, I just
> > > do not, for my part, presently see exactly and fully how.
>
> > Well, the scientific consensus is that vertebrates can suffer.
>
> No, the scientific consensus --- and the dictate of common sense ---
> is that they present the appearance of suffering. Science hasn't
> proven they have souls.
>
No, not at all, but my statement was correct. Common sense says that
nonhuman animals suffer too, by the way.
> It is one thing to observe a phenomenon. It is quite another to
> assign a definite noumenon to a phenomenon. To do the latter,
> requires making certain assumptions, and it is unclear that the
> assumptions that call our observation of animal suffering the
> observing of the actual suffering of beings like ourselves, is valid.
>
As discussed elsewhere the reasons for drawing the conclusion are
pretty similar for the reasons for drawing the conclusion in your
case, both at the levels of common sense and scientific reasoning.
> >And in
> > my view this makes the force of the AFE absolutely overwhelming. So I
> > guess I win.
>
> You haven't proved it is anything beyond chemicals, and no one has
> demonstrated any way in which chemicals themselves can possibly
> suffer.
>
You haven't raised any compelling objections to the idea that a purely
physical being can suffer, but more importantly you've provided no
important point of difference between the reasons for thinking that a
nonhuman animal can suffer and the reasons for me to think that you
can suffer. The debate about which organisms are purely physical
beings is neither here nor there.
In Christ's case it was voluntary, wasn't it?
It was not voluntary in the case of Job, and yes, that seems pretty
unreasonable.
> It is an unfortunate fact, and a consequence of the Fall, that
> children suffer.
No, it's a consequence of the fact (at least on your account of the
matter) that God voluntarily allows them to suffer terribly in vast
numbers even though they have done nothing wrong.
> But it is, for all its unfortunateness, a fact.
It is certainly a fact, and my agenda is to argue that it provides
overwhelming reason to think that an omnipotent omniscient and
perfectly good God does not exist.
> If
> God has a plan that includes their suffering, then He has a plan.
But he couldn't *ethically* carry out such a plan, as is quite clear
to any person of decency.
> The
> moral bankruptcy isn't in God,
Why not?
> who is only interested in healing the
> whole world of its sins. The moral bankruptcy would be in a person
> who, aware that sin is the root of suffering, would then categorically
> refuse to give up his sins.
>
> God, in the first place, avoided placing man in the world of good and
> evil, by planting the Garden of Paradise and putting him there
> instead. The first man sinned, and lost that privilege for himself
> and all his progeny.
Why can't God in his omnipotence avoid the unfortunate situation where
just because one person does something wrong then countless millions
of his innocent descendants have to endure horrible suffering? Why is
letting that come to pass just *inevitable* for an omnipotent being?
Why couldn't God just punish Adam proportionately for his alleged
wrongdoing and be done with it?
> It is a terrible thing, to be born into a world
> of good and evil.
It is a terrible thing to argue that it could be in any way morally
justified to allow the quantity of suffering of innocent children that
goes on to go on, when in your omnipotence you could prevent it
without the least effort...
> We are not well-suited to it, having been created
> initially for Paradise. So given that we are born into what does not
> suit us, it is obvious that we will suffer. And since all of us start
> out as children, it is obvious that children will suffer, too. The
> question is, once you grow up, what are you going to do about it?
>
I have already told you what I am doing about it. Your suggested
approach of prayer doesn't strike me as likely to be productive.
> > > It is certainly an appeal to emotion, to bring up the suffering of
> > > innocent children. But let's see if we can stick with arguing
> > > logically rather than emotionally. Logically, suffering is
> > > suffering. In Eden, there was none. In the world of good and evil,
> > > there is some. Either any amount of suffering is fuel for an argument
> > > about the nature of God, or, there is required a certain level of
> > > suffering before we can make that argument. Either way, the argument
> > > has been made, so evidently the amount of suffering in the world is
> > > sufficient for the argument to be made. *More* suffering, does not
> > > increase the weight of the argument,
>
> > Yes, it does. More suffering might make some theodicies
> > unsatisfactory.
>
> But my theodicy acknowledges *any* amount of suffering, even more than
> actually exists, in principle.
>
But it can only do this by being based on a morally bankrupt outlook.
> > > which either stands or falls on
> > > the strength or weakness of a theodicy, which is what the argument
> > > calls for by way of refutation.
>
> > But all theodicies are pitiful.
>
> A theodicy should, first of all, be realistic. That means it should
> take the world into account as it is.
The only *realistic* response to the world as it is is to conclude
that there is no God.
> The world, as it is, contains
> suffering. A theodicy demonstrates how the fact of suffering is
> consistent with a good God.
>
No. It is not possible to demonstrate this.
> If you think that to attempt to reconcile the fact of suffering with a
> good God in any way is automatically pitiful, then of course you will
> think all theodicies are pitiful.
Correctly, too.
> But there isn't any way around
> facts, and suffering in the world is a fact.
To which the best response is to conclude that there is no God.
> The question for a
> theodicy is, is there any good way to deal with that fact?
Not if you insist on the futile task of trying to reconcile theism
with the facts, no.
> If you
> assume there can be no good way,
I don't *assume* it; I see excellent and overwhelming *reasons* for
thinking it to be the case.
> then oh well, reality sucks for you
No, not at all. Things are quite good for me.
> and there's nothing you can do about it.
Nothing I can do about the fact that there is no God, no, but I'll
cope.
> But my theodicy is based on
> the idea that there is something *I* can do about it,
But there isn't. There is no God and theodicies are exercises in
reality-evasion and are only sustainable when based on morally
bankrupt premises.
By all means persist in this exercise if it works for you, but the
reality is that your position will then be without the least rational
foundation and based on morally bankrupt premises.
> and God has
> provided that something.
>
> > > >Thirdly, you apparently
> > > > think that it would be ethically objectionable to remove some people's
> > > > dispositions to desire sexual relations with children because that
> > > > would "violate their free will". I don't really have a problem with
> > > > that. I'm not sure that they freely chose to have the dispositions in
> > > > the first place, actually.
>
> > > Again: this is an evil, and evils will necessarily exist in a world of
> > > good and evil. It is an unconscionable evil, sure enough. But that
> > > fact does not, by itself, give it more weight in an AFE.
>
> > Yes, it does. Because God could have chosen to prevent that evil.
>
> And did not. So the question is, why? And the theodicy gives a
> coherent answer to that question.
But not one which is in any way consistent with the proposition that
God is *good*; not unless you accept morally bankrupt premises,
anyway.
> The theodicy does not eliminate
> suffering, so if that was what you were looking for, you are bound to
> be disappointed. But the theodicy makes sense of suffering in a way
> that does not preclude the possibility of a good God,
False.
> and that is all
> it needs to do.
>
> God could have prevented any and all evil. The question is not one of
> degree, but of the fact itself. Can there be a good reason to allow
> evil?
Not the kind of evil that actually exists in the world, no.
> And the fact of reparation for sin says, yes.
>
Falsely.
> > > The question is whether an omnipotent, all-good, all-wise being should
> > > directly intervene, to stop the natural course of events, or whether,
> > > in His Wisdom, He might not have a better plan to change things that
> > > would involve, possibly, a greater degree of co-operation from his
> > > creature with free will.
>
> > And when you consider what's at stake, the answer is obvious: he would
> > directly intervene.
>
> No, the fact is, you haven't taken into account, all that is at stake,
> since you have no way of accessing all the facts. God, does.
>
I know enough of the facts for my remark to be well-founded.
> > > > Those are some notable points of difference, there could be others.
>
> > > You are not infinitely wise, and because of that, you are unable to
> > > imagine what you would do if you were.
>
> > I have some knowledge and therefore some idea.
>
> There are factors that would be known to a being of infinite wisdom
> that you could not possibly know about. So no, "some knowledge" and
> "some idea" wouldn't cut it in this case.
>
Yes, it does. I know enough about the world to know that the AFE
provides excellent reason to think that there is no God.
> It isn't the same thing as imagining what you would do if you knew the
> solution to a problem. Here, the very solution you would come up with
> *depends* on you actually possessing the necessary wisdom. So, your
> imagination would not be adequate to the task. It is not enough to be
> capable of imagining what you might do; the possibilities of what you
> might do would not be apparent to you unless you actually possessed
> the wisdom.
>
But I know enough to know that I would not leave things the way they
are.
But I've argued for it compellingly and you've provided no adequate
response.
> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > certainly, people have dispositions. People do not always choose how
> > > > > > > they want to be, although, to my mind, they should. I advocate taking
> > > > > > > full responsibility for oneself, which means not blaming any part of
> > > > > > > your personality on your parents, or on the world, or society, or
> > > > > > > anything else apart from yourself. But if this is true, then it
> > > > > > > follows that those with dispositions to seriously harm others chose
> > > > > > > those dispositions for themselves, with free will.
>
> > > > > > No. That does not logically follow. Taking responsibility for your
> > > > > > personality is great but it is certainly not true that you freely
> > > > > > chose it. You can freely choose to make efforts to change it.
>
> > > > > If I can freely choose to change it, can I not freely choose exactly
> > > > > how to change it? And if this is so, then how do I not choose my
> > > > > personality?
>
> > > > Let us conjecture for the sake of argument that you do not currently
> > > > regularly have strong desires to engage in homosexual activity. If
> > > > that is so then that is an aspect of your personality, is it not?
> > > > Could you freely choose to change that right now, if you entertained a
> > > > whim to do so? Is that in your option set?
>
> > > If God commanded it, I would.
>
> > How would you go about doing it?
>
> Just do it.
What exactly would be the first step? Just help me out here.
> If I did it, I'd probably like it.
>
Awesome.
> > > He wouldn't, but that is beside the point you were trying to make.
>
> > > > You can freely choose to make efforts to change your personality in
> > > > certain ways, but it seems implausible to me that you can choose to
> > > > make any change in your personality that you like instantly. Which
> > > > would mean that there are some restrictions on your freedom to change
> > > > it in any way you want to.
>
> > > Time.
>
> > More than that, I would think.
>
> > So if you decided that God had commanded you to become homosexual,
> > you would be able to manage it before you die?
>
> Why not?
>
It sounds like a little bit of a stretch to me that that would be
within my power, and quite a lot of psychologists who have looked into
the matter back me up. But you apparently think differently. So there
you go. Perhaps your sexuality is more "mutable" than mine.
> > How exactly?
>
> Engaging in homosexual sex. There is nothing in principle repulsive
> to me about a man. I find women more aesthetically pleasing, but, I
> suspect the same is true of heterosexual women, and they seem to be
> o.k. with having sex with men anyway. Contrary to the current
> propaganda, I place a pretty high premium on personal choice.
>
Well. That's all very interesting.
Perhaps I should have made myself clearer. I freely grant that it is
within your power to change your behaviour; my suggestion is that
changing your *orientation* would be a bit of a challenge, in fact, an
insurmountable one.
I believe that if I chose to engage in homosexual sex for whatever
reason, perhaps because I was in prison, it would still inevitably
remain the case no matter what I did that I would strongly *prefer* to
have sex with women. I don't think that changing my behaviour would do
much to change my current strong *orientation* towards women, and a
lot of psychologists back me up on this point. But I could be wrong,
or it could be different with you.
> > > > > I recognize that there are things about me, deeply ingrained, that I
> > > > > would change only with extreme difficulty, but that is a matter of the
> > > > > degree of effort required, or the amount of help required, or some
> > > > > combination of those.
>
> > > > Well, you only have a finite time budget...
>
> > > Only according to you. According to my belief, I will be around
> > > forever.
>
> > > > Could you freely choose to raise your IQ to 200, if only you tried
> > > > hard enough? (I apologise if I assume too much when I conjecture that
> > > > you're not already there.) Is that a personality trait?
>
> > > Maybe. I wonder. There are dietary considerations, and there are
> > > mental exercises. Currently, I can't (at least I don't think I can)
> > > lift 500 pounds, but if I worked out and built up my muscles, I could
> > > reach that point.
>
> > But not 500,000. So there are some limits.
>
> Sure. Probably couldn't raise my i.q. to 20,000, either.
I would suggest that this is an example of a logically possible
*personality change* which is beyond your powers...
> 200 might
> even be a stretch. But I think I could improve my intelligence.
>
> > > I don't have a motive to do so, so I probably
> > > won't, but there is nothing I know of that makes it impossible. Maybe
> > > the same is true of mental prowess, maybe the reason more people don;t
> > > do just htat is that the efforts required are not perceived as
> > > commensurate with the goal.
>
> > I think there is pretty strong evidence to the contrary, really.
>
> Actually, there are definite practices that seem to increase one's
> intelligence. Reading, for example. I don't mean increasing
> information, I mean actually increasing intelligence.
>
I believe you'll find that there is quite a lot of evidence that
there's not a *lot* you can do about your IQ score. There may be some
evidence to the effect that you can bump it up a bit.
Discssed above many times.
> > > 2. How?
>
> > It's obvious. An omnipotent being would not need to bring about all
> > that evolutionary process in order to achieve the desired outcome.
>
> How would He do it? It might be a logical impossibility. Have you
> examined potential ways?
>
It is not hard to conceive of a possible way which would clearly be
*logically possible*.
> > > > > But it is not entirely clear that we ought to concern ourselves with
> > > > > the suffering of beasts. I am not advocating cruelty to animals,
> > > > > merely pointing out that it might not count in any Argument From
> > > > > Evil. It is unclear that their suffering as such can be assigned true
> > > > > meaning, since they do not have immortal souls.
>
> > > > I find that stance rather morally repugnant.
>
> > > Because you think you can identify with animal suffering. But really,
> > > you can't. You can feel compassion, because of the similitude between
> > > us and the animals, but you can't actually identify with their
> > > suffering, if it exists, because you don't know what it's like to be
> > > an animal, or whether indeed there is any such thing as "what it's
> > > like."
>
> > I do know that it is like something. The difficulties in knowing what
> > it is like are the same as with a baby. For that matter I have fairly
> > limited insight into what it is like to be you.
>
> True, but you know I am a human being like you, and the same for a
> baby. You don't know that an animal is a human being like you.
>
But the significance of species membership in this context is not
especially clear.
>
>
> > > > > The suffering experienced by human beings since the Fall is part of
> > > > > the punishment incurred by that Fall.
>
> > > > Including in the case of innocent children under the age of five?
>
> > > Is it part of the natural consequence of living in a world of good and
> > > evil? Then yes.
>
> > Well, that is pretty morally repugnant as well.
>
> Why?
>
If you don't get it, I don't know if I can explain it to you. But I
think it's a bit of a shame that otherwise civilised people take such
positions.
> > As I say, it's very hard to mount a response to the AFE without saying
> > a lot of things that are quite morally repugnant.
>
> Just realism.
No, *realism* involves acknowledgeing the obvious fact that there is
no God. That's the *realistic* response.
> The fact is, there is suffering.
Indeed.
> The fact is, the fact
> of suffering can be reconciled with the idea of a good God.
>
No.
> "Morally repugnant" is a judgment, and assumes that there is validity
> to a moral judgment, which in turn assumes a transcendent moral
> standard, and that again is God.
>
Absolute nonsense. Making moral judgements does not commit you to
theism, that is glib balderdash.
> > > > > So natural evil, suffering, and
> > > > > death, are all things that would not occur if there were no sin in the
> > > > > world.
>
> > > > But many people, including many innocent children under five, suffer
> > > > horribly when they have no moral responsibility for the sin in the
> > > > world...
>
> > > And:
>
> > > > > And the suffering of these natural evils, at least in part,
> > > > > repairs for sin.
>
> > > ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
> > > There's that.
>
> > See above.
>
> It is a theological fact, that God accepts suffering as reparation for
> sin.
It is an *alleged* fact that there is a God.
> If your only response is, "morally repugnant!" then it seems we
> have reached an impasse.
Yup!
Not much more I can say, really. Once again my experience confirms
that it is impossible to mount a response to the AFE without taking a
morally repugnant stance.
> If you can't say why, if it is just a
> feeling in you, then that is all it is, your feeling, your immediate
> emotional response to something that is unfamiliar to your way of
> thinking.
>
It is true that I have been known to say that any position worth
holding is worth subjecting to critical examination, but if you want
to claim that it can be morally justifiable to inflict horrible
suffering on an innocent child as reparation for something *someone
else* has done, then I think that it is fair to say that the burden is
on *you* to offer reasons, which you haven't.
> If, on the other hand, you can say why, then go ahead.
>
Not my burden. *You* tell me why it is right to allow millions of
innocent children to suffer horribly as reparation for things that
*other people* have done. I don't care to take this proposition
seriously without a supporting argument. It strains the limits of
civilised discourse, really.
>
>
> > > > Well, as I hope I've made clear, it wouldn't be the way I would run
> > > > things if I were omnipotent. So that answers the question you asked me
> > > > earlier.
>
> > > But you don't actually have a clue what you might do if you were both
> > > omnipotent and infinitely wise.
>
> > Yes, I do. I do know *something* about it, because I know *something*
> > now.
>
> Not enough, as pointed out earlier.
>
Yes, enough for everything that I have claimed.
> > > > > > > I think that, in
> > > > > > > light of what I have said about taking responsibility for oneself, to
> > > > > > > claim that one had a need to harm someone is essentially a violation
> > > > > > > of this.
>
> > > > > > Well, I was more thinking of the nonhuman obligate carnivones, who
> > > > > > don't have moral responsibility, but it would still be good if they
> > > > > > didn't need to kill other sentient beings in order to survive.
>
> > > > > The suffering of beasts may also be causally connected to the Fall of
> > > > > Man, seeing that in Genesis, everyone was eating plants.
>
> > > > Well, the nonhuman animals clearly aren't in any way morally
> > > > responsible for anything that Adam and Eve or any other human did, so
> > > > that seems rather unreasonable.
>
> > > But either they suffer because they have souls like us, in which case
> > > we are hopefully going to take them along with us on our spiritual
> > > journey, or, they don't have souls like us, and therefore do not
> > > suffer in a way analogous to our suffering.
>
> > The evidence is overwhelming that they do suffer, and as I say, to
> > suggest that a just God could inflict such suffering on them is
> > morally repugnant. Same with the innocent five-year-old children.
>
> Again: say why. Otherwise, this appears to be an impasse, and perhaps
> there is nothing more for us to discuss.
>
No, as discussed above I regard this stance as a basic prerequisite of
being a member of a civilised community. It is like saying that what
Hitler did to the Jews was wrong. I don't care to argue the point,
really; if it's not obvious to you then I don't see the point in
arguing. As you say, this is an impasse.
> > > > > > I do pay other people to inflict suffering and premature death on
> > > > > > sentient beings, because plant-based agriculture and electricity
> > > > > > production cause those things too, but I have made a fair amount of
> > > > > > effort to reduce the extent to which I do that within the constraint
> > > > > > of not dropping out of technological civilisation. If I did drop out
> > > > > > of technological civilisation, then I would be sacrificing
> > > > > > opportunities to reduce suffering in other ways. It is *in some sense*
> > > > > > true that I don't need to case harm, but that would be true if I were
> > > > > > an obligate carnivore. Fortunately, humans are not.
>
> > > > > Even obligate carnivores *can* survive without killing, since God is
> > > > > omnipotent.
>
> > > > With God's assistance, yes, on the assumption that an omnipotent God
> > > > exists. But if God exists then he is choosing not to assist them in
> > > > that way for whatever reason.
>
> > > > > And, according to Isaiah, that day will also come.
>
> > > > Can't wait, but what's holding him up?
>
> > > Your sins, among the sins of many.
>
> > Do you have any thoughts about when my most recent sin was? Do you
> > feel confident that I've sinned in the last six months? Would you care
> > to elaborate on what you think I've done?
>
> Is your moral behavior impeccable? If so, how did you achieve that?
>
Perhaps you could offer clarification on what counts as a sin. I can
think of ways in which my behaviour over the last six months could
have been morally improved, which probably doesn't come as any big
surprise. But I'm not sure if that's sufficient ground for saying that
I did anything morally impermissible. If you were to ask me what the
last time was that I engaged in a form of conduct that *I* regard as
being a clear-cut case of something morally impermissible I would be
going back to 2007.
I wouldn't want you to get the idea that I have no moral uncertainty,
but before we go into the forms of conduct that *I* feel morally
uncertain about, maybe we could have some clarification on what sins
*you* speculate that I've been engaging in. We all know that there are
some forms of sexual behaviour which I've engaged in in the last six
months which you regard as sins. But is there more to it than that? Do
you feel confident that I have done anything else in the last six
months which is definitely sinful? Any thoughts about what it might
be?
I haven't told a lie, for example. I feel pretty confident about that
one. And I certainly haven't engaged in any form of violence. I
genuinely am a bit stuck for what I've done in the last six months
that *you* would think was a sin apart from the obvious sexual
examples. Clarification welcomed.
> But I have my doubts, not based on anything I've seen you do, but
> based on the simple principle that "all have sinned." (Romans 3:23)
>
But have all sinned in the last six months? And have I done anything
that you regard as a sin in the last six months apart from the obvious
sexual examples? Is my sinning limited to sexual misconduct, or is
there more to it than that?
> > > > > > You may perhaps be restricting your attention to harm towards humans.
> > > > > > Well, that is true. In normal circumstances, humans do not need to
> > > > > > harm other humans.
>
> > > > > I think, for the purposes of this discussion, we should confine our
> > > > > considerations to humans.
>
> > > > I don't see any particular reason why.
>
> > > Because only in humans can there be a solution for us, since we are
> > > humans.
>
> > That is true on the *atheistic* worldview, yes, but if there is an
> > omnipotent God...
>
> The solution still lies with us.
>
> > > > I think that the argument from
> > > > evil based on nonhuman suffering is extremely strong and I find the
> > > > suggestion that the vast quantity of nonhuman suffering involved can
> > > > be ignored to be morally repugnant.
>
> > > Because you are convinced you can identify, but that is far from
> > > clear.
>
> > My reasons for thinking animals suffer are pretty similar to my
> > reasons for thinking you can, really.
>
> You are assuming that physical objects, essentially chemicals, can
> suffer. But how?
>
Discussed above.
> > > >However, I do think that the
> > > > argument from evil based on human suffering alone is also extremely
> > > > strong, so I suppose I could comply with your suggestion for the sake
> > > > of argument, for the moment at least.
>
> > > O.K.
>
> > > > > Especially since it is humans,
> > > > > specifically, who have the fate of the whole world in their hands.
> > > > > Humans alone can assess the trouble and imagine solutions, as you are
> > > > > doing here.
>
> > > > That is true if there is no God,
>
> > > How is it not true if there is God?
>
> > Because if there is God, then God can assess the trouble and imagine
> > solutions, and if he is perfectly good and omnipotent then he should.
>
> And He has. So all that remains is your implementation of that
> solution, which you are resisting.
>
I don't really think it's reasonable to say that I'm *resisting*
finding solutions to the problem... I think I've shown myself
reasonably willing to do my bit, to be honest. You're suggesting that
I ought to be praying as well, as I say that doesn't strike me as
especially likely to be productive.
And maybe you think that abstaining from sexual sinning would help.
> > > > as indeed there is not, certainly.
>
> > > According to your pitifully limited thought.
>
> > Well, that's not what I'd call civil. Why do you suppose that you are
> > entitled to call my thought "pitifully limited" because I believe that
> > God doesn't exist when you have never offered the *slightest reason*
> > for thinking that he exists?
>
> First of all, don't take offense. *My* thought is similarly pitifully
> limited. It is only human thought, after all.
>
> But I would not make a statement like, "indeed, there is no God,"
> since I have strong reasons to think there is.
>
What would those reasons be? I dream of the day when someone round
here offers the slightest *reason* for such a belief...
> The Saints. That is a good place to start. In the Saints, perhaps
> more than anywhere else, we can see evidence of God.
>
Please excuse my ignorance: can you get a bit more specific about who
you have in mind? You're talking about writers in the early history of
Christianity? Aquinas, perhaps? The books of the New Testament?
> > > > But on your view of the matter there is a God who is infinitely wise
> > > > and infinitely powerful, so it's not clear what's standing in the way
> > > > of him doing something about the problem.
>
> > > Sin.
>
> > Why is that a barrier to implementing my proposed solution?
>
> What proposed solution was that?
>
Discussed in the first post.
> > > > There are substantial limits on the power of humans to do something
> > > > about the situation. Those limits were much stronger until quite
> > > > recently. In the late nineteenth century even the richest people in
> > > > the world had no power to prevent deaths from influenza. We certainly
> > > > could be doing a lot more about the problem. You could stop eating
> > > > meat, for example, if you wanted to, But that is hardly an answer to
> > > > the argument from evil.
>
> > > The worst evil in the world is not suffering, the worst evil in the
> > > world is sin.
>
> > I don't agree. My sins are not as bad as 30,000 under-five children
> > painfully dying every day. God should sort out his priorities.
>
> You, in your less-than-infinite wisdom, apparently disagree with the
> all-wise God.
>
Rather, I feel that my wisdom, though less than infinite, is more than
enough to see that an all-wise, all-powerful, all-good God would not
allow the situation to continue as it is.
> This goes to my point that without infinite wisdom, you could not even
> imagine what you would think with it.
>
Having less than infinite wisdom is not a good reason for refusing to
draw any conclusions about reality at all.
> I did not imagine it for myself, I have it on the strength of
> revelation, that sin is the worst evil in God's eyes.
>
Still no excuse for allowing millions of innocent children to suffer.
God has a lot more to apologise for than me on that score.
> > > God is eliminating sin.
>
> > Not much evidence of that either, really...
>
> Lack of co-operation from human beings. But God is correcting that
> now, too. You are just missing out, due to your lack of prayer.
>
> > > Suffering will go by the
> > > wayside, when sin does. And that, is the definitive answer to the
> > > AFE.
>
> > Pretty pitiful from where I'm standing.
>
> From the perspective of one who does not even try? That's pretty
> pitiful.
>
I don't know if I get the point. Not even try what? Are you trying to
get me to pray and see if it works? Well, I am happy to do some kind
of controlled experiment if you will get more specific about what I am
supposed to do and what will be the means of confirming that it has
worked. But I suspect that trying to empirically confirm this
contention of yours kind of goes against the rules of the game.
> > > > > > > I.e., it is rejecting one's own responsibility for one's own
> > > > > > > actions, attitudes, and dispositions, transferring that responsibility
> > > > > > > to some necessity.
>
> > > > > > I will happily take responsibility for my actions. I just think that
> > > > > > if I were omnipotent it might be good to do something about the
> > > > > > propensity to cause harm which seems to be quite widespread.
>
> > > > > Indeed. It seems that ought to be foremost on a deity's mind.
>
> > > > > And yet, one of the most common objections to theism is the perception
> > > > > that God (or the Church) is trying to dictate morality against
> > > > > people's wishes. Now, you can't have it both ways. You can't fault
> > > > > God for not doing enough to correct us, if at the same time you object
> > > > > to Him doing anything at all.
>
> > > > No, I can't. And I never said I did. I do object to people forcing
> > > > people to comply with a moral rule that they like *on those occasions
> > > > when it seems to me to be unjustified*, certainly. But I have
> > > > indicated certain ways in which I think that it *would* be justifiable
> > > > for God to take steps which would be likely to get people to comply
> > > > with certain moral rules. That doesn't mean that I need to agree with
> > > > every moral teaching currently handed out by the Church.
>
> > > But if not, you necessarily set yourself up as the standard or
> > > morality.
>
> > If that's what you call exercising my own judgement, yes. Better than
> > taking the Church's every pronouncement as gospel without question.
>
> Arguably not.
>
Not arguably with any semblance of rationality...
> > > And by any idea of justice, then, you would have to extend
> > > the same to every human being, including the Mansons and the Hitlers.
>
> > Nonsense. Exercising my own moral judgement does not stop me from
> > taking the view that some people have bad moral judgement or none at
> > all.
>
> But it does prevent you from having any basis of justification for
> that opinion.
>
Absolute nonsense.
I exercise my own mathematical judgement. I have a long history of
having shown outstanding talent in mathematics, I have studied the
subject intensively since childhood, and I have acquired a Ph.D.
Do you claim that I never have any basis for saying that some people's
mathematical opinions are less well-justified than mine?
> > > Either morality is personal and subjective, or it is not.
>
> > That is not the issue under discussion. The issue of whether you
> > should exercise your own moral judgement is not the same as the
> > objectivism/subjectivism debate.
>
> > I exercise my own mathematical judgement too, but I am not a
> > mathematical subjectivist.
>
> > You are deeply confused.
>
> No, in mathematics, there is proof. We intuitively accept logic as
> valid.
>
> In morality, by contrast, there is either a standard similar to logic
> for mathematics, or, there is not. Subjective moral judgments do not
> a standard make. Either there is a standard that is valid, or, we are
> on our own.
>
> I do not intuitively accept your moral judgment as valid, and that is
> the difference between morality and mathematics. Your analogy falls
> flat.
>
A point of disanalogy is that there is currently no strong consensus
about how morality should be axiomatised. In mathematics there is a
strong consensus about a particular axiomatisation, called ZFC, or
Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice. Although there
are some questions which are unsettled by this theory and then once
again "subjective" factors come in, at least in the sense that one
must rely on one's "intuition" about what counts as sufficient
evidence. For example, Hugh Woodin, a world-class set theorist, has
the intuition that we should accept Projective Determinacy as true
even though it cannot be proved in ZFC, based on various items of
evidence. I don't currently share this intuition.
In both cases reasoning on the basis of intuitions which are often
widely shared is possible. It can be possible to bring someone round
on the basis of reasoned argument based on premises that they already
share. When there is disagreement about intuitions, various
considerations, based on consideration of particular cases, or the
overall coherence of a view, can help to resolve the disagreement. The
analogy is quite strong, really. The point of disanalogy is that in
the case of mathematics we currently have a very strong consensus
about a formal theory called ZFC. Not much has been done by way of
formalising moral reasoning and we have considerably less consensus.
We have less consensus in particle physics, too, for that matter, and
less has been done by way of formalising the reasoning there, too.
Still more so in linguistics. The fact of disagreement does not mean
that there is no alternative but "anything goes".
There is currently a stronger degree of consensus in mathematics than
in moral reasoning, or for that matter in any other branch of science,
but your contention that I have no reason for preferring my moral
views to those of someone who morally approves of Hitler's conduct was
complete and ridiculous nonsense.
The fact that one exercises one's own judgement *obviously* does not
mean that one has no reason for preferring one's views to someone
else's.
> > > If not,
> > > then why should you be allowed to pick and choose what you like, but
> > > not others?
>
> > Others *are* allowed to pick and choose what they like, but they must
> > suffer the consequences if others judge that they have done wrong.
>
> > Everyone *does* pick and choose what they like. That's just the
> > reality. But that doesn't mean that you can't do so in accordance with
> > standards of rationality, as in other spheres of inquiry.
>
> I have heard tell that "is" statements and "ought" statements, don't
> mix.
>
> Personally, I do have a standard that I judge by, but to the point,
> you don't.
>
Nonsense.
What, pray tell, is the difference between how you go about forming
your moral views and the way you form yours? Would it be that I try to
reason the matter out and you blindly accept whatever the Church has
to say about the matter? Is that what you think *ought* to be the case
for me?
> > > Or if so, then how can you call anything "unjustified,"
> > > as if that held objective weight?
>
> > You *can* be a second order moral skeptic without being a first order
> > one, as discussed by Mackie in "Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong",
> > but the point is moot because I'm not a moral subjectivist.
>
> Then are you a moral objectivist? And if so, what is your standard?
>
Well, I spend a fair amount of time reading normative ethics and have
formulated some views in which I think I can have some reasonable
confidence, at least as much reasonable confidence as you have in
whatever it is you believe.
I have been influenced by texts such as Peter Singer's "Animal
Liberation", Peter Unger's "Living High and Letting Die", Robert
Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia". Ever looked at any of those?
> I will have to do some research into what Mackie wrote, thanks for the
> tip.
>
> > > > > > I wouldn't have a problem with making everyone see the light and go
> > > > > > vegan, no, I would not consider that an unacceptable violation of free
> > > > > > will.
>
> > > > > What if some, saw the light, and rejected it with free will?
>
> > > > Well, you could punish them, proportionately...
>
> > > To my understanding, the Catholic Church has an open door. Hell, is
> > > simply that condition of being in any proximity to that open door, and
> > > categorically refusing to step through it, ever.
>
> > But the idea that eternal torment is a proportionate punishment for
> > anything is yet another morally repugnant idea.
>
> > You're coming on pretty thick and fast with these morally repugnant
> > ideas. Tends to be the way when you try to defend Catholic doctrine.
>
> You plainly did not understand my statement about the open door.
>
> If damnation consists in never entering the Catholic Church, and if no
> one except the one refusing to enter prevents him, the all damnation
> is self-inflicted.
Nonsense. You obviously don't have any remotely plausible view about
the psychology of people who refuse to enter the Catholic Church.
> God, doesn't have to do anything, except invite
> you in. It is your own fault, if you decide to never take him up on
> it. It will be torment for you, and you can stop the torment at any
> time, by accepting the invitation, but if you never do, how is that
> God's doing?
>
I thought it was not possible to exit hell?
Refusing to enter the Catholic Church does not make being tortured "my
fault".
Sheesh, this is disgusting.
Is my grandfather in hell, by the way? Someone said I should ask you.
He died an atheist from youth.
> > > > > > So I suppose most of you think that it's just as well that I'm
> > > > > > not omnipotent.
>
> > > > > I think it is a good thing that if you ever do become omnipotent, you
> > > > > will also have access to infinite Wisdom. I think God has all the
> > > > > bases covered.
>
> > > > > > > Would you use your omnipotence to force everyone to own their own
> > > > > > > actions, and to take responsibility?
>
> > > > > > Within some constraints, yes.
>
> > > > > I specifically and intentionally used the word, "force." So, you
> > > > > would violate free will? Couldn't an omniscient being come up with
> > > > > better than that?
>
> > > > I don't believe that the course of action you describe is a violation
> > > > of free will.
>
> > > How would you force someone who does not wish to take responsibility,
> > > to take it, without violating their free will?
>
> > Don't we all have to take responsibility anyway, in the sense of
> > accepting the consequences of our actions?
>
> Some, do all they can to avoid those consequences.
>
If you are *genuinely* taking steps to avoid bad consequences then
that is usually considered to be *what is involved* in taking
responsibility...
Some take an approach to trying to avoid bad consequences that is
unproductive, yes. We can agree on that point.
> > I might have misunderstood what you meant by "taking responsibility".
>
> To acknowledge that your own sins are your own, and that they are
> sins. To accept the fact of your having done wrong. To desire to
> change, and do what is right. To accept whatever help you can find,
> in doing what is right. To ask for such help, seeing that you are
> incapable of doing right all on your own.
>
Well, this is a different definition to what I had in mind, so we were
at cross-purposes.
> > > > > > > That might be a good thing, but
> > > > > > > would it involve, again, a violation of free will? Since part of the
> > > > > > > problem you are trying to address involves the free actions of
> > > > > > > sentient beings themselves, how would you go about altering those
> > > > > > > actions to better suit your plan, without, at the same time, violating
> > > > > > > the free will of those beings?
>
> > > > > > I would change the circumstance that some sentient beings are not
> > > > > > secure in their basic needs through no fault of their own.
>
> > > > > Are you aware that that very circumstance provides opportunities for
> > > > > the exercise of the virtue of charity?
>
> > > > Yes, but I'd rather that there was no need for the exercise of that
> > > > virtue.
>
> > > Charity is kindness. Surely you do not propose eliminating kindness!
>
> > No, but I'd rather that no-one *needed* to save innocent children from
> > painfully dying. I'd rather that we showed kindness in other ways.
>
> Sure. That would be great. But it isn't current reality.
>
Indeed not.
But it would be if there were an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly
good God. So I guess there isn't.
> > I don't think the fact that the deaths of innocent children provide us
> > with opportunities to be charitable is in any way a cause for
> > celebration.
>
> Nor do I. But it also isn't a cause for rejecting God, or His help.
>
It is overwhelming reason to think that God does not exist.
> > > Charity is that which alone remains, when all sin and wrongdoing shall
> > > be eliminated. There will *always* be the virtue of charity. Heaven
> > > consists in it entirely.
>
> > > Now surely, you mean that you wish there were no suffering, and that
> > > sentiment is charitable, but only if it is connected with a similar
> > > sentiment that you wish there to be no sin.
>
> > No wrongdoing sounds great as well.
>
> > But the suffering in the world is first no my list.
>
> Well, your priorities appear to be reversed from God's.
>
Well, I don't approve. As I've probably made pretty clear.
> That appears to be the crux of all your objections, too.
>
Quite.
> Are you willing to admit, even possibly, that you might be wrong?
>
I will gladly listen to any attempt at reasoned argument.
> > > For you to wish that suffering would be eliminated, but sin left
> > > alone, is for one thing a contradiction in terms, and for another, not
> > > wise. That is why God doesn't do it. And that is why there is still
> > > suffering in the world.
>
> > Doesn't sound morally defensible to me.
>
> Punishment for wrongdoing isn't morally defensible?
>
That was not the claim under discussion. I really have put
extraordinary effort into making the issue clear.
> Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam has become as one of us, knowing
> good and evil: now therefore lest perhaps he put forth his hand and
> take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. 23 And the
> Lord God sent him out of the paradise of pleasure, to till the earth
> from which he was taken. 24 And he cast out Adam: and placed before
> the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every
> way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
>
> > > > I don't want other sentient beings to be hideously miserable
> > > > just so that I can show how charitable I am.
>
> > > But misery can improve you by providing you with the opportunity to
> > > alleviate it. And since that is reality, don't you think it would be
> > > better to do that, than to complain about how unfair God is because of
> > > it?
>
> > What are you talking about? I *am* alleviating misery, as I discussed.
>
> But in ways akin to chopping down an oak with a nail file, as I've
> said.
>
You think that prayer would be more productive?
> Not that I am saying you should stop your charitable contributions.
> By no means! Just, you should add prayer to what you do.
>
Well, maybe you should have a go at rationally persuading me that it
would achieve anything. The reasons for thinking so are certainly very
obscure to me at the moment.
> > > > > And charity, in turn, is in
> > > > > reality God correcting that circumstance!
>
> > > > Well, if he's omnipotent, he should address the problem in a different
> > > > and more effective way.
>
> > > There is a possible better way than charity? What, pray tell??
>
> > I said that in my initial post and have been trying to drill it into
> > your thick skull ever since.
>
> You described a course of action identical with God's.
Nonsense.
> It is the
> means of carrying it out that we are discussing now. God's method is
> charity. You have a better way? What, pray tell? How would you
> effect, to "bring it about that all sentient beings were secure in
> their basic needs and no longer had any need or disposition to
> seriously harm one another?"
>
I don't see why that is such a challenge for an omnipotent being.
> > > It is easy to accuse God, from your comfortable armchair, of not doing
> > > things right. It is more difficult to recognize that maybe, you don't
> > > actually know what you're talking about.
>
> > But I do.
>
> > You haven't offered any reason to think that there's anything wrong
> > with my initial proposal.
>
> Indeed, I have pointed out that your initial proposal is identical
> with God's plan.
>
Nonsense.
> But your initial proposal does not include a means for its
> implementation, and apparently, you think you have a better idea than
> what God is already doing. So, out with it! You would give money to
> selected charities? So far, that's all you've offered by way of means
> to the end.
>
If I were omnipotent, I would be able to put all the suffering to a
stop *instantly*.
> > > > > >I would
> > > > > > change the circumstance that some sentient beings need to harm others
> > > > > > in order to survive. And I would make sentient beings *more disposed*
> > > > > > not to do harm, while still allowing them to have free will. I don't
> > > > > > consider that to be objectionable.
>
> > > > > So, you would increase grace.
>
> > > > > So does God.
>
> > > > I'm not especially impressed with the extent to which he does it,
> > > > given his omnipotence.
>
> > > I am going to assume here that you haven't asked Him for any, at all.
> > > In which case, it is you, who are not doing enough. God is the
> > > infinite source of grace, so there is enough grace available in God to
> > > completely eliminate all sin and, by that, all suffering. But people
> > > are not willing to ask Him for it. You are a case in point. Evil in
> > > the world can be blamed on you and your lack of prayer.
>
> > There is no particular reason to think that prayer achieves anything.
>
> > I believe that I can take credit for reducing the amount of evil in
> > the world in the ways that I have good reason to think are effective.
>
> I have good reason to believe you'd be more effective, if you prayed.
>
What good reason?
Well, Hitler deliberately murdered many millions of innocent people,
right? This seriously harmed them and violated their rights.
Any further clarification needed?
At some point you may well be able to cry "unproven assertion". That
is the case in mathematics too, remember.
I thought you were the one who was so big on intuitions.
> > > > If I need his guidance, then it
> > > > would help if I could have some rational grounds for believing that
> > > > some revelations have been authenticated by a miracle.
>
> > > John 4:48 Jesus therefore said to him: Unless you see signs and
> > > wonders, you believe not.
>
> > Unless I see *reasons*, I believe not.
>
> > Sounds like a good policy to me.
>
> The Saints.
>
Can you get more specific with these recommended readings?
> > > > I don't
> > > > currently have that, any alleged authenticating miracle took place too
> > > > long ago for me to have any rational grounds for believing in it.
>
> > > But if good is good, as you admit, then you should be able to examine
> > > the Law itself, and marvel at its perfection and simplicity.
>
> > As I believe I said before, which bits of the Bible do you have in
> > mind?
>
> The Law. Exodus 20:1-17.
>
Well, what's to write home about there? The existence of that text is
some sort of reason to think that religious claims are true, is it?
Isn't it more plausible to say "That's a primitive people constructing
a set of moral regulations for themselves, most of them with obvious
functions"?
Which period of history are we talking about here?
> > There are plenty of things that I do which I *do* have good reason to
> > think would achieve something...
>
> Prayer would not take away any of those, such as are authentic.
>
> > > > > >Your suggested solution is to make a lot of
> > > > > > people strongly disposed to inflict serious harm,
>
> > > > > No, they do that to themselves.
>
> > > > Debatable.
>
> > > > So, you made the suggestion that we should only talk about human
> > > > suffering, let us suppose that I go along with that for the sake of
> > > > argument. Well, ignoring nonhuman suffering we may take it that
> > > > neither you nor I have any strong disposition to *inflict* serious
> > > > harm, but we certainly could both do more to reduce human suffering,
> > > > couldn't we, I take it that on your account we freely chose to be
> > > > disposed to not do as much as we could do.
>
> > > Sadly, yes. But if we pray, God will change us.
>
> > So you say.
>
> Yep. And in this, I only echo God's Saints.
>
Who are these people and what are the reasons to think that they know
what they are talking about?
> > > > But what about God's
> > > > decision to set the whole situation up in the first place whereby we
> > > > run the risk of many innocent under-five children dying painfully
> > > > because of people's failure to exercise their power to choose as well
> > > > as they could?
>
> > > Just suffering, nothing more or less.
>
> > I don't understand this answer.
>
> The fact alluded to you by you above is just a fact of suffering. It
> is not more than suffering. It is not less than suffering. It is
> suffering. It falls under the general head of, "suffering."
>
But allowing it to take place is morally unconscionable...
> > > > Seems to me that that decision is a bit questionable.
> > > > Apparently it's all justified by the compensating good that people
> > > > have the opportunity to exercise the virtue of charity.
>
> > > No, there is also the fact that God accepts suffering as reparation
> > > for sin. Primary in this regard, is Himself, when He suffered and
> > > died for us, to redeem us from our sins. God did not spare Himself
> > > the literally excruciating suffering of the Cross (the root of the
> > > word 'excruciating.') by it, He redeemed the world. And He said,
>
> > > John 14:12 . . . Amen, amen, I say to you, he that believes in me, the
> > > works that I do, he also shall do: and greater than these shall he do.
>
> > But the children didn't consent to take on that burden, so he has no
> > business allowing them to endure it.
>
> God has absolute dominion over all things. Whether or not you think
> He should, He does in fact, accept suffering --- even suffering that
> was not consented to --- as reparation for sin. Most probably, if He
> waited for consent, no one would ever give it. So He accomplishes His
> Will in ways that are logically possible.
>
Can an omnipotent being find no better response to the fact that some
people sin? What about just punishing the wrongdoers, seeing to it
that restitution is made for their wicked deeds? Making it more likely
that they will confront the nature of what they have done? Is it
really necessary to allow countless millions of innocent children to
suffer horribly? Can an omnipotent omniscient being find no better
solution?
> > > > I find that a
> > > > rather morally repugnant response, myself.
>
> > > "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."
>
> > I'm not trying to hurt you; why would I do that? I'm pointing out what
> > I see as shortcomings in your argument, in the hope that you will re-
> > examine it with a critical eye. Probably a rather futile hope, but
> > there you go.
>
> I have an idea. Rather than claim, "that is morally repugnant," say
> exactly why. Back up your assertions with some argument or other.
>
Some things it isn't very rewarding or productive to argue about. Like
when you ask me to explain why what Hitler did was wrong. I just don't
feel like arguing that particular point at the moment. If that's the
best you've got to offer, "prove that what Hitler did was wrong",
well, there it is.
> > > > And how about the fact that
> > > > for most of human history, many innocent under-five children and many
> > > > others died painfully and there was nothing *anyone* could do about
> > > > it? What exactly was that supposed to achieve?
>
> > > Reparation.
>
> > Well, that strikes me as morally disgusting.
>
> Ditto as above.
>
> > > > > >and issue
> > > > > > instructions backed up by the threat of hellfire
>
> > > > > --- Old Testament ---
>
> > > > Oh, you deny the doctrine of hell?
>
> > > Not in the least. But in the New Testament, is grace, to avoid hell.
>
> > It looks like my description of the situation was correct, then.
>
> Grace, is more than the Law and the threat of punishment. I assumed
> that by "instructions," you meant the Law.
>
To repeat: It looks like my description of the situation was correct.
You added some further remarks.
> > > >The Catholic Church doesn't. If you
> > > > disagree on that point then I suppose you must be claiming that God is
> > > > allowing them to preach a false doctrine.
>
> > > Stop being so silly.
>
> > > > > >with an
> > > > > > authenticating miracle which not everyone witnessed and in any case
> > > > > > allegedly happened two thousand years ago. I like my solution better.
>
> > > > > You are confusing Testaments here. Two thousand years ago marks the
> > > > > beginning of the New Testament, which is considerably greater than
> > > > > "instructions backed up by the threat of hellfire."
>
> > > > How so?
>
> > > Grace.
>
> > Don't see how that's supposed to make any difference, myself.
>
> It is the difference between not possibly being able to live up to the
> moral standard, and possibly being able to live up to it. It is the
> difference between sin never ending, and sin coming to an end. Seems
> pretty key, to me.
>
Ever heard of the doctrine that "ought implies can"?
> > > > > In any case, we were discussing the Law, as God's instruction book for
> > > > > living a perfect life.
>
> > > > As set forth where, exactly?
>
> > > Exodus 20:1-17.
>
> Gee, I see I did already give you this, so maybe you should pay more
> attention, so as not to keep repeating already-answered questions.
>
I am not sure whether I asked the question again after it had already
been answered, and there may have been some confusion about whether
there are any other parts of the Bible you wanted to recommend.
I'm not sure what the big fuss about the Ten Commandments is, really.
Obviously some of them are pretty good.
"Compassion" means "shared suffering". It would not be possible for
them to evoke compassion in you unless they were capable of suffering.
> > I thought you said that they were capable of suffering. So what's
> > the point?
>
> > > I have compassion.
>
> > Are you not contradicting yourself? How can you be compassionate
> > towards a being that is incapable of suffering?
>
> I feel it, so I can't deny I feel it. It is a natural response.
> Animals look enough like me to evoke it.
>
But on your account of the matter there is no particular value in this
response...
> > Better make up your mind.
>
> I'm pretty clear on what I think. Your insinuation of some
> contradiction doesn't change that clarity.
>
The point of your making the remark that you are kind to animals is
unclear, given your contention that they are incapable of suffering.
If you think that they are incapable of suffering, why would you
mention that you have an irrational "hard-wired" propensity to treat
them kindly anyway, as though this was something you should be patted
on the back for?
> I feel compassion on an animal, because animals are similar in
> appearance to humans. Intellectually, I hold that they have no souls,
> and thus do not suffer in ways analogous to human suffering.
Isn't that a goalpost move? Do they suffer or don't they? I thought
the claim was "no suffering".
Because the children are not responsible so it is unconscionable to
let so many millions of them suffer in this way. I'm really not sure
what could be clearer.
> > > > Any attempt to minimise the *data* on which the argument from evil is
> > > > based is offensive in the extreme.
>
> > > Emotionally laden arguments do tend to poison the well. The principal
> > > datum in the AFE is the fact that there is evil. In the form you have
> > > presented it, it is the fact that there is suffering.
>
> > > The theodicy is that there is suffering, because there is sin, and
> > > once there is no more sin, there will be no more suffering. This does
> > > not minimize data at all, but you have in fact minimized, by
> > > completely failing to acknowledge, the datum that there is sin.
>
> > Of course I acknowledge that, but I deny that that *justifies* God in
> > not preventing the suffering.
>
> You apparently don't think sin is such a big deal, or at least that it
> is less of a big deal than suffering. God, on the other hand, appears
> to think the opposite. So if God is infinitely wise, then it seems
> plain that you aren't seeing things quite correctly.
>
I don't believe that there is any justification for God allowing
countless millions of innocent children to suffer horribly. It seems
plain to me that the justification you offer would be monstrous, akin
to trying to justify Hitler's conduct. While it is in some way
conceivable that I could be mistaken, as indeed I suppose in some
sense I could be in thinking that Hitler was a bad person, I am
extremely well-justified in thinking this, and quite justified in
concluding that God does not exist on that account, especially given
that I do not have the slightest reason to think that God exists in
the first place.
Not sure why all this is so hard, really.
> What would lead you to minimize the wrongness of sin, so much so that
> you thought suffering was worse?
>
This isn't about a comparison between suffering and sin. The children
aren't responsible for the sin. On your account of the matter God
allows them to suffer when he doesn't have to. Apparently it seems
clear to you that there's nothing wrong with that. Makes me think you
might be a bit of a menace to society, really.
I didn't choose it. The children didn't choose it.
> > > > > One such spirit is the soul of the pedophile
> > > > > himself, and there are also demons.
>
> > > > So why does God allow it? Respect for free will?
>
> > > Partly. Partly because God's Plan involves nature enlightened by
> > > grace. Normally, He lets nature take its course, and He always offers
> > > grace. It is a matter of free will, whether a person accepts grace.
> > > If a person rejects all grace with finality, they become more or less
> > > evil incarnate, just walking around inflicting evil wherever they go,
> > > until finally God dies them and they are in hell for all eternity.
> > > What would such a person *NOT* do??? Should God make an exception to
> > > letting nature run its course, only in certain cases? Why should He
> > > do that, if there is value in suffering? If there is value in
> > > suffering, then the suffering inflicted by evil souls has value, and
> > > increases God's justification for granting more graces to those
> > > willing to accept them. The evil soul itself has already rejected all
> > > possibility of grace, and so doesn't receive any, but others do, and
> > > so even the evil inflicted by such a soul can be used by God to work
> > > good.
>
> > I find your take on life very warped.
>
> I fail to see how realism is warped.
>
The characterisation of your position as "realistic" is farcical. You
think that the best way to stop children dying is to pray, instead of
doing research about which charities are most effective. I'm afraid
that is not what you call "being in touch with reality".
> I find the position that my realism is warped, warped. Right back
> atcha!
>
> > > > > > All seems a bit sick to me...
>
> > > > > Definitely sick, but not God you're talking about.
>
> > > > I don't know if he can escape the charge of being sick if he
> > > > deliberately allows it to happen.
>
> > > It's kind of irrelevant, ultimately, what kind of judgment you wish to
> > > pass on God, since He isn't subject to your judgment. You could
> > > poison yourself against Him, though, and for that reason I do not
> > > recommend it. God is all-good, and in His omnipotence, He is able to
> > > use even the worst of evils in His Plan, to work good. You don't
> > > always see how. But that does not mean it doesn't happen. Despite
> > > the arrogance of those on this group, God is not, in fact, on trial.
> > > Read the Book of Job.
>
> > Well, the AFE is relevant to the question of whether you and I have
> > reason to think that God exists.
>
> No it isn't. The Cosmological Argument shows us that God exists. The
> Argument From Evil is an attempt to rationalize an excuse to refuse to
> serve Him.
>
We have discussed the Cosmological Argument elsewhere. It proves
nothing. The AFE is an absolutely overwhelming reason to think that
God does not exist.
> > Seems to me that we have overwhelming
> > reason to think that the Christian God does not exist.
>
> Well, *I* don't,
You certainly do have excellent *reason* for coming to this
conclusion, it is just that you fail to do so through some accident of
psychology.
Saints as recognised by the Catholic Church? Anything anyone like that
has written?
> > Why would their alleged holiness have any bearing on the truth of
> > their doctrine?
>
> Because it is impossible for anyone to attain to holiness. Only God
> has it, and only God can give it.
Says you.
If the daughter would have been willing to marry Jacob, and it is
agreed that compelling Jacob to work was unjust, then it is correct to
characterise it as a form of slavery. Of course if the daughter was
not willing then it never should have been up for discussion in the
first place.
So yes, the issue is slavery. Anyway, there are other parts of the
Bible that bear on this issue.
> > > > > The death penalty for adultery indicates that God considers it a
> > > > > serious offense; the same for homosexual relations.
>
> > > > Ditto.
>
> > > Is it sick to punish sin, or is not sin itself sick? It seems to me
> > > you've stopped thinking about things at all, and are now just blindly
> > > calling names.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> Why should God kowtow to your personal morality?
>
God doesn't exist, and anyone who thinks that the death penalty for
adultery or homosexuality is justifiable is sick.
Actually, you have offered no reason at all to think that it doesn't
follow. Your arguments are extremely weak.
> because
> God does eliminate evil, in His ways. But His ways, it is pointed
> out, involve your co-operation. So now, you want no part of it.
>
Because I do not have the slightest reason to think that he exists and
overwhelming reason to think that he does not, so there is no reason
to think that it would do any good.
> You could contribute to the saving of this world.
I do.
> You could be right
> inside God's Will. You could be His chosen instrument for change.
> All of this is consistent with His plan for eliminating suffering in
> the world. But you would rather argue that, since He hasn't already
> done it without you, you have no reason to believe He exists.
Which is true.
> And in
> so arguing, you are not going to prove He doesn't exist,
Oh, I've done a pretty good job...
> you're just
> going to prove that you are unwilling to be His instrument of change,
Well, I don't believe that he exists, that point would obviously have
to be settled first, wouldn't it, before I would be contemplating
being "his instrument of change"?
> because that takes faith, and you want none of it.
>
What is faith, exactly? Is it the same as believing something when you
do not have the slightest reason to do so, and in fact overwhelming
reason to believe the contrary? Or have I got that wrong?
Then you should realise that Genesis is just an ancient creation myth
like any other.
I'll obviously have to look into this despite the fact that you refuse
to give me *one single reference*...
No. My plan is not in any way identical with the course of action you
describe.
> but you have not said how you would implement it differently.
>
Don't know what I can do to make it clearer, really.
> Or actually, if your plan specifically discludes eliminating sin, then
> your plan is immoral. It is wrong, to eliminate suffering, which is
> after all a punishment for sin, without eliminating sin.
>
So perhaps I *shouldn't* be donating to charity after all? After all,
my main aim there is to reduce suffering, and if it's a punishment for
sin...
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com>> ambiguity has no impact on reality, although it may cloud the issue to
> some. fmp, a really 'dumb ass' activity is totally rejecting something
> that one really has no idea about, one way or the other. you are so
> obsessed with rejecting the concept of 'god', that if there ever was
> proof, you would deny it. you would have to, wouldnt you? how could
> your massive, starving ego accept being wrong for soooooo long? your
> bridge is burned so badly, there are not even any remnants of its
> existence.
>
> history is packed with incidents where completely rejecting something
> simply because no proof exists, has backfired. those who ridiculed
> chris for saying the world was round, eventually ate humble pie. get
> the scenario?
If you are referring to Christopher Columbus, then once more you
display to all who can read your abysmally profound lack of education.
_________________________________________
I'll tell you what is wrong with America. We don't have enough of
God's ministers running the country.
-- Rev Tim LaHaye
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>even show the full text in any window. For that reason, I am going to
cut to the chase, so to speak.
On Jan 7, 3:42 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> I don't believe that there is any justification for God allowing
> countless millions of innocent children to suffer horribly.
There is, if it repairs for sin.
> It seems
> plain to me that the justification you offer would be monstrous, akin
> to trying to justify Hitler's conduct.
Hitler is not God. There is no comparison.
> While it is in some way
> conceivable that I could be mistaken, as indeed I suppose in some
> sense I could be in thinking that Hitler was a bad person, I am
> extremely well-justified in thinking this, and quite justified in
> concluding that God does not exist on that account, especially given
> that I do not have the slightest reason to think that God exists in
> the first place.
>
The various arguments, including the Cosmological Argument, indicate
that there is good reason to believe God exists.
> Not sure why all this is so hard, really.
>
It would be easy to just let you continue to think there is no God.
But how would I be serving God, doing that?
> > What would lead you to minimize the wrongness of sin, so much so that
> > you thought suffering was worse?
>
> This isn't about a comparison between suffering and sin.
Sure, it is. You are weighing things, and saying that x amount of
suffering is worse than y amount of sin.
>The children
> aren't responsible for the sin.
The victim of a sacrifice need not be the one on whose behalf the
sacrifice is made. In fact, it works better if they aren't. The
protocol calls for "a spotless lamb." The reason Jesus *could* repair
for the sins of the whole world is that He *was* innocent.
>On your account of the matter God
> allows them to suffer when he doesn't have to. Apparently it seems
> clear to you that there's nothing wrong with that.
My sense of justice tells me that it is wrong that innocent children
suffer, same as yours. God allows them to suffer that wrong, since
their suffering of that wrong repairs for sin. Once there is no more
sin, there will also be no more suffering, or any wrong of any kind.
Originally, you wrote,
"If I were granted omnipotence, I would bring it about that all
sentient beings were secure in their basic needs and no longer had any
need or disposition to seriously harm one another."
I stated several times that God's goal is the same. Actually God's
goal is better than yours. God intends to bring it about that all
sentient beings, except, of course, those in hell, are secure not only
in their basic needs but in their hearts' desires, and not only no
longer have any "need or disposition" to harm, but also have no
possibility of it and no desire for the possibility.
As the Scripture says,
Isaiah 11:9 They shall not hurt, nor shall they kill in all my holy
mountain, for the earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as
the covering waters of the sea.
The word for such a world-state is, heaven. God intends to bring
heaven and earth together. In that process, He is eliminating sin.
Eliminating sin is key, in fact, to the whole process. Everything
else is subordinate to that goal.
Now, no doubt it strikes you as very, very wrong, that so many
innocent children suffer so horribly. That is as it should be. It
should strike you as very, very wrong, since objectively, moral-
realistically, it is very, very wrong. The horror of such a situation
is immediately connected with the horror of sin. You are supposed to
make the connection, there. You are supposed to see the wrongness of
that amount of innocent suffering as indicative of the wrongness of
all the sin that takes place in the world. Not naturally, but in the
light of revelation. The sheer magnitude of the wrongness of it
should point you to the sheer magnitude of the wrongness of sin. The
reason that is necessary is that sin, by itself, does not seem to us
quite as bad as it actually is. Thus, we need something to remind us,
lest we become complacent in our routines of sin.
The suffering of innocents is it. Nothing else could be quite so
horrible, and that is why the suffering of innocents is God's choice
of a catalyst for conversion from sin. Anything else, would be less
horrible than that, and so wouldn't be as effective.
If you think it's too harsh, you obviously do not understand the
gravity of sin.
George Chalkin
<georgechalkin@gmail.com>> their basic needs and no longer had any need or disposition to
> seriously harm one another.
>
>
in nature then it would.
>
On Dec 28 2009, 2:27 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ... I would bring it about that all sentient beings were secure in
> their basic needs and no longer had any need or disposition to
> seriously harm one another.
>
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>On Jan 8, 12:17 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is getting excessively long and cumbersome. Google will now not
> even show the full text in any window. For that reason, I am going to
> cut to the chase, so to speak.
>
> On Jan 7, 3:42 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > I don't believe that there is any justification for God allowing
> > countless millions of innocent children to suffer horribly.
>
> There is, if it repairs for sin.
>
Our point of disagreement is certainy clear.
Reparations for what kind of sin exactly? What kind of sin makes this
justifiable?
> > It seems
> > plain to me that the justification you offer would be monstrous, akin
> > to trying to justify Hitler's conduct.
>
> Hitler is not God. There is no comparison.
>
Why not?
> > While it is in some way
> > conceivable that I could be mistaken, as indeed I suppose in some
> > sense I could be in thinking that Hitler was a bad person, I am
> > extremely well-justified in thinking this, and quite justified in
> > concluding that God does not exist on that account, especially given
> > that I do not have the slightest reason to think that God exists in
> > the first place.
>
> The various arguments, including the Cosmological Argument, indicate
> that there is good reason to believe God exists.
>
Run me through it again.
> > Not sure why all this is so hard, really.
>
> It would be easy to just let you continue to think there is no God.
> But how would I be serving God, doing that?
>
Maybe you should offer the slightest reason to think that God exists,
then, if you want to serve him.
> > > What would lead you to minimize the wrongness of sin, so much so that
> > > you thought suffering was worse?
>
> > This isn't about a comparison between suffering and sin.
>
> Sure, it is. You are weighing things, and saying that x amount of
> suffering is worse than y amount of sin.
>
Incorrect.
> >The children
> > aren't responsible for the sin.
>
> The victim of a sacrifice need not be the one on whose behalf the
> sacrifice is made. In fact, it works better if they aren't. The
> protocol calls for "a spotless lamb." The reason Jesus *could* repair
> for the sins of the whole world is that He *was* innocent.
>
That was *consensual*. The children do not *consent* to be sacrificed
in this way. It is unconscionable to sit by and let them pay this
price. It's not clear what kind of sin would merit such a high price
of reparation anyway, but it is unconscionable to allow an *innocent
unconsenting* other to pay the price on the sinner's behalf.
As I say, you really are morally bankrupt.
> >On your account of the matter God
> > allows them to suffer when he doesn't have to. Apparently it seems
> > clear to you that there's nothing wrong with that.
>
> My sense of justice tells me that it is wrong that innocent children
> suffer, same as yours. God allows them to suffer that wrong, since
> their suffering of that wrong repairs for sin. Once there is no more
> sin, there will also be no more suffering, or any wrong of any kind.
>
Can we get specific about what *kind* of sin is leading to this
problem?
> Originally, you wrote,
>
> "If I were granted omnipotence, I would bring it about that all
> sentient beings were secure in their basic needs and no longer had any
> need or disposition to seriously harm one another."
>
> I stated several times that God's goal is the same. Actually God's
> goal is better than yours. God intends to bring it about that all
> sentient beings, except, of course, those in hell, are secure not only
> in their basic needs but in their hearts' desires, and not only no
> longer have any "need or disposition" to harm, but also have no
> possibility of it and no desire for the possibility.
>
He doesn't seem to be very good at achieving his goals. Which is of
course the whole point.
Obviously not.
What *kind* of sin, exactly? What do you have in mind here?
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>On Jan 7, 9:29 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 5, 3:11 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Dec 29, 3:16 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Dec 28, 5:27 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > ... I would bring it about that all sentient beings were secure in
> >> >> > their basic needs and no longer had any need or disposition to
> >> >> > seriously harm one another.
>
> >> >> > Would this be morally wrong?
>
> >> >> Overly simplistic, perhaps.
>
> >> > I don't think I get what's being claimed here.
>
> >> Well, I'm not sure what precisely you mean by the statement. Further,
> >> I consider that it faces issues of over constraint that threatens to
> >> make the claim simply a nebulous wish.
>
> > Don't understand.
>
> I consider your statement faces the same kind of danger that someone
> who dreams of winning the lottery might face: "If I had millions of
> dollars I would do <insert multiple dream goals here>"
>
> The reality of what such a lottery winners would do with their
> winnings might not match the dream. :)
>
I suppose the difference here is that it is in some way conceivable
that I might win the lottery, at least if I bother to buy the ticket.
I just saw some story about someone who won over $100 million and he
didn't even mean to buy the ticket, apparently. I guess you'd feel
like that was a piece of good luck.
I don't think that my becoming omnipotent is really on the cards, it's
a pretty highly counterfactual speculation. You never know, I guess.
But your general point is that if something highly unexpected happens
your beliefs in advance about what you would do are not necessarily
all that reliable. Hard to argue with that one. I guess if you were
actually able to do anything that it is logically possible to do,
you'd be thinking "Well, I have options now". So who knows. Yes,
quite.
But you get the point of the thought-experiment? I would *hope* that I
would do at least that much towards making the world better and I
would hope that I wouldn't do anything bad. And I would think that it
would be *morally wrong* if that wasn't the outcome. See the point
being made here?
>
>
>
>
> >> >> Disposition to harm?
>
> >> > I don't know how I can help you, really. Are you able to give me some
> >> > hints about what the point of confusion is? I did say "seriously
> >> > harm". Perhaps you need clarification about what counts as a serious
> >> > harm? I'm not talking about declining an invitation to a social
> >> > engagement. I agree that that point could use some clarification.
>
> >> Yea, again, I'm wondering if the condition is not seriously
> >> over-constrained. Particularly in the area of rights, where a
> >> Christian might maintain that particular rights are important, while a
> >> non-believer might claim a similar importance that the rights are not
> >> allowed, so I was interested in that part of it.
>
> > What rights are you talking about?
>
> I'm specifically considering issues of church and state (note I didn't
> say separation of!) and how a non-believer might measure or evaluate
> "disposition to harm".
>
Let us clarify and say that we are speaking of those harms addressed
by that part of the criminal law that libertarians approve of. Does
that help at all?
> >> > I don't know, if you love precise definitions so much maybe we should
> >> > talk about maths instead. You claim to have an interest in recursion
> >> > theory and the lambda calculus.
>
> >> I find a lot of personal enjoyment and profit in reading about and
> >> considering various aspects of functional programming[1] and symbolic
> >> logic.
>
> > Which texts in symbolic logic have you been reading lately?
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Semantics-Studies-Foundations-Mathemat...
>
Cool, I had a look at that one once. I've forgotten the definition of
the Scott topology. Can you run me through it?
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>On Jan 7, 11:23 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 12:17 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is getting excessively long and cumbersome. Google will now not
> > even show the full text in any window. For that reason, I am going to
> > cut to the chase, so to speak.
>
> > On Jan 7, 3:42 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> > > I don't believe that there is any justification for God allowing
> > > countless millions of innocent children to suffer horribly.
>
> > There is, if it repairs for sin.
>
> Our point of disagreement is certainy clear.
>
O.K.
> Reparations for what kind of sin exactly?
All sin.
>What kind of sin makes this
> justifiable?
>
All sin offends God. Surely, some sins are worse than others. The
sin of directly causing an innocent child to suffer, is pretty high on
the list. Obviously, that particular sin has the effect of causing
that suffering directly.
What is more difficult to see, and what we need the light of
revelation to understand, is that all sin offends God, and all sin
requires God to punish it, or, alternatively, to accept reparation for
it in some other way besides direct punishment. Either way, God's
justice is fulfilled, and God requires that His justice be fulfilled.
It is part of God's Mercy, that He allows the transference of justice,
i.e. He allows others to repair for sins not committed by them. This
is not a principle we find in the world, it is solely a principle that
God has put in place, and declared to us in His Word. Without it,
there would be no hope. By it, God is able to accept the sufferings
of His innocent Christ, as the Redemption of the whole world.
The suffering of the Messiah would have been enough, had human beings
co-operated from the start, and not, instead, piled more sins on top
of those already repaired for by Jesus Christ. As it is, though, they
did commit more sins, and even to this day continue to commit more
sins. More sin requires more reparation for sin, or the simple
alternative, punishment.
That is why Saint Paul wrote,
Colossians 1:18 . . .He is the head of the body, the church: who is
the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he may
hold the primacy: 19 Because in him, it has well pleased the Father
that all fullness should dwell: 20 And through him to reconcile all
things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his cross, both
as to the things that are on earth and the things that are in heaven.
21 And you, whereas you were some time alienated and enemies in mind
in evil works: 22 Yet now he has reconciled in the body of his flesh
through death, to present you holy and unspotted and blameless before
him: 23 If so you continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and
immoveable from the hope of the gospel which you have heard, which is
preached in all the creation that is under heaven: whereof I Paul am
made a minister. 24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you and fill
up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my
flesh, for his body, which is the church:
The principle that Saint Paul points to in verse 24 is the principle
of Co-redemption, of which the Mother of God, Mary, is the queen and
principal vessel. Saint Paul points out that he participates in it
too.
The suffering of innocents participates in it, too.
God has already declared, through the pen of His Child of Peace, what
is the reality behind the subject of abortion. Abortion is the
slaughter of innocents. The destruction of innocents is the catalyst
for the removal of everything in God's entire world on Earth that it
not His Will, including all sin.
http://josephfg.tripod.com/catholicism/really.html
> > > It seems
> > > plain to me that the justification you offer would be monstrous, akin
> > > to trying to justify Hitler's conduct.
>
> > Hitler is not God. There is no comparison.
>
> Why not?
>
God has sovereignty over good and evil, life and death.
> > > While it is in some way
> > > conceivable that I could be mistaken, as indeed I suppose in some
> > > sense I could be in thinking that Hitler was a bad person, I am
> > > extremely well-justified in thinking this, and quite justified in
> > > concluding that God does not exist on that account, especially given
> > > that I do not have the slightest reason to think that God exists in
> > > the first place.
>
> > The various arguments, including the Cosmological Argument, indicate
> > that there is good reason to believe God exists.
>
> Run me through it again.
>
My version of the CA points out substance dualism as the case, and
points to the fact that substance dualism by itself is less
parsimonious than the acknowledgment of a single Creator of both
spirit and matter.
So my version of the CA relies on the untenability of physicalism. I
find three things, at least, that physicalism not only does not but
cannot, in principle, explain. To wit: perception, cognition, and
volition. Essentially, the features of consciousness.
I find it useful in connection with this to consider the chemistry of
the body, and the fact that nowhere in chemistry are we able to point
to any chemical process, or any conglomeration of chemical processes,
that can experience suffering or joy. If physicalism is true, then we
ought to find, on the chemical level, some explanation for the facts
of consciousness. But we do not. Invariably, to complete a
description of the chemical bases of consciousness, the analytic level
is at some point abandoned, in favor of a "black box" kind of
explanation of consciousness. We can explain, for example, exactly
how photosynthesis works, from a purely chemical standpoint. We
cannot similarly explain how a brain can be conscious. The most we
can assert, if we wish to hold physicalism, is that *somehow,* the
brain is conscious. Analyzing brain activity on the chemical level,
we cannot point to anything that would be responsible for conscious
experience. So invariably, the physicalist resorts to a pseudo-
mystical explanation, i.e., somehow, the whole is greater than the sum
of its parts, somehow, consciousness emerges from a conglomeration of
non-conscious parts. The brain is treated essentially as a "black
box." It receives input, and produces output, but no one knows what
goes on inside to effect that.
All this might make a good new thread.
> > > Not sure why all this is so hard, really.
>
> > It would be easy to just let you continue to think there is no God.
> > But how would I be serving God, doing that?
>
> Maybe you should offer the slightest reason to think that God exists,
> then, if you want to serve him.
>
O.K. I have at least started in that direction, I hope, above.
> > > > What would lead you to minimize the wrongness of sin, so much so that
> > > > you thought suffering was worse?
>
> > > This isn't about a comparison between suffering and sin.
>
> > Sure, it is. You are weighing things, and saying that x amount of
> > suffering is worse than y amount of sin.
>
> Incorrect.
>
Care to expand on that objection? It seems to me that your argument
is based on the wrongness of suffering. When I pointed out that the
wrongness of suffering reflects the wrongness of sin, you appeared to
go in a direction to the effect that the *amount* and *kind* of
suffering could not possibly be justified by *any* amount or kind of
sin.
So, it does seem that your argument, at least in part, relies on a
comparison between suffering and sin. But in any case, my defense
definitely relies on that comparison. My defense relies on a direct
connection between the amount of suffering and the amount of sin, and
asserts that they are effectively equal amounts.
> > >The children
> > > aren't responsible for the sin.
>
> > The victim of a sacrifice need not be the one on whose behalf the
> > sacrifice is made. In fact, it works better if they aren't. The
> > protocol calls for "a spotless lamb." The reason Jesus *could* repair
> > for the sins of the whole world is that He *was* innocent.
>
> That was *consensual*. The children do not *consent* to be sacrificed
> in this way. It is unconscionable to sit by and let them pay this
> price.
Then by all means, do something about it!!
> It's not clear what kind of sin would merit such a high price
> of reparation anyway,
Thus you make the comparison, as I pointed out above.
> but it is unconscionable to allow an *innocent
> unconsenting* other to pay the price on the sinner's behalf.
>
God's ways are not your ways.
Isaiah 55:8 . . . my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my
ways, says the Lord. 9 For as the heavens are exalted above the earth,
so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your
thoughts.
> As I say, you really are morally bankrupt.
>
I am a realist. If you don't like reality, go find some fantasy world
to live in. Hard to sustain, though.
> > >On your account of the matter God
> > > allows them to suffer when he doesn't have to. Apparently it seems
> > > clear to you that there's nothing wrong with that.
>
> > My sense of justice tells me that it is wrong that innocent children
> > suffer, same as yours. God allows them to suffer that wrong, since
> > their suffering of that wrong repairs for sin. Once there is no more
> > sin, there will also be no more suffering, or any wrong of any kind.
>
> Can we get specific about what *kind* of sin is leading to this
> problem?
>
All sin.
> > Originally, you wrote,
>
> > "If I were granted omnipotence, I would bring it about that all
> > sentient beings were secure in their basic needs and no longer had any
> > need or disposition to seriously harm one another."
>
> > I stated several times that God's goal is the same. Actually God's
> > goal is better than yours. God intends to bring it about that all
> > sentient beings, except, of course, those in hell, are secure not only
> > in their basic needs but in their hearts' desires, and not only no
> > longer have any "need or disposition" to harm, but also have no
> > possibility of it and no desire for the possibility.
>
> He doesn't seem to be very good at achieving his goals.
You, as a case in point, don't seem very good at co-operating with
God. And God's Plan *requires* your co-operation, or, alternatively,
your removal. And the choice, is up to you.
> Which is of
> course the whole point.
>
Your point is defeated by.
1. God's requirement of your co-operation, and
2. Your refusal of the same.
So, it is high time you began to face reality.
> What *kind* of sin, exactly? What do you have in mind here?
All. The total amount of suffering in the world reflects the total
amount of sin in the world. When the latter decreases, so will the
former. When the latter is eliminated, so will be the former.
And thus, does the Argument From Suffering fail, in all its forms.