This is a quick summary of what could be called the problem of design:
Since the current Christian view of God is one outside of 'time,' makes more sense to say that God is outside of the dimension but whatever, I'm going to use that idea of God. Being outside of time, he can essentially fast forward and see the consiquences of whatever universe he decides to make. At the moment just before creation (pick your favorite version of creation because it doesn't matter) God knew how each possible universe he would create would turn out. He knew at that moment that mankind would be inherently sinful and that most of the world would not accept Christianity, yet nontheless this universe was the best he could do out of the many possible universes so he created it anyway.
The problem with this isn't so much a classic problem of evil, even though I could use that here, but a problem of the design of human nature and the existance of punishment. God, knowing how everything would be, knowing that Bill, and many other Bills, would not become christian, made people and made hell. He knew that he would be sending the majority of his creation to hell. So, it is a problem of evil, but not the problem as normally stated. Why would a loving God create a world in which he knows that by creating such a world that he would be sending most of the creation he claims to love to an eternal burning hell?
(credit for the problem of design goes to Jake at the AN and another member of the AN but can't remember who it was right now....This is just my version of how to state the problem)
There would appear to be two answers to this problem.
1. This is not a problem that requires an answer, but rather requires faith that God knows what he is doing and belief that if you have faith then you can avoid hell. This is commonly referred to as the flock-of-sheep system of problem solving.
2. God doesn't exist as a single cognisant being, and therefore there is no problem persa.
However, I do admire how the problem has been couched and would love to throw this one at the next JWs to grace my doorstep.
Thanks for the ammo.
If you ever get a theist to give a good answer (or any answer) to the problem, let me know. I've tried a couple times and they ignore it as if I had said nothing.
Hello,
I am new to the forum...obviously. Laetusatheos, I also see that you are from Okieland. Well...interesting question. I have some thoughts on the subject but need some time to compose a coherent answer. Just wanted to say hey to the fellow statesmen...woman...person...oh well, you know what I mean.
QuoteWhy would a loving God create a world in which he knows that by creating such a world that he would be sending most of the creation he claims to love to an eternal burning hell?
STEP ONEMaybe we should start with some foundational assumptions that encompass my answer to the question. We can step through this and iterate so it doesn't become confusing in the process.
Simply speaking to the question, I see that there are only four possible types of worlds:
1. The first is that there would be nothing at all. Would it not have been better to have not created a world than to have created this one—where good and evil are viable possibilities?
I think this may be the category your question belongs inside, but I may be incorrect.2. Second is a world where only good would be permitted, a robotically beneficent universe.
3. Third option is a universe where there is no such thing as good or evil, basically an amoral world, right and wrong would not even be legitimate categories for our consideration.
4. The fourth is the world that we currently live in, where good and evil exist with the possibility of choosing either.
Is this an acceptable assessment of the possibilities or can you think of something I'm missing?
I'm not sure I agree completely with the word "robotically" in the second one. If people were purely good (as it is assumed god is), they would make all good choices. Therefore, evil would effectively not exist because it would never manifest itself in choices and actions. But, does that mean free will is gone? No. Simply that "good" is always chosen over "evil", which would become an extreme abstract.
You forgot also a universe in which there are only evil acts (or evil acts are the only ones chosen)....
And if you accept my first assertion, there can be universes of no free will, both good and evil, as well as those with free will with only good or evil, respectively...
QuoteI'm not sure I agree completely with the word "robotically" in the second one. If people were purely good (as it is assumed god is), they would make all good choices. Therefore, evil would effectively not exist because it would never manifest itself in choices and actions. But, does that mean free will is gone? No. Simply that "good" is always chosen over "evil", which would become an extreme abstract.
I agree that it is an extreme abstraction, but nevertheless falls within the latter category of whether one choses good or evil. If people were purely good then evil would not be an acceptable alternative, ever, and would render the choice moot. I think your assertion that the inability to chose evil based upon an inherent characteristic creates robotic behavior because it still implies a lack of choice whether the limitation is ontologically or existentially imposed. If I am purely good, I have no choice but to behave accordingly or I am by definition not purely good. Your assertion allows people to be purely good unless they choose not to be... I.E. alternative 4.
QuoteYou forgot also a universe in which there are only evil acts (or evil acts are the only ones chosen)....
The same argument applies here as well.
Okay, I accept that argument, but where are you going with this?
Oh, that was Part I. Sorry, I don't want to rush you....
No problem. I will continue shortly....lunch time is callin'
PART TWO
The second part of my answer is a simple question followed by a thought. Which of the above potential universes contain the possibility of authentic, interpersonal love? And I say authentic love as opposed to a love predicated upon the lack of ability to choose anything else.
Purely good individuals would only choose love, somewhat like a computer which tells you it loves you whenever you turn on the power button, and discussion of love in a universe without life is meaningless. That is the "why" behind why this universe must operate with these inital conditions concerning good and evil. I find it was best said in this quote:
"In the final analysis, our world is the only one where love is genuinely possible because freedom is a precondition for authentic love. We intuitively recognize that love is the supreme ethic and where love is possible, freedom is necessary. Where freedom is real, so is the possibility of evil and suffering." – Ravi Zacharias
A "loving god," if it does exist, must create a universe to behave in this manner else the term "loving" would have no meaning. But, if "loving" is to be defined by automaton like responses from purely good beings I would consider that definition to be ultimately worthless, not to mention an abject waste of time.
At the risk of including too much information in my post I will include a last quotation:
"...things which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can
imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata - of creatures that worked like machines—would hardly be worth creating." -- C.S. Lewis
Okay, I'm following you...
Simply stated, to create a humanity which would automatically choose to follow this god with no ability to deny its existence would have been a waste of time. The fact that humanity can reject god allows us to respond in the inverse as well. The transcendent temporal aspect of a god has no effect on the vaibility of the free will of humanity. Why he chose to create humanity in the first place as opposed to nothing is not to be asked by a person who denies the existence of such a being. It's like asking whether or not bigfoot likes to knit. If you don't believe in bigfoot, why ask the question?
A "loving god" can't be loved in return except by a humanity which can chose to reject that god.
"...If God is to both preserve freedom and defeat evil, then this world is the best way to do it. Freedom is preserved in that each person makes his or her own free choice to determine their destiny. Evil is overcome in that once those who reject God are separated from the others, the decisions of all are honored and made permanent." -- Norman Geisler
My apologies if I use too many quotes. Others say things more succinctly and coherently than I do sometimes.
The better question to ask is how would I have created our universe...
It's a relevant question in the hypothetical because it proves the inconsistencies and contradictions of our idea of god. So, hypothetically, god makes us sinners, capable of evil, or "flawed." We are a flawed product because he needs someone to worship him, and he wants "true" love instead of an automatic, programmed response. That doesn't really sound loving because he is sacrificing humans he created (to whom he has not made himself obvious) because HE wants followers. That's absurd.
I don't think I asserted that this god made us sinners, in fact, the creation of humanity is best referred to as tabla rasa. We are capable of both good and evil, it is of our own chosing.
QuoteWe are a flawed product because he needs someone to worship him, and he wants "true" love instead of an automatic, programmed response.
This is a gargantuan logical step that is not born out of what I posited. I never asserted that humanity as created was flawed in this sense, simply our choices can either be good or evil. This must be a pre-conceived notion on your part because I mentioned this nowhere in my response.
QuoteThat doesn't really sound loving because he is sacrificing humans he created (to whom he has not made himself obvious) because HE wants followers. That's absurd.
What is unloving about giving us the free will to choose our own fate? Your assertion of a lack of evidence is personal opinion and opens another can of worms appropriate for a different discussion. I also don't remember making any assertion of him "sacrificing" humanity either, which seems like another logical leap. You are conflating the ideas of free will and sacrifice.
If it is a relevant question, then let's answer it... what world would you have?
If god gives us free will, does not make himself obvious (not even close to obvious enough), and then condemns the majority of humans to an eternal fiery punishment because of disbelief in him, then he is sacrificing us.
If he is all-powerful, could he not make it obvious to his creation that he exists? We would still have the choice to believe in our experience. We would still have the choice not to ask for forgiveness for our sins. We would still have the choice to accept and love him. But there is no choice for the rational, because it is obvious that the holy books in which god is written are ancient myths and fairy tales. So by not making himself known in the relative here and now, god would be (this is still hypothetical, remember) taking away my free will, because he (hypothetically) created my brain, knowing that I would lean toward rational, logical thought and would require more than a two-thousand-year-old book filled with utter nonsense to convince me of his existence.
If god gives us free will, does not make himself obvious (not even close to obvious enough), and then condemns the majority of humans to an eternal fiery punishment because of disbelief in him, then he is sacrificing us.
If he is all-powerful, could he not make it obvious to his creation that he exists? We would still have the choice to believe in our experience. We would still have the choice not to ask for forgiveness for our sins. We would still have the choice to accept and love him. But there is no choice for the rational, because it is obvious that the holy books in which god is written are ancient myths and fairy tales. So by not making himself known in the relative here and now, god would be (this is still hypothetical, remember) taking away my free will, because he (hypothetically) created my brain, knowing that I would lean toward rational, logical thought and would require more than a two-thousand-year-old book filled with utter nonsense to convince me of his existence.
I'm sorry, I don't know why it wrote that twice.
And I'm still not really getting your point. Are you saying that the universe we live in was the only option for a loving god?
Because there is a lot to respond to here...this reply concerns whether a choice between good and evil is required for free will to exist.
Humans do no possess the ability to fly without resorting to mechanical methods. It is beyond the scope of our free will for a human to jump from a cliff and choose to remain airborne. With the way the world is, there are many things humans can't do. We can't regrow lost limbs, we can't live forever on earth, we can't remain physically young...the list of things humans can't do is very long. What controls what we can and can't do is related to environmental aspects. In this way, the ability to choose evil is also the result of environment. In a different world, one unlike this one, it would be possible for the environmental effects which lead to evil to be simply nonexistent and therefore beyond the scope of free will. Just like we can't use our free will to, for instance, jump off a cliff and not fall in this other world the choice of evil wouldn't exist as part of our free will.
Free will is essentially the ability to make unrestrained choices between two or more possible actions. We have the free will to choose to jump off a cliff or not jump off a cliff. However after we make the choice to jump off the cliff we can't use our free will to choose not to fall. In a different world, falling after jumping off a cliff could be equated with always choosing good...both would just be brute facts about the way the world is. It would be human nature to be good just like it is within our nature to breathe.
Thank you, laetus. That's exactly what I mean. And even if being "good" inherently did somehow mess up free will, so what? If I was god, I would much rather have my creations happy instead of suffering. I would rather their nature make it impulsory for them to choose goodness and have them happy and safe, even if I felt the love I received from them was a bit superficial.
Let's say you and I lived in that kind of universe. We didn't know what evil is, we never have evil impulses, we don't WANT to lie, cheat, steal, murder. Ever. How would that be a loss? Wouldn't we be incredibly happy? Wouldn't we be incredibly willing to love (truly) the god that made such a wonderful utopia for us? I don't see that as robotic or automatic. Our natures would be different, yes, but it wouldn't be infringing on our free will, because we would readily choose the good things.
It's difficult to respond to two posters at one time, but I will try and divide this so I answer both questions in a coherent manner.
Laetusatheos QuoteFree will is essentially the ability to make unrestrained choices between two or more possible actions. We have the free will to choose to jump off a cliff or not jump off a cliff. However after we make the choice to jump off the cliff we can't use our free will to choose not to fall. In a different world, falling after jumping off a cliff could be equated with always choosing good...both would just be brute facts about the way the world is. It would be human nature to be good just like it is within our nature to breathe
Okay... but I fail to see how this is not option #2. If it is simply our nature to be good as a brute fact, whether in the action or the inevitable outcome, then what does good actually mean? In this world the term good implicitly has no meaning because evil simply does not exist. There is no reason for a distinction between good and evil because the lack of the ability for humans to do evil is nonexistant. If we cannot chose evil for whatever reason be it environmental or else, we end up with #2.
In the case you describe above, humans simply choose to be good just as they breath. If every action leads to good behavior then what value would there be in what we call a virtue? Love, compassion, kindness, joy, all of these have evil counterparts, the yin to the yang. Without the dichotomy neither have meaning. If a universe only consisted of good acts the label "good" would be redundant, the same in a purely evil one.
What makes an act of compassion...well...compassionate as opposed to one that is uncompassionate? It's in the existential experience of seeing both in action and appreciating above the other. You can't appreciate compassion until you understand what the alternative is.
CourtQuoteThank you, laetus. That's exactly what I mean. And even if being "good" inherently did somehow mess up free will, so what? If I was god, I would much rather have my creations happy instead of suffering. I would rather their nature make it impulsory for them to choose goodness and have them happy and safe, even if I felt the love I received from them was a bit superficial.
As much as I understand where you are coming from with this and understand that it is personal opinion and conjecture on your part, but simply by stating that you would accept this doesn't make it liveable or viable. You have to explore the ramifications of that conjecture which you didn't do.
Here is a good test for your scenario. I don't know if you are married yet and I don't want to assume, but I can't think of anything more repugnant than a spouse who's love for you was "a bit superficial." Humans beings typically despise patronization in any form. I would much rather deal with concomitant pain and joy and experience genuine love with my spouse than a thousand lifetimes that consisted of even mildly superficial experiences. Though this is also conjecture on my part I am whole heartedly convinced this would be the response of most, if not all, sensible individuals. It only seems sensible to assume the same would apply to a relationship with a creator if it existed, whom we are supposedly made in the image of. BTW, I'm not good with the who, whom thing so my apologies if I am wrong.
"The fact is that we have been given one of the greatest privileges as human beings—Our free will. The privilege of self determination. That freedom is a necessary moral component of love. One cannot be credited with love, unless it is also the prerogative of that person not to love. For us to be truly free, there entails the possibility of us rejecting love..." -- Ravi Zacharias QuoteWe didn't know what evil is, we never have evil impulses, we don't WANT to lie, cheat, steal, murder. Ever. How would that be a loss? Wouldn't we be incredibly happy? Wouldn't we be incredibly willing to love (truly) the god that made such a wonderful utopia for us?
Again, how would we ever know understand happiness without the ability to experience sadness to compare it with? What is more important to you, the ability to choose your destiny or the ability to live without evil and pain? Most would say that a life spent avoiding pain is the life of a coward. Poets and philosophers since the dawn of time have written as much.
QuoteI don't see that as robotic or automatic.
I can't think of a better definition of robotic than what you just described.
Crap, Court... I forgot to respond to your other post. I will do that if I have time today. I'm sorry for not addressing it before I responded to laetusatheos. Going on a 4 day weekend always puts my brain in neutral.
In that last post I was essentially attempting to show that such a dichotomy between good and evil does not have to exist in order to appreciate good. However, apparently I wasn't successful. It makes sense to me...I just need to think of a way of expressing my thoughts clearly. It's hard to explain since we live in a world where defining things by their opposites is so common.
No, I think you were clear in your attempt and I understand where you were going. This is always where the intellectual rub in this particular debate exists. Value and meaning in the terms only exist where the dichotomy exists as well.
No, I think you were clear in your attempt and I understand where you were going. This is always where the intellectual rub in this particular debate exists. Value and meaning only exist where the dichotomy exists as well. If evil does not exist how do you know that what you are doing is good? If only good exists or is permitted wouldn't the term good be irrelevant? In essence, you have labeled an empty bottle.
Quote from: "laetusatheos"In that last post I was essentially attempting to show that such a dichotomy between good and evil does not have to exist in order to appreciate good. However, apparently I wasn't successful. It makes sense to me...I just need to think of a way of expressing my thoughts clearly. It's hard to explain since we live in a world where defining things by their opposites is so common.
I completely agree with you. We are limited by our language here. You can only perceive words by their opposites and connotations evolved over thousands of years. However, just because words make it difficult to describe does not mean it is impossible. If I remember my bible correctly, Adam and Eve were perfectly happy in Eden (without any knowledge of evil) and were perfectly in love with god. Do you think their love was superficial? I think it was a fairy tale, but I think that if that situation were possible, the answer would be no. Another difference is that god was an active participant in their world. They knew, without a doubt, that he existed. Did this take away from their free will? If god had made them innocent and never placed temptation in front of them, would life really be worse than it is now? It's easy for you to say, well, he wanted real and genuine love, but how could he want it at the expense of all the poverty, violence, and starvation of innocents that we have now? If that kind of free will is a gift, I don't want it.
And if people's free will is needed for god to accept their love as genuine, what would happen in heaven? Does he take away your free will then? How can it work, if you say that if we all choose good things because of our make, our love is superficial? Sin cannot happen in heaven, so why bring flawed sinners up there? How is that possible?
QuoteIf I remember my bible correctly, Adam and Eve were perfectly happy in Eden (without any knowledge of evil) and were perfectly in love with god. Do you think their love was superficial? I think it was a fairy tale, but I think that if that situation were possible, the answer would be no. Another difference is that god was an active participant in their world. They knew, without a doubt, that he existed.
I think the story itself answers the question. I think the simple fact that Adam and Eve sinned evidenced a lack of genuine love by them. I don't think that tree would actually have been a temptation had they not been hungering for something else, something echoing within them as it did with their creator when he created them. Remember, humanity created in god's image. If god possesses and values free will so must its creation. You may think it evil of god to setup us up to fail, but is it? Or was it the only way for us to truly have a meaningful relationship?
Free will and choice were clearly in existence in the beginning with Eden, as it was created specifically to include the tree of the knowledge of good/evil. It was placed squarely in front of Adam and Eve. I think that it's clear from the story that never at any point in time did god assume the relationship with humanity could exist without giving us the choice to ignore him. If Adam and Eve never chose to sin... so be it... but it would have still been a choice born out of their free will so no conundrum exists.
Obviously there was disfunction before they comitted sin, because even direct, overt contact with god did not absolve the ability of man to seek his own destiny. So to aledge that man was purely good in the terms you have formerly asserted is clearly in error, as man chose evil even in the presence of god.
QuoteIf god had made them innocent and never placed temptation in front of them, would life really be worse than it is now?
That is up to each to debate for themselves, but life and relationships would see to me to be meaningless in this scenario as we discussed above.
QuoteIt's easy for you to say, well, he wanted real and genuine love, but how could he want it at the expense of all the poverty, violence, and starvation of innocents that we have now? If that kind of free will is a gift, I don't want it.
And what I have argued is that without these things to illuminate what love actually is you end up arguing about a term which carries no meaning.
QuoteAnd if people's free will is needed for god to accept their love as genuine, what would happen in heaven? Does he take away your free will then?
As far as I can remember about scripture, free will does not drop dead at the gates of heaven else lucifer would not exist.
QuoteSin cannot happen in heaven, so why bring flawed sinners up there? How is that possible?
Free will should never be confused with sin, which I think is happening here. Free will is the ability to choose good or evil. Humanity can and will enter heaven with free will intact. Flaws in humanity are not what exclude humanity from heaven, denial of god is, that is a misstatement of doctrine. Presumably, humanity even in heaven is allowed to choose to ignore god...again, reference lucifer.
I'm completely frustrated with the picture of god you have painted. He is willing to allow three quarters of his creation to burn in hell forever because HE wants a meaningful relationship and real worship and groveling, not just superficial. Well, that's lovely. Perhaps if he wanted a true relationship with humans he should have made his books and works a bit more obvious (ie-not violent, scientifically false, and many times, just plain ridiculous) and ancient.
If god is the way he presents himself, I'm glad he's imaginary. Because his existence would make either after-life option, heaven or hell, pretty damn awful. But as his existence lacks any sense, I know he doesn't.
Laetusatheos is making a good argument that if god exists, the type of universe he made attests to his non-sensical selfishness and unfeeling nature (for example, infinite punishment for finite sins). It is one of many arguments against him, as it is completely contradictary to our idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god. Sure seems easy to blame it on us, doesn't it? But the only sin we have committed is believing in this mythical god.
Quote from: "Court"If god is the way he presents himself, I'm glad he's imaginary. Because his existence would make either after-life option, heaven or hell, pretty damn awful. But as his existence lacks any sense, I know he doesn't.
That is an opinion that I have as well. If someone tomorrow 100% proved the existence of Yahweh to me, I'm not sure if I could bring myself to worship such a beast.
I added to the original problem of design argument to take care of the common refutations. I just typed it up real quickly as an answer to a yahoo answers question...so it still needs clarification:
I happen to think the strongest argument against the existence of a loving god (other than apparent non-involvement) is the problem of evil. There have been numerous ways this problem has been worded since Epicurus:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?â€
I state it in the following manner (I used christian, but replace christian with any god that has knowledge of future events and involves an eternal hell concept then it still applies):
Since the current Christian view of God is one outside of 'time,' makes more sense to say that God is outside of the dimension but whatever, I'm going to use that idea of God. Being outside of time, he can essentially fast forward and see the consequences of whatever universe he decides to make. At the moment just before creation (pick your favorite version of creation because it doesn't matter) God knew how each possible universe he would create would turn out. He knew at that moment that mankind would be inherently sinful and that most of the world would not accept Christianity, yet nonetheless this universe was the best he could do out of the many possible universes so he created it anyway.
The problem with this isn't so much a classic problem of evil, even though I could use that here, but a problem of the design of human nature and the existence of punishment. God, knowing how everything would be, knowing that Bill, and many other Bills, would not become christian, made people and made hell. He knew that he would be sending the majority of his creation to hell. So, it is a problem of evil, but not the problem as normally stated. Why would a loving God create a world in which he knows that by creating such a world that he would be sending most of the creation he claims to love to an eternal burning hell?
The common refutations to the above are "free will" and "with good there must be evil." Free will is essentially the ability to make an unrestricted decision between two or more choices. So, it is easily argued that free will can exist without evil...it would be a choice between 'good' and 'good' rather than 'good' and 'evil.' So, I won't entertain the free will response any further since it seems rather weak to me.
"With good there must be evil," this may be true. However if a god is all powerful then shouldn't he be able to overpower evil? If a god is restricted by the nature of good and evil then that god is not all powerful. Additionally, If god is good by his very nature would he be able to create anything evil? I would think not. This part of the argument, of coarse, fails if one accepts that god is both good and evil. But, it still leaves the question of if god loves his creation would he allow evil to exist...especially an evil place such as hell? A parent, no matter what his child has done will still do everything they can to prevent harm from befalling that child. This is how we understand unconditional love. But with many religions god is stated to love us yet be willing to send people to a bad afterlife if they don't act in a certain way. An all loving god would not do such a thing...s/he would do everything possible (which for god would be anything that doesn't defy logic) to make sure that none of the creation it loves would suffer an eternity of damnation. This would mean that a eternal hell wouldn't exist at all because god would not allow such a place.
So, if for some reason the only possible universe a god could create is one where humans are inherently sinful in need of salvation to avoid some horrible afterlife...a loving god would choose not to create in the first place. As stated before, this argument is against the existence of a loving god and that of hell. The problems stated are easily avoided by changing the way one perceives god or removing the belief in an eternal hell.
That concludes this very short argument against the existence of a particular type of god. I would also say that if a being is not all loving it isn't worthy of worship and therefore is not god. But opinions of what is worthy of worship are subjective.
Sorry been gone on work then vacation.
I don't see that your new or revised version of your argument made much of a difference in regards to the debate at hand. I will attempt to discuss what I see is the perceived addendum.
QuoteBeing outside of time, he can essentially fast forward and see the consequences of whatever universe he decides to make.
This argument assumes omniscience which is not asserted in this debate. It is fully plausible and consistent to assert limited omniscience.
QuoteSo, I won't entertain the free will response any further since it seems rather weak to me.
Free will has never been advanced as a solution to the problem, though it is a variable in the equation like it or not.
QuoteWith good there must be evil," this may be true.
This point is not to be glossed over or taken lightly. It is a philosophical necessity in determining the existence of good.
QuoteIf a god is restricted by the nature of good and evil then that god is not all powerful.
This is a highly presumptive statement. Willfuly operating within a delineated system hardly defines what ontological charateristics we can presume about the creator of the system. I.E. a god cannot violate the law of non-contradiction. Does that make a god any less omnipotent since he chooses not to violate the laws created? No, it means that god acts within the system as it stands and nothing more.
QuoteA parent, no matter what his child has done will still do everything they can to prevent harm from befalling that child. This is how we understand unconditional love.
Agreed. Just as I would never wish my own child harm. I cannot make their decisions for them, sometimes they choose wisely, sometimes unwisely, but never forced. I can love them in spite of their failures and pain, but they cannot avoid consequences because I love them in such a manner. The analogy remains and thus directs us back to ask why god made the universe at all, but does not blunt the force of the observation.
QuoteAn all loving god would not do such a thing...s/he would do everything possible (which for god would be anything that doesn't defy logic) to make sure that none of the creation it loves would suffer an eternity of damnation. This would mean that a eternal hell wouldn't exist at all because god would not allow such a place.
So, if for some reason the only possible universe a god could create is one where humans are inherently sinful in need of salvation to avoid some horrible afterlife...a loving god would choose not to create in the first place. As stated before, this argument is against the existence of a loving god and that of hell. The problems stated are easily avoided by changing the way one perceives god or removing the belief in an eternal hell.
This entire statement brings us front and center back to the original argument of what has been discussed previously. How do you determine what is loving in the first place? How do you differentiate between good and evil and why? Why do place value on the idea of loving? Here is my favorite story on the topic.
In the debate between the agnostic philosopher Bertrand Russell and the Christian philosopher Frederick Copleston, Copleston asked Russell if he believed in good and evil. Russell admitted that he did. Copleston then asked him how he differentiated between the good and evil. Russell said that he differentiated between good and evil in the same way that he distinguished between two different colors. "But you distinguish between colors by seeing, don't you? How then, do you judge between good and evil?" asked Copelston. "On the basis of feeling, what else?" said Russell. It has been said that in some cultures people love their neighbors while in other cultures they eat them--both on the basis of feeling...do you Mr. Russell have a personal preference?
How can we possibly justify differentiating between good and evil merely on the basis of personal feeling? Whose feeling? Hitler's or Mother Theresa's, maybe Stalin's? There must exist a standard by which to determine good and evil. Without such a point of reference, the question of evil is no longer coherent and lacks foundation.
QuoteBut opinions of what is worthy of worship are subjective.
I think I tend to agree with this statement the more I read it.
QuoteI'm completely frustrated with the picture of god you have painted. He is willing to allow three quarters of his creation to burn in hell forever because HE wants a meaningful relationship and real worship and groveling, not just superficial. Well, that's lovely.
No. The argument is that given our set of possible choices, the universe we live in is the only choice which creates the possibilty for love to exist. Just as parents cannot force children to abstain from activities which can end up costing them their lives, god does not force a relationship on humanity.
QuotePerhaps if he wanted a true relationship with humans he should have made his books and works a bit more obvious (ie-not violent, scientifically false, and many times, just plain ridiculous) and ancient.
If god is the way he presents himself, I'm glad he's imaginary. Because his existence would make either after-life option, heaven or hell, pretty damn awful. But as his existence lacks any sense, I know he doesn't.
Ahhh, the old Bertrand Russell claim. Unfortunately this is a matter of personal opinion. There have been many a brilliant scholar who lived and attested to a belief in god... Aquinas, Godel, Polkinghorne, Flew, Leibniz; I could go on and on ad nauseam. These brilliant individuals all argued for the existence of a god, so your assertion that god's existence is rediculous just happens to be the way you see it, nothing more. Just as my opinion on the subject is personal as well, but it proves nothing.
QuoteLaetusatheos is making a good argument that if god exists, the type of universe he made attests to his non-sensical selfishness and unfeeling nature (for example, infinite punishment for finite sins). It is one of many arguments against him, as it is completely contradictary to our idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god. Sure seems easy to blame it on us, doesn't it? But the only sin we have committed is believing in this mythical god.
The argument is presumptive and assumes that we know what conditions would be better for the creation of the universe, all of which would be up to personal perference. The argument that evil happens so a good god does not exist is sophomoric. The argument is that to even discuss good, evil is a necessary component in the debate.
Quote from: "iplaw"This argument assumes omniscience which is not asserted in this debate. It is fully plausible and consistent to assert limited omniscience.
The revised argument was not one meant to be a response to your comments specifically. If whatever version of god you happen to be defending is not omniscient then the argument doesn't apply.
QuoteFree will has never been advanced as a solution to the problem, though it is a variable in the equation like it or not.
It has been by others...this isn't the only forum I post on.
QuoteThis point is not to be glossed over or taken lightly. It is a philosophical necessity in determining the existence of good.
With saying that evil is not necessary for good, I'm thinking abstractly in that an all powerful god should be able to figure out how to have free will without the need of evil while still allowing people to understand good.
QuoteThis entire statement brings us front and center back to the original argument of what has been discussed previously. How do you determine what is loving in the first place? How do you differentiate between good and evil and why? Why do place value on the idea of loving?
I would think that most would agree that throwing someone into an eternal hell is not a loving act. Going back to the parent example, it would be like taking a child that acts unfavorably, throwing him in the cellar then throwing away the key.
We can define love by the desire to do what is best for someone else. If that is an acceptable definition, I don't see how a God who allows an eternal hell to exist could be considered loving.
Why do we place value on love? Because we are social beings and love is one of the main ways we form relationships with others.
QuoteFree will has never been advanced as a solution to the problem, though it is a variable in the equation like it or not.
Hey, I understand. Some of the most rediculous arguments I have ever heard come straight from the mouths of the religious. Crtitical thinking is not valued in most christian circles...
QuoteI would think that most would agree that throwing someone into an eternal hell is not a loving act. Going back to the parent example, it would be like taking a child that acts unfavorably, throwing him in the cellar then throwing away the key.
To characterize god as "throwing" anyone into hell is incorrect. A correction in the analogy bears this out. What you fail to see is that the initial conditions of the afterlife exist as such. No action is necessary on god's behalf to place us in either place eternally, god does not throw us into hell, we ultimately choose our destiny.
A better analogy is a parent who tells their child to play in the yard and not the street. The child from time to time trys to run into the street, even knowing that the yard is safer. At some time in it's life, that child must determine for itself if the yard or the street is safer. Those that choose the street find pain. The parent didn't force them into the street. The parent gave them direction to stay in the yard. But one day the parent, as all parents do, must let their children make their own choices. How would you feel if every decision you made was ultimately decided by parental fiat?
QuoteWe can define love by the desire to do what is best for someone else. If that is an acceptable definition, I don't see how a God who allows an eternal hell to exist could be considered loving.
The key word is desire not compulsion which has been my contention from the beginning. I desire for certain things to happen all the time, but desire can often be insufficient. I think the question is answered best by asking another one.
"How could a compassionate government ever create such a place as a jail?"
QuoteWhy do we place value on love? Because we are social beings and love is one of the main ways we form relationships with others.
That's quite a pragmatic view of such an esoteric experience.
Quote from: "iplaw"QuoteQuoteI would think that most would agree that throwing someone into an eternal hell is not a loving act. Going back to the parent example, it would be like taking a child that acts unfavorably, throwing him in the cellar then throwing away the key.
To characterize god as "throwing" anyone into hell is incorrect. A correction in the analogy bears this out. What you fail to see is that the initial conditions of the afterlife exist as such. No action is necessary on god's behalf to place us in either place eternally, god does not throw us into hell, we ultimately choose our destiny.
A better analogy is a parent who tells their child to play in the yard and not the street. The child from time to time trys to run into the street, even knowing that the yard is safer. At some time in it's life, that child must determine for itself if the yard or the street is safer. Those that choose the street find pain. The parent didn't force them into the street. The parent gave them direction to stay in the yard. But one day the parent, as all parents do, must let their children make their own choices. How would you feel if every decision you made was ultimately decided by parental fiat?
I don't think that's analogous at all, because the child can SEE the street and the yard. There can be no doubt in the child's mind that the street and its dangers actually exist.
God is an absent father...who chooses to threaten us with an afterlife of which we have no evidence, through a copy of a copy of a 2000-year-old, factually inaccurate, bigoted, sexist, contradictary, and just plain silly book of myths. Real life cannot compare to the kind of parent god would be, because no parent would ever be that cruel.
QuoteI don't think that's analogous at all, because the child can SEE the street and the yard. There can be no doubt in the child's mind that the street and its dangers actually exist.
It's a loose analogy I agree, but the fact remains that children are run over in the street every day despite SEEING the street and its dangers. Enter the free will variable. Most instruction to avoid dangers are anecdotal and some dangers even experienced once result in irreparable harm so that the validity of the danger must be taken on instruction only.
QuoteGod is an absent father...who chooses to threaten us with an afterlife of which we have no evidence, through a copy of a copy of a 2000-year-old, factually inaccurate, bigoted, sexist, contradictary, and just plain silly book of myths. Real life cannot compare to the kind of parent god would be, because no parent would ever be that cruel.
Again, it's hard to debate with people when they resort to hyperbole and personal opinion. This sounds more like a rant than a substantive response. Also, I have made many more points that no one chooses to address. These arguments tend to be circular and rely heavily on personal opinion. Many brilliant men and women have looked at the exact same set of facts you scoff at and have chosen to believe differently. To your last statement, are governments evil for creating jails?
No, governments are not evil for creating jails.
Jails are not like hell, though. If you commit a crime, you go to jail. Sometimes you can rehabilitate and get parole, many times you serve a set sentence and are released, and sometimes, for more monstrous crimes, you serve until you die. There's a system of punishments fitting to the crimes. If you were to compare this to hell, it's unbelievably fair. Do you get sent to jail for all of eternity because you don't believe the government exists? Do you get tortured in jail for all of eternity because you didn't worship the government and stroke its ego?
Sounds a bit totalitarian, doesn't it?
QuoteDo you get sent to jail for all of eternity because you don't believe the government exists?
This is a falacious argument. Not believing in the government is not a crime. What you are failing to see is that unbelief IS the monstrous crime. The analogy therefore holds. You just don't happen to think, in your own opinion, that it's fair, which I might add happens in itself to be be a moral denunciation on your part.
And as I have said before many brilliant people throught time have looked at the exact same evidence that you categorize as insufficient and found it to be anything but. If the totality of your argument rests upon evidential insufficency you may very well be treading on the very thin ice of flawed subjective analysis.
Quote from: "Jassman"Quote from: "Court"That is an opinion that I have as well. If someone tomorrow 100% proved the existence of Yahweh to me, I'm not sure if I could bring myself to worship such a beast.
Jassman, I personally consider it offensive that you call my redeemer a beast, not that I expect you would place much importance on that. I think, though, that God destroyed people in the old testament, as I said before, because they corrupted their gene pool by mating with fallen angels, demons, the 'nephilim', and therefore endangered the children of men
I mean, what would you do if somebody tried to either kill, or corrupt, YOUR kids? For example, terrorists, or drug dealers, would you not want them dead, in order to protect your children? Just a thought. I think it's a matter of perspective that's all.
By the way, don't take personally my writing about taking 'offense'
I want to hear your views, it's just that I'd like to keep things in perspective, and fair, that's all.
Awww crap...this debate was actually going somewhere...
Quote from: "onlyme"I think, though, that God destroyed people in the old testament, as I said before, because they corrupted their gene pool by mating with fallen angels, demons, the 'nephilim', and therefore endangered the children of men
Or for making fun of bald prophets.
or for making fun of bald prophets.
i think it just goes to highlight the fact that we are human, we don't have all the answers, and we are not all-powerful. we should just show some respect, that's all, we are not invincible, though every generation of young people have thought they are invincible. they are all dead. respect where respect's due, I think. please refer to my earlier postings if you want a more detailed explanation on my views. You many not agree with them, but I think they are valid points.
Isn't the internet a great thing?
Squid is that a picture of Dimebag Darrell?
Quote from: "onlyme"or for making fun of bald prophets.
i think it just goes to highlight the fact that we are human, we don't have all the answers, and we are not all-powerful. we should just show some respect, that's all, we are not invincible, though every generation of young people have thought they are invincible. they are all dead. respect where respect's due, I think. please refer to my earlier postings if you want a more detailed explanation on my views. You many not agree with them, but I think they are valid points.
Ooookay.
QuoteIsn't the internet a great thing?
Thank you Al Gore!
Quote from: "iplaw"Squid is that a picture of Dimebag Darrell?
It is indeed.
Man, we may not have much in common with the whole theism thing, but god...what a guitarist. His sound was the smoothest heaviest mix to ever come from a guitar. I cut my musical teeth on their sound. I can remember frantically trying to learn the solo from Cowboys from Hell...oh how I loved that band. Vinnie Paul is one of the most amazing drummers to ever sit behind a drum kit....well next to Mike Portnoy from Dream Theater that is...not to mention John Petrucci. Are you a Vai fan?
Dime was an amazing guitarist. He forged out a very unique sound which became a definitive metal sound. His death was a tragic loss.
Vinnie Paul is an amazing drummer. I think he has always been under-rated in his ability within the industry.
I am a huge Vai fan. Along with Petrucci and DT, Satriani, Jason Becker, Marty Friedman...the list goes on and on.
I am probably one of the biggest Vai fans on the planet. I bet I have listened to Passion and Warfare a thousand times, I know every note bby heart. Although I have dedicated a good portion of my musical time to jazz and flamenco in the last 6 years, metal was my breeding ground and still is one my favorite genres of music.
I can appreciate and have studied Joe Pass, Al Di Meola, Paco De Lucia and so on and so forth, but watching Dave Mustaine play and sing at the same time on songs like Holy Wars was always something to behold.
I found my playing to have incorporated more blues stylings lately. I remember when I started, all I wanted to do was perform those lightspeed sweep arpeggios, pack a ton of notes per second. However, the opposite has seemed to happen - my playing has gotten more relaxed and a bit slower, I looking for a new goal, a bit more along the lines of Clapton in Cream. But I hope as my playing progresses, as every guitarist does, to have my own "sound" where you can't pick out the influences anymore.
I think we have sufficiently derailed the thread and should move to the watercooler section possibly. I have a particular affinity for blues too. My favorite is SRV live from Montreuax 82' and 85'. Lately I have been obsessing over Bela Fleck and Victor Wooten. Have you heard of Justin King? www.justinking.com (http://www.justinking.com) He is a phenomenal guitarist, young too. He has incorporated a very funky bass type style.
What axes do you have in your collection?
Yeah, we have derailed it. I made a new thread in the Laid Back Lounge called "Music and Guitars" to carry on the conversation.
Say you raised dogs for hunting, showing, or any other purpose. Knowing that some will be really good for your purpose and some will turn on you in a second. Should you then just kill them all before they are born because some may be bad or will you filter out the bad ones? Ok, if you are saying well they are dogs, then think of them as your own children. What would you do?
What?
Quote from: "Squid"What?
I think it was an attempt at making a rebuttal to the topic I started. *shrug*
Um....right.
its my personal opinion that iplaw has made the most sense in this thread. hes answered all the questions, with answers that seem logical. for this i give him credit.