Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
So you're saying God gives us the gift of death that we might be released from his infliction of pain...? That's some God.
You're making some huge leaps already that I'm not making with you. Don't presume that you know what my personal beliefs are, because you clearly don't. In fact, the latest spree of straw-man posts demonstrates how quick people are to paint "Christians" with the "stupid" brush.
As I've said, I will be the first to admit that many/most Christians are worthy of the indictment of being dogmatic, ignorant, and blind in their beliefs. But, as I've also said, you're not entitled to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because many/most Christians are "stupid" doesn't mean that all are. Just because many/most Christians have beliefs that are intellectually indefensible does not mean that all beliefs that are properly Christian are intellectually indefensible.
If you want to keep jumping to conclusions about what you think I believe, then be my guest, although that will just make the dialog more difficult. My goal it to be systematic and rigorous, to show you that an intellectually defensible answer to the problem of evil can be given. But, as I noted many posts back, the answer is not trivial.
You seem to want to trivialize the question. But that's like turning to a physicist and demanding: "Either the electron is passing through the right hole or the left hole. Tell me which, and don't hand me stupid crap like that it's passing through both!"
Such a demand effectively disallows the physicist to even frame a response. When you trivialize an issue and refuse to listen to the background information and definitions of terms, then you indicate that you really don't care to have a response at all. You indicate that you are comfortably dogmatic. In that case, you must paint yourself with the same "stupid" brush with which you paint "Christians."
Your call, but if you care to hear a developed response, then there is a lot more work to do.
To start, it seems that you think I've just pushed the question back one level, and you are right. As we're both seemingly agreed now, pain seems a greater bad than death, although death seems a pretty bad bad in itself.
To sum up where I think we are now, and correct me if I'm wrong, Death is bad, because we naturally want to live. However, there are fates worse than death, such as intolerable, unrelievable pain. Is this a fair summation?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Sunflower, imho you're not helping. If you're going to represent your religion with a shred of credibility, please at least expend the effort to spell most of your words correctly.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
To me, you have two basic dynamics: changlessness, and flux. Matter, and our lives, are ever in flux, becoming ever more complex even as we vault toward the abyss. My deepest sense of things, or the flux, is that what occurs simply is, and has to inherent value per good or bad.
But there's a second aspect, a personal or spiritual and to some extent, emotional aspect, or thread, running through all animate or sentient things, and good and bad, fair and unfair, negative and positive naturally arise when we interface directly with them. And I find the question of "evil" is especially slippery in this regards.
I recall an unique experience I had last year, when my spiritual advisor instructed me to visit the cemetery where virtually all of my relatives are buried, and make graveside amends to all of them, and say what I never got to say, good or bad. I had not been to the graves in ages. I was in for a remarkable three hours.
During the process I sought out the gravesite of the stillborn child my mom had when I was two years old, a boy named Tommy who's death had essentially wounded mom in a way from which she never recovered - and basically tanked her marriage to my father. Tommy was never mentioned or talked about till my mom was dying, and that's all she talked about.
With only the vaguest directions from my sister, and guided by unseen hands, I actually found the grave, almost certainly never visited for many years, possibly since the day Tommy was buried. When I actually sensed into that tiny headstone, I seemed to channel all the collective woe, realizing that somebody's son and my own brother was down there somewhere, and there was something miraculous and yet indescribably painful in that moment. Was he lonely, with his unrequited life. What did it all mean? I had never felt so powerless. It was a crushing moment.
It was easy to think that his death was a horrible thing, and to question how "God" could ever allow such a tragedy. I simply don't know how that works, and don't like the fact that we can suffer at depth like this, that lie can dumptruck us into no-man's land and we just have to muddle through somehow.
But . . . when I sensed a little deeper into things, there was a subtle presence there, buoyed by my own capacity to care and love, and that's when I felt the changeless backdrop that held and contained it all, and us all.
The Zen folks call i the unborn, and if Tommy wasn't the embodiment of that I don't know anything at all. Somehow that unborn backdrop can conform to the very hole in our hearts. I don't know how Tommy gave me that gift, but he did, just as I had been called there to be still and listen to a voice that never spoke.
I knew from that experience that my spiritual advisor was a wise man and that the living and the dead are divided only by our minds, which is foreground, while the unborn changeless background holds us all, throughout time and space, in it's broken hearted embrace.
JL
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
How do you know the devil didn't write the bible, and is just fooling you, and trying to lure you in to your doom
HOW DO YOU KNOW?
you don't
Actually, I do. But that's another story, and I want to stay focused on the problem of evil.
Oh, btw, the problem is currently cast as a trichotomy rather than a dichotomy. It's not either God is not all power or He's not all good. In the contemporary literature a third alternative is recognized: He's not all knowing. After all, He might be all powerful and all good, so He could solve the problem and He wants to, but He just doesn't know how.
That's a technical point, and I don't accept any of the elements of the trichotomy. But just to keep us in sync with the current literature, it bears mentioning.
|
|
go-B
climber
In God We Trust
|
|
If this life is all there is well I might think differently but Jesus showed us a perfect eternity and we can be part of it!
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
interesting, largo--was hoping you'd take a turn to the personal. all this talk ain't worth nothing in the abstract.
i also believe the heart goes on--i mentioned that before--the song from the titanic, the best way to put it. a couple years getting into it and also becoming acquainted with a genuine ghost hunter. every time the subject comes up, someone comes forward with a personal experience. my quarrel is with religions which try to stand in the way or impose their controlling scenarios. it's public property. listen and learn.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
If you want to really know. If you are honest and are really asking the question,"Does GOD exist? And if so, what is HIS purpose? Is there really evidence I can hang my faith on that proves it once and for all?" Believing does not require you to throw your head away. There is abundant evidence. One does not have to commit intellectual suicide. Watch these films and you will learn a great deal. I did and I already believed.
I guide you to these films based on the very well known books. These are all very excellant and very powerful tesimonies and witnesses. They are not meant just for the Atheist or Agnostic, but also for the Believer who wants to reaffirm or strengthen their faith. I highly recommend them . . .
The Lee Strobel Film Collection:
The Case for a Creator
The Case for Christ
The Case for Faith
http://www.amazon.com/Lee-Strobel-Film-Collection/dp/B002C7ELU4/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1275539425&sr=8-4
You can find them on NetFlix also.
They may also be on YouTube or other . . .
Here you go, here is . . .
A Case for a Creator
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5880769103467938524#
|
|
Butoou
Sport climber
Malibu
|
|
BECAUSE IT HELPS THEM FACE THEIR OWN MORTALITY
FACE THE UNKNOWN
|
|
rrrADAM
climber
|
|
One simple question:
What would convince you that you are wrong about a supernatural God who created everything, who cares about you and answers prayers, and the existance of an afterlife and/or a soul?
If the answer is "nothing", then you you CANNOT be reasoned with, and are thus by definition, unreasonable.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able to prevent evil? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is God able to prevent evil, but not willing to prevent evil? Then he is not omnibenvolent.
Is God both willing to and able to prevent evil?
Then why does evil exist?
This is, of course, the incompatible triad of the problem of evil.
If you say God is not omnipotent, some how doesn't know or can't act, then you have implied the existence of another deity that is omnipotent, and you've entered the realm of the demiurge and the dangerous ground of heresy.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
With regard to the free will argument as a justification for the existence of evil:
If God is omniscient and knows all human actions before hand then how can they (humans) make free choices that might violate what God already knows? To act contrary to God's knowledge would mean he is not omniscient.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Your kid just wants to stick his finger in the fan to satisfy his curiosity.
You already know what's gonna happen when he does.
But he's curious and really wants to stick his finger in that fan while it's going even though you explained the reasons for not doing something like that.
You love your kid and still want to honor his independent free will.
So you pull the plug and let the fan slow down to a reasonable speed and then tell your kid to stick his finger in the fan.
He does .... ping!!! YOW !!!!!!
Now he learned.
You see all your philosophy and mental speculations are just that.
Pure love transcends above all ......
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
There's no my god your god, mental speculator.
There's only GOD ....
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Since you're the imitator god, guess who's the assh'ole ....
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
To me, you have two basic dynamics: changlessness, and flux.
Changelessness by its very essence is not dynamic.
Read: TWO dynamics. One is dynamic: flux; the other is NOT: Changlessness, AKA, emptiness, void, et al. Flux is foreground, changelessness is background.
But what is this "background?" Note how the mind wants to immediately turn it into a thing with qualities we can measure and contrast. In fact "space" and "time" and "matter" are all qualities that occur or have duration within this "background."
Einstein said that space and time are united, and even referred to the two with one term: space-time. The closer you got to the speed of light the greater the compression of space-time. Ramp it up close to the speed of light, what seems like a minute in the Starship Enterprise could be 10 years here on earth. Looking out at "things" passing by, they appear squished in the left and right, and normal in the up and down. This is the "space" part of the space time compression. It gets freakier from there.
But the point is - that which is compressed and the quantum field in which the compression occurs, all transpires in the dimensionless eternity of the "background," meaning background and "space-time" are NOT the same.
JL
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
What would convince you that you are wrong about a supernatural God who created everything, who cares about you and answers prayers, and the existance of an afterlife and/or a soul?
If the answer is "nothing", then you you CANNOT be reasoned with, and are thus by definition, unreasonable.
What would convince YOU that you are wrong in disbelieving? If the answer is "nothing," then you CANNOT be reasoned with, and you are thus, by definition, unreasonable.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
If God is omniscient and knows all human actions before hand then how can they (humans) make free choices that might violate what God already knows? To act contrary to God's knowledge would mean he is not omniscient.
First of all, many theists bite (what they think is) a tiny bullet on omniscience, saying that God knows everything that CAN be known, which leaves what humans will choose outside His ken.
I think that is a punt, and it's unnecessary.
It's a punt because, taking that tack, you get to keep much less of God's claimed attributes than originally thought; if God can't know what human choices will be, then He also can't know the causal chains that will be formed from those choices. That cuts pretty deeply into any claim of omniscience, and it also threatens His power, as He has to wait impotently by, waiting to see how things will turn out. And then, depending upon how humans choose as He starts to act, He might act inappropriately! So, God goes from in control of His universe to some sort of bumbling goofball always playing catch-up to human freedom. NOT the picture of God portrayed in the Bible, so not acceptable to traditional Judeo/Christians.
It's also unnecessary because the claim that God's foreknowledge impinges on human freedom has never been established. Many people have CLAIMED this conclusion, but there has never been a successful argument demonstrating it. The claim is intuitively appealing, but that is because we project our modes of knowledge onto God. For example, all of our modes of knowing are in time, while God's is presumably outside of time. We cannot imagine such a mode of knowing, but we can approximate it this way.
I can look back at choices people have made. They were certainly free to make those choices when they made them (emphasizing the temporal dimension). The fact that I can know what choice they made, looking BACK at what they chose, certainly has no effect on the fact that they DID freely choose.
We could call my knowledge of their PAST choice CERTAIN, yet my perfect knowledge of the choice they made clearly has no effect upon the choice they made or upon the fact that they freely chose. So, clearly, at least in retrospect, my knowledge does not affect freedom, even when my knowledge of the past event is perfect.
Similarly, if God sees all events "at once," so to speak, then He can enjoy perfect knowledge of the choices that are made throughout all time, without His knowledge having any effect upon those choices or upon the freedom to choose. In short, there has never been a demonstration of exactly how epistemology impinges on freedom. It's widely presumed that it does, but the supposed relation has never been explicated; and it is pretty easy to come up with plausible counter-examples, as I just did. Whatever the supposed relation is between divine knowledge and human freedom, it is opaque and remains unexplained.
So, I simply don't buy that the typical intuition on this point is correct. Thus, I find nothing about God's omniscience to threaten human freedom. So, that approach isn't going to threaten the free-will argument.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Well then, GOD is an as#@&%e.
Wow, so what you want is a world in which you can have absolute freedom to start all sorts of causal chains, including stupid ones and ones that have well-known inherent risks (many/most of which can/will come back to bite you in the butt), but then God is an as#@&%e because He's not constantly performing miracles to keep you from hurting yourself? So, you want absolute freedom, but in such a way that God is perpetually nullifying your causal chains?
Wow... just wow!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
All of these lines of thought and or reasoning, reflection, inspection, experimentation, all run smack dab into this 'background' as you call it and come up with... nothing.
Exactly! Finding God is not something you can reason or experiment your way into. That is not to say that claims about divinity will violate reason (imho, contrary to eastern thinking), which is what we're discussing now: Do the claims of Christianity violate reason?
Obviously, I think they don't.
|
|
rectorsquid
climber
Lake Tahoe
|
|
What would convince YOU that you are wrong in disbelieving? If the answer is "nothing," then you CANNOT be reasoned with, and you are thus, by definition, unreasonable.
Most or all of the atheist types here would be fine in accepting that there is a God. They are reasonable. They can be reasoned with. They will never say you are wrong "because you are wrong." They will suggest that your arguments that there is a God are very flawed and that nothing you have said so far has any logic or reason. It is simply mythology.
I tell you that there is a Zeus and an Apollo. You tell me I'm wrong because you know that there is one true God. You don't bother to tell me how you know this or why the other guys who really do think there is a Zeus and Apollo are wrong. You just say that you know it. From my point of view, the Zeus and Apollo people present arguments that are equal to yours. Old documents, here-say from parents and people of the community. It's all the same evidence. No better or worse than yours. Since only on of you or them can be right and there is no testable evidence around, I would just have to guess. Given that you believers are in the same situation as me, I must assume that you took a guess too. Of course you allowed your parents and other people around you to sway your guess since you were too young when you decided this stuff to know any better. Still, they are only guessing too and passed on their guess to you.
What wold convince me? What a stupid question. God sitting here telling me about God in a way that I could distinguish from insanity would convince me. Simple and easy. it is surely not NOTHING so I am therefore reasonable.
Dave
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!