Epicurus' riddle

[sojourner]

Got evidence to go with that assertion?

Can you point me to the post, so I can refresh my memory as to what was said?

 

[prometheus11]

You seem to have attained the meanings that I provided to you even though you claim my gift was not within your grasp because of semantic issues that you have clearly understood while claiming not to have understood. It's a common tactic when someone doesn't like the arguments put before them.

As I said, if you're willing to evade the issue by whining about semantics, then it's as good as any other excuse you might choose to employ.

When someone says, " you people that...." They mean people who do that particular thing following the word "that." It's fairly simple, but if you need an excuse to dodge the issue and act aghast, the semantic excuse will work as good as any other excuse.

If you want to honestly assert that a child born with AIDS into abject poverty that will die in horrible pain by the time she is two years old has been given the same free will as a child of a billionaire in Dubai, then we have nothing to discuss.

Unless you can prove free will is an actual force that measurably exists.

And it is preposterous to assert that God has to have some people be separated from him instead of all people being in his will, so he gives a "gift" so that he can make sure some people never like him and then he can torture and punish them. What sort of stupidity is that?

 

[sojourner]

If you want to honestly assert that a child born with AIDS into abject poverty that will die in horrible pain by the time she is two years old has been given the same free will as a child of a billionaire in Dubai, then we have nothing to discuss.

Unless you can prove free will is an actual force that measurably exists.

And it is preposterous to assert that God has to have some people be separated from him instead of all people being in his will, so he gives a "gift" so that he can make sure some people never like him and then he can torture and punish them. What sort of stupidity is that?

It's clear that you don't want to discuss -- or debate. You simply want to disparage, using hyperbole. Who said anything about God "making sure some people never like [God]?" That certainly isn't within the realm of either Xtian or Jewish theology -- nor is it in the bible. And who said anything about torture and punishment? Seems like you're making stuff up out of whole cloth just so you can perpetuate your snark.

I can't prove free will exists -- and if it does it isn't measurable. But "proving its existence" isn't the issue, nor is it necessary. Perhaps you'd like to prove that love exists as a measurable force?

 

[prometheus11]

As I already explained, any excuse will do. If you have some psychological need to blame me for dodging the discussion, then accuse away. But any other excuse will work just as well.

Why would I want to attempt to prove something about love? It's only an abstract idea, not an actual force. Would you like to admit that free will is a human-constructed abstract idea like love is?

 

[prometheus11]

The free will argument goes like this:

God doesn't want robots; he wants people to CHOOSE him. So free will that allows for horrific actions like rape and torture. God didn't want unity with all, he only wanted love from some. Free will separates people from God that wouldn't be separated from him otherwise. God wants separation from people instead of love with all people.

 

[sojourner]

As I already explained, any excuse will do. If you have some psychological need to blame me for dodging the discussion, then accuse away. But any other excuse will work just as well.

Why would I want to attempt to prove something about love? It's only an abstract idea, not an actual force. Would you like to admit that free will is a human-constructed abstract idea like love is?

I'm not "blaming you" (now who's misrepresenting whom?). I'm merely making an observation. But if you feel the need to assign some sort of emotion or judgment to it, that's your baggage to carry, not mine.

Well, of course it is! Everything theological is a human construction! But both are real.

 

[prometheus11]

Dodging at its finest. Indeed, any excuse will do.

So you're admitting that love and free will are merely human abstractions and not actual forces or things like gravity and electromagnetism, correct?

 

[sojourner]

Dodging at its finest. Indeed, any excuse will do.

So you're admitting that love and free will are merely human abstractions and not actual forces or things like gravity and electromagnetism, correct?

Snarky to the end. But whatever you need to do to feel better about yourself. Not really my problem or my concern.

One is an emotion that is "abstract" in the sense that it isn't quantifiable. The other is a force of intellect and personality that is "abstract" in the sense that it, also, is not quantifiable. Likewise, beauty isn't quantifiable, or our preferences for certain foods. Lots of things in huiman experience aren't quantifiable. That doesn't mean that they're not real and have no "force." They all move us.

 

[dust1n]

With that logic, there is no Theory of Relativity.

Um.. how so?

These three are related, so I put them together.
There is one thing that is evil, but its evilness is relative. That is going against G-d's will.

Boy... there are so many problems with this its hard to know how to go about it. I mean, considering God sanctioned his prophet so summon 2 bears like a druid to slaughter a group of kids who taunted him, his conception of evil being against his will and goodness being in accord with his will, I find the idea of God goodness incredibly laughable.

The reason this is so, is because G-d is intrinsically the greatest possible existence so that anything that is derived from G-d is inherently good.

What does that even mean? What about being a the greatest possible existence entails such existence... actually exists? Possibility does not entail actuality. And God would also be the worst possible existence. Given his infinite nature, no human could possible go against God's will more efficiently than God does.

The existence of the perception of evil than is related to the perception of the lack of G-d. Just like the perception of G-d's non-existence is an illusion, so too is evil because they are the same thing: evil means lacking godliness.

Right, so God doesn't good at all, so much as he calls everything he does good, and everything contrary to what does evil. So good and evil are pretty much as baseless for God as any other human. So again, it doesn't seem like God's conception of good or evil is anymore objective than mine.

With the fulfillment of G-d's will, one becomes a medium through which the Divine will is expressed any by extension, becomes connected to G-d. This is called, "doing good". By transgressing G-d's will, one becomes disconnected, or does not connect to the Divine will, this is evil. But it is only a perception of evil, because there is no existence without G-d. G-d can only express His existence, therefore He can only do good. Only a person who can have intent to contradict G-d's existence, can do evil.

You should consider writing an article for Dabiq on the matter of being an extension of God.


.

Its actually less pronounced than that, because its the intent behind the act, not the act itself, that defines the person. The act itself is an extension of G-d's will. Only, we who can't see into a person's intent have to judge based on actions. So we need to link the act with the intent. G-d doesn't have that limit. But this is another discussion altogether.

The point being, that's its possible to be evil, without doing evil.

Right. It's possible to be a baker, without actually ever baking anything.

I don't know if you knew this about me, but I'm an accomplished novelist. I mean, I haven't started any books yet, but I intended to. It just kinda came out as me sitting on my couch stuffing my face with Pringles.

That is true. So that means that the answer to Epicurus exists, the only question is if the answer is true or not.

Well, I guess we'll find out after class when God gets us a copy of his homework.

That would always be a great one, but it wouldn't effect my analogy much as I was only trying to make an analogy to an act that when viewed on its own appears evil, while when viewed in context is clearly good.

But the act of cutting someone, in my mind, does not on its own appear evil. If the context of the situation was, a surgeon could perform surgery without cutting anyone, yet goes ahead does the cutting anyways, and I was like, hey surgeon why are you cutting that patient when it isn't necessary, and he was like, I have my reasons, but my reasons would never make sense to any human being, but trust me, it's better I do the cutting then the not cutting. I mean, how many leaps of faith am I exactly required here to take before realizing everything God has every done is the goodest thing that could have ever been done. By the way, I'm trying to wrap this up so I can take an RF break, so sorry for shortness.

 

[prometheus11]

Accusing your opponent of snark ones is just as good an excuse as any other. Any excuse will do.

I see no evidence whatsoever that free will and love are anything other than human brain constructed abstractions. You have any empirical evidence that would prove otherwise?

Just why do you think God needed to have some people separated from him rather than have all with him in his perfect will and so he supplied free will?

Answer please.

Or dodge.

Remember any excuse will do, though.

 

[viole]

No. Deuteronomy 32:3,4 states: "For I will declare the name of Jehovah.Tell about the greatness of our God! The Rock, perfect is his activity,For all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness who is never unjust;Righteous and upright is he."

So, if Jehovah's activities are perfect, and never unjust, then we can assume that He outperforms, at least in perfection, Adam.

Do you agree?

Ciao

- viole

 

[rusra02]

Can you point me to the post, so I can refresh my memory as to what was said?

Post #93

 

[rusra02]

So, if Jehovah's activities are perfect, and never unjust, then we can assume that He outperforms, at least in perfection, Adam.

Do you agree?

Ciao

- viole

Jehovah sets the standards for perfection, IMO. So, in that sense, he is unique in perfection. His standards are what all his creation needs to meet in order to be perfect.

 

[viole]

Jehovah sets the standards for perfection, IMO. So, in that sense, he is unique in perfection. His standards are what all his creation needs to meet in order to be perfect.

There is not such a thing as "unique in perfection". All perfect things are equally perfect, by definition of perfection.

Y cannot be perfect if X can be more perfect than Y, because if it was, then Y was missing something that would make it even better. Ergo, Y was not perfect to start with.

You see?

Ciao

- viole

 

[sojourner]

Accusing your opponent of snark ones is just as good an excuse as any other. Any excuse will do.

I see no evidence whatsoever that free will and love are anything other than human brain constructed abstractions. You have any empirical evidence that would prove otherwise?

Just why do you think God needed to have some people separated from him rather than have all with him in his perfect will and so he supplied free will?

Answer please.

Or dodge.

Remember any excuse will do, though.

Accusing your opponent of coming up with excuses is snark. I'm sorry that it bothers you, but there it is.

Do you think that they should be something other than that? Isn't the fact that they move us enough? Regardless of what they are, they're still part of the human condition, and it's that condition that's at stake here.

It's not just "some people." Humanity as a whole is differentiated from God, on a certain level. We are mortal. God is immortal. That's the biblical take. That's the theological concept of God's transcendence. The flip side of that coin is God's imminence. God is not separated from us, because (in the Christian view, at any rate) God is All. God (in Jesus) has become one of us, thereby reconciling us to God. There is, likewise, biblical precedent for God's imminence, to wit, the Psalms: "Where can I go from your presence?"

I thought that the excerpt from Kahlil Gibran spoke well to your question. I also thought my explanation about healthy relationships spoke well to your question. Did you read either?

Remember: we're talking about humanity as a whole here. No one's "separating out" anyone. Except you. Don't know where that comes from, but it's certainly not part of any theological construction I've posited here.

 

[sojourner]

Post #93

Thanks. Let me check it out.

 

[sojourner]

Got evidence to go with that assertion?

Got evidence to go with yours? Metaphor was already a well-worn mythic device by the time Jesus lived. He would have been as aware of it as the rest of biblical intelligentsia. In fact, biblical literalism is a relatively new concept, having only really been around for less than 400 of the past 2000 years of Christianity.

 

[prometheus11]

Accusing your opponent of coming up with excuses is snark. I'm sorry that it bothers you, but there it is.

Do you think that they should be something other than that? Isn't the fact that they move us enough? Regardless of what they are, they're still part of the human condition, and it's that condition that's at stake here.

It's not just "some people." Humanity as a whole is differentiated from God, on a certain level. We are mortal. God is immortal. That's the biblical take. That's the theological concept of God's transcendence. The flip side of that coin is God's imminence. God is not separated from us, because (in the Christian view, at any rate) God is All. God (in Jesus) has become one of us, thereby reconciling us to God. There is, likewise, biblical precedent for God's imminence, to wit, the Psalms: "Where can I go from your presence?"

I thought that the excerpt from Kahlil Gibran spoke well to your question. I also thought my explanation about healthy relationships spoke well to your question. Did you read either?

Remember: we're talking about humanity as a whole here. No one's "separating out" anyone. Except you. Don't know where that comes from, but it's certainly not part of any theological construction I've posited here.

You are giving excuses instead of answers. If calling me snarky helps your posting behavior, then continue that practice.

You saying that free will is given by God. I'm saying you can't show that it exists as an actual "thing." It's a concept, not electromagnetism. If it's only a concept created by the human brain, then it's not a "gift" from God.

Yes, I've read your posts. I'm not dodging anything. YOU are the one dodging until now.

YOU are the one asserting that free will is some sort of mystical force that God gives. YOU state that he gives free will so that people can choose or not choose God. OBVIOUSLY, if God didn't give free will, no one would have the ability to select to be OUT of gods will. Thus, when God gave free will he separated some people out that would have been in. Duh.

 

[Etritonakin]

It seems like no religious person in the Abrahamic faiths takes Epicurus' riddle seriously:



The most common objection to this is that God is testing us and so he wants to stop evil and he can do it, but its apart of a greater plan where everything will be set right at the end during the final judgment.

There are so many problems with this. First of all the idea that this is a test is insane. The tests range in difficulty and duration for each individual where some are extremely easy and others are impossibly difficult or are affected by things like mental illnesses. Also what's even the point of this test/plan? God already knows what will happen and he knows the moral content of each person, and yet he needs to test anyways? This is malevolence by any sensible definition. Also, since God knew what was going to happen before we were created, then his plan is predetermined and thus the test is rigged. Its a game of entrapment where the crimes and sins we commit have to happen in order to fit God's plan. This means that the subtle way God designed us and designed the world determines our actions, and so in conclusion, if this was a plan and God is omnipotent and omniscient, then basically he designing certain people to go to hell and others to

We also hear that disbelief results in a judgment too--our gullibility and ability to believe something based on extremely limited evidence determines the outcome. its ridiculous especially since God designed us with doubt and skepticism in the first place and he allowed for a number of false religious to lead us to the wrong direction. On top of that ignorant peasants like doubting Thomas received evidence and yet 21st century scientists have to take it on faith? This connects back to the unreasonable and unfair test. if a test is going to be any good at all it needs to be the same for all people. Nothing about this criticism is logical and sensible at all. You're still left with malevolence or he just doesn't care about the pettiness of human sin.

Evil is a temporary situation.

God could have prevented human error and evil -but that would have prevented our becoming gods. God will make all things new -but allowed the present situation so that we could learn to master it.

Gen 4:7 If you do well, won't you be accepted? But if you don't do well, sin is lying outside your door ready to attack. It wants to control you, but you must master it."

Rev_2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

 

[sojourner]

You are giving excuses instead of answers. If calling me snarky helps your posting behavior, then continue that practice.

You saying that free will is given by God. I'm saying you can't show that it exists as an actual "thing." It's a concept, not electromagnetism. If it's only a concept created by the human brain, then it's not a "gift" from God.

Yes, I've read your posts. I'm not dodging anything. YOU are the one dodging until now.

YOU are the one asserting that free will is some sort of mystical force that God gives. YOU state that he gives free will so that people can choose or not choose God. OBVIOUSLY, if God didn't give free will, no one would have the ability to select to be OUT of gods will. Thus, when God gave free will he separated some people out that would have been in. Duh.

I'm saying that all human beings have free will. We have the ability to make choices. That can either be placed within a theological framework, or not. Whether or not it's "an actual thing," we do have the ability to make choices. In a theological framework, God creates us and endows us with our human qualities. In a scientific framework, brain function comes into play.

Since we're dealing with a theological argument, we have to argue within a theological framework, so it's assumed that free will, as a human attribute, was endowed in us by God. If you don't want to argue theologically, I'm sure there are any of several threads here that you can participate in. But to refuse to argue theologically only serves to derail a thread that is entertaining a theological argument. So, I'd just as soon we not derail the thread and work within the framework of a theological argument.

Your theological point is that "[God] gives free will so that people can choose or not choose God." I'd tweak that to say that God gives us the freedom to self-identify, thus creating the possibility for healthy relationships. You said that, "if God didn't give free will, no one would have the ability to select to be OUT of God's will." That's true, but as I said earlier, that would create an unhealthy, more codependent type of relationship. Since God is love, that action wouldn't be congruent with God's nature (love), so I think we can rule that action out as "bad theology."

Then you say that, "when God gave free will, [God] separated some people out that would have been in." But that's a fallacy. In the theological milieu, "in" is defined by a love relationship. If there's no choice, there's no love relationship. Therefore, if God had not given free will, no one would be "in." Free will is the only logical choice to make, if a love relationship is the aim (and it is, according to the theological construction with which we're working). Further, when God gave free will, God didn't "separate some out." Some people separate themselves. Those people are responsible for the separation (sin), not God. God may have provided the door, but God never invites nor pushes anyone through the door. In fact, God admonishes us not to walk through. But it's our choice and our responsibility.