Logical deduction (religion, the PoE)

[Trailblazer]

Let's put aside whether that is true for a moment. It would still mean it is not always the case that legal accountability and moral responsibility go hand in hand. So stating that God won't be ever brought to a court of law is irrelevant to establish whether God has moral responsibility.

Maybe that is irrelevant, so what do you think is relevant to establish whether God has moral responsibility?

Because in every case the best method to achieve anything means to do it the fastest and most cost effective way possible.

What are these cases? In the manufacturing industry?

Can you exemplify a case that would contradict this?

I could give you many examples. For example, I might take a train instead of an airplane even though it is not the fastest or the most cost efficient.

Great. Now you need to prove that there is a relation of logical necessity between gain and pain.

That's too general. I cannot prove that.

I am sorry but those examples don't work, because you are pointing out logical contingent examples. The fact that in our world we need to undergo some pain to achieve some gain is a given, I don't and won't dispute this.

Let me elaborate. God can't create married bachelors because such beings would be a logical contradiction. Either one is married or a bachelor. In other words, we can't reasonably expect God to do what is logically contradictory. I think you agree with this.

Now, if there was some gain that could only achieved through pain, out of logical necessity, then it would also not make sense to expect God to give rise to that gain without the pain. As for your examples, it could be the case that no pain is required to become a pro athlete or a medical degree (I have no idea on where you see pain on this second one), and therefore there is no logical necessity between pain and gain here.

God does not operate on human logic so you cannot use human logic to figure out what God would/should do.

Great, then you agree that what is beneficial to us is what increases our well-being. Right?

Right.

But I am not saying that God is responsible for curing diseases either. I am saying that God, if he is omnibenevolent, would cure diseases regardless of whether he is responsible for curing diseases or even despite of not being responsible for curing diseases.

Why would God do that?

Isn't it an act of benevolence to cure diseases when you don't have the responsibility to do so?

Maybe, but God is not a doctor so God doesn't cure diseases.

 

[Koldo]

Because believing is not knowing. I am not God. My child doesn't have the experiences of an immortal, so the suffering from the hot stove will be experienced as a mortal. The suffering is only diminshed when all of those past-life memories, if they exist, are remembered. My child will not understand why I permitted them to touch the hot stove, in the same way that people don't understand why God permits pain and suffering.

Is the child supposed to understand why you permitted the suffering though?

In order examine this, there's both me and God. We're not the same. God permits the possibilty of the child touching the hot stove, I am supposed to prevent it. God permits it, and if it happens, then I learn from it. I vicariously experience the pain ( something you may not understand without having kids of your own ). That is coupled with the shame and self-deprecation from being negligent. Those feelings fade over time, but they make an impression. And I'm less likely to be negligent in the future.

So, God permitting the hot stove is:

1) not as bad as one thinks for the child in the grand scheme of things
2) if it happens I learn not to be so negligent
3) God permitting the event is not "evil"

But that does not mean I should permit it. I'm supposed to prevent it. When I see the hot stove, or think about the hot stove, I'm supposed to imagine what it would be like if the child touches it. And this reaction is what prevents the negligence. All of this requires that the hot stove is painful to begin with. So God is permitting the hot stove for the purpose of preventing it.

I am not sure I understand. Why are you supposed to prevent it but not God?

First, it's not all Chaos. Chaos and order coexist. Examples of chaos leveraged into good are: epiphanies, happy accidents, seizing an opportunity, etc...

The reason I believe that all of it can be converted into good is life experience. And, I discovered I'm not alone in this assessment.

Post-traumatic growth - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This Turns Tragedy into an Opportunity for Personal Growth

75% of all people will live through a traumatic event. 35-37% will experience PTG.

bigthink.com

You and I have both only experienced a very insignificant chunk of all evil considering the whole picture. What makes you believe your life experiences turns you into a qualified person to say that all instances of evil can be converted into good?

 

[dybmh]

Is the child supposed to understand why you permitted the suffering though?

Well, I'm not permitting them to touch a hot stove, but, yes. The child will understand why I let them fall so they can learn to walk.

I am not sure I understand. Why are you supposed to prevent it but not God?

Because the potential for the burn has value, and 100% preventing the hot stove from causing suffering gets weird. And 100% preventing the desire to touch it gets weird too. But God may prevent it sometimes.

You and I have both only experienced a very insignificant chunk of all evil considering the whole picture. What makes you believe your life experiences turns you into a qualified person to say that all instances of evil can be converted into good?

Of course. That's why I brought a source which shows the idea has support from professionals.

 

[Koldo]

It is absolute in "OTHER". And it can be minimized. The question is how much can it be minimized and still result in something that can be converted into good without any other bizarre side-effects.

How is it both absolute and able to be minimized? If it is minimized then order takes over and it is not absolute.

For example, going back to God's magic wand. How much is God going to dominate and control what's happening on a minute by minute basis? I am 90% sure that the OP, as an anarchist, is not going to agree to being a marianette. So, if we're not losing freedom, then only the discomfort is eliminated? That's weird too. I can hit myself in the face with a hammer and it doesn't hurt? If I get sick, how do I know? And then we start talking about death and dying. Nobody dies? What if I want to depart for this? What if I'm tired? And so that's weird. Do I experience pain when someone dies? Or is that no one dies? If not, so, I light myself on fire and there's no damage? I don't hurt myself at all? I can light you on fire and there's no damage at all? And then someone says, "oh! you won't desire to set yourself on fire, or anyone else". OK.

Then we're back to the marianette. There's no way that each and every person is going to agree on which rules are right and which rules are wrong. The only way to make that happen is to make everyone exactly the same in every way, and no one wants that either.

Instead, this element of randomness exists. It's not blocked or cut-off for multiple reasons in real-time by God's magic wand ( miracles ). And Chaos is only 1 aspect of this "OTHER". There are so many ... ummmm ... other aspects to it, and those can't be cut-off or completely obscured either.

There are two ways to handle this. Either by divine intervention or design. You mention more than once that the solution you imagine is weird, but weirdness is not a proper answer, for if it were the platypus wouldn't exist.

It does. If we are talking about pathology, it's just a matter of time. Given enough time, someone is going be born with a defective brain.

God could have prevented this. You already mentioned we are not talking about a completely orderless universe.

So many things

I like New York in June! How about you? But seriously. If we're talking about suffering, then goodness is relief.

Let me put it this way: How do you figure out if something counts as 'good'?

 

[Koldo]

Maybe that is irrelevant, so what do you think is relevant to establish whether God has moral responsibility?

What is sufficient to establish anyone's moral responsibility is a debate in itself. But to simplify the whole thing: the capacity to act and to understand the moral consequences of one's actions.

What are these cases? In the manufacturing industry?

Absolutely anything anywhere. Tell me one example this is not so.

I could give you many examples. For example, I might take a train instead of an airplane even though it is not the fastest or the most cost efficient.

And this would be the best path to do what?

That's too general. I cannot prove that.

If you can provide any specific example where the gain necessitates the pain due to logical necessity that works too.

God does not operate on human logic so you cannot use human logic to figure out what God would/should do.

There is no such thing as human logic, there is only logic. Do you mean to say God can create a married bachelor?

Right.

Why would God do that?

Maybe, but God is not a doctor so God doesn't cure diseases.

A benevolent being would cure diseases regardless of whether he is a doctor, as long as he is able to cure diseases.

An omnibenevolent God would cure all diseases because curing diseases improves well-being and an omnibenevolent being is one that seeks to improve well-being as much as he possibly can.

Curing diseases is an act of benevolence regardless of whether one is responsible for curing diseases. Benevolence has absolutely nothing to do with duty or responsibility.

 

[Koldo]

Well, I'm not permitting them to touch a hot stove, but, yes. The child will understand why I let them fall so they can learn to walk.

Do you mean afterwards, as in many years later? Because I don't think the child would even be able to understand much of what you were saying at that age... even if you were to explain it.

Because the potential for the burn has value, and 100% preventing the hot stove from causing suffering gets weird. And 100% preventing the desire to touch it gets weird too. But God may prevent it sometimes.

You keep mentioning weirdness as if it was a proper answer, but it is not...

Of course. That's why I brought a source which shows the idea has support from professionals.

In what manner do you see your source supporting your conclusion?

 

[Trailblazer]

More than "shaped by;" aren't you claiming that the material world was entirely designed and created by God?

Yes

You choose what you're influenced by? I don't believe you.

No, we cannot choose everything we are influenced by, just some things,

But those experiences - along with how we respond to those experiences - are all things that God would have had control over, if God were real and created the universe.

God has control over everything but that does not mean that God chooses to exercise that control.
God has no desire to control humans and that is why God gave humans free will.

A person who has a predisposition or vulnerability to alcohol addiction can choose behaviours that make it more or less likely that they'll suffer from alcoholism, but they had no control over whether they have that predisposition.

That's true. Both my parents were alcoholics and I chose not to drink.

You can choose to love?

That is a good question. No, I don't think we can choose to love just because we want to love but I think we can love if we feel love.
I choose to try to love God because I believe it is the right thing to do and in my best interest, but I do not feel love for God

That's what I'm saying. If God is the creator of the universe, then God is the ultimate source of everything, and therefore the ultimate source of all evil.

No, that logic does not fly. The source of all creation is not necessarily the source of all evil, or even the source of any evil. Evil is an act that is committed. God does not commit evil acts, people do. God is the source of all goodness.

Where do you think the evil nature came from, then?

Ir comes from our physical nature. Our spiritual nature is the source of all good. Think about why people commit evil deeds. It is usually for sex or money, physical desires.

If Adam found himself in a world that already had good and evil, then the creator of that world is the ultimate source of evil.

But he didn't. The evil came later.
Genesis 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

But again: those "natures" can vary without affecting free will.

Someone with no desire to murder still has their free will intact, so desire to murder isn't necessary for free will. IOW, the existence of murder can't be hand-waved away by saying "oh, but God wanted us to have free will."

Someone with no genetic predisposition to alcoholism also had their free will intact, so in the same way, we can't hand-wave away alcoholism with a "free will" excuse, either.

I never said that those two natures 'take away' our free will. I only ever said that because we have free will we can choose to act according to one or the other nature. Free will remains intact.

Responsibility isn't a zero-sum game.

What's that supposed to mean? I don't really want to guess.

Why do you think we fell? Here's an exhaustive list of options:

- God wanted humanity to fall.
- God didn't want humanity to fall, but failed to anticipate the influences we would face.
- God didn't want humanity to fall, anticipated the influences we would face, but failed to adequately account for them when designing us.

I do not believe it is any of the ones you listed.
- God wanted humanity to fall. -- God created humans out of love so God does not want humans to fail
- God didn't want humanity to fall, but failed to anticipate the influences we would face. -- God cannot fail to anticipate anything since God has perfect foreknowledge
- God didn't want humanity to fall, anticipated the influences we would face, but failed to adequately account for them when designing us. -- God cannot make mistakes in His design since God is Infallible

A reason you did not list is that God wanted humanity to struggle between their material nature and their spiritual nature so they would learn to choose their spiritual nature. I think we had to fall in order to learn to pick ourselves up and change direction.

Right: so if God were to snap his fingers and erase those inherited predispositions that lead people to evil, everyone's free will would be preserved.

So why doesn't he do this?

We would still have free will if God snapped His fingers and erased the inherited predispositions that lead people to evil.
But why should God erase the the inherited predispositions that lead people to evil? Even if people have such a predisposition they can rise above it. God wants people to struggle to overcome our propensities.

The implication of what you're arguing is that God created a world with good and evil, created us initially good, and then put us in that world knowing that we would be corrupted.

This still amounts to God giving us an evil nature.

It amounts to God giving us a choice between good and evil and some people choosing evil and becoming corrupted.

 

[dybmh]

Do you mean afterwards, as in many years later? Because I don't think the child would even be able to understand much of what you were saying at that age... even if you were to explain it.

Yes, yes afterwards. Don't you ever think about things your parents did and understand that even though it wasn't what you would have chosen at the time, that it was the right choice and they knew what was best?

You keep mentioning weirdness as if it was a proper answer, but it is not...

Hee. That's because I wrote a mid-length paragraph about it in a previous reply.

In what manner do you see your source supporting your conclusion?

Did you read the wikipedia article?

 

[Truthseeker]

It amounts to God giving us a choice between good and evil and some people choosing evil and becoming corrupted.

It's time for our weekly Zoom meeting!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But he didn't. The evil came later.

... from God's creation.

... and therefore ultimately from God.

 

[Trailblazer]

... from God's creation.

... and therefore ultimately from God.

That is illogical.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is illogical.

It isn't; you just can't acknowledge this.

 

[Trailblazer]

It isn't; you just can't acknowledge this.

It is; you just can't acknowledge this.

 

[1213]

Do you believe the story of Adam and Eva is real? That it actually happened?

I believe things went as the Bible tells.

Sure, but if you saw your child about do it you would stop them, right?

I would say, don't do it, because it hurts.

 

[1213]

No. A person may neither be good or evil. He may be apathetic or indifferent. So evil action comes because of the positive presence of emotions like greed, malice etc. This shows that evil itself is a positive state, not a mere absence.

Sorry, I disagree with that. Greed and malice are results of lack of good, which is evil.

 

[Koldo]

I believe things went as the Bible tells.

Literally? Evidence that it happened as it is said in Genesis then, please.

I would say, don't do it, because it hurts.

Is that all you would do?
Wouldn't you take your child away from the kitchen if necessary?

 

[sayak83]

Sorry, I disagree with that. Greed and malice are results of lack of good, which is evil.

Your disagreement makes no difference. A person may be nongreedy and nongenerous at the same time. So...

 

[PearlSeeker]

Eventhough the source for evil cannot be cut-off or completely obscured, in the here-and-now, God does have options, unlimited options to intervene and reduce evil. And I think that this is where most people become frustrated. The frustration is, "Why doesn't God intervene more?" And that's a great question. There's several possible answers. All of them involve taking this necessary evil and making it into something good. And from this, one can correctly say all of creation is good. It is not a mix of good and bad. God had a plan all along for creation of a material world. And none of this compromises God's omnipotence.

Does God even intervene?
How much evil is necessary?

 

[dybmh]

Does God even intervene?

Honest answer: unknown.

How much evil is necessary?

In the here and now? Also unknown. I think eliminating all of it results in a world that most people would not like.

 

[Trailblazer]

Does God even intervene?
How much evil is necessary?

Only God has the answers to those questions. We cannot know.