Logical deduction (religion, the PoE)

[dybmh]

But a regular patient doesn't consent to the risk of malpractice.

Right! There is no malpractice in the example I brought. And if they are immortal, there are no damages.

Then harm caused by other people is not justified and should be prevented by God.

That means no material creation at all. Or people are robots. Or there is no diversity and everyone is identical. Or people can inflict heinous acts on themself and others. It would be bizarre to say the least.

 

[Koldo]

1) What a benevolent person would do is irrelevant since God is not a person.
You are talking about God as if God was a human being. That is the fallacy of false equivalence since God is not a human being.
God does not need to remembered for His sake since God has absolutely no needs. It is only for our own benefit that we remember God.

This is a fair criticism but, you need to show there is a pertinent distinction between God and humans as far as establishing that a distinctive behavior on God's part would still be benevolent.

Let me elaborate on why with an example: Imagine that I were to tell you that it is immoral for a woman to rape. Imagine I also proceed to say that since Joe is a man, he is not acting immorally by raping since he is not a woman, and it is a false equivalence to judge Joe by standards that are only applicable to a woman. You could easily reply there is no pertinent distinction in terms of judging the morality of rape between when men do it and when women do it, and that therefore the standards applicable to women are also applicable to men as far as rape goes.

You seem to be saying that it is for our benefit to remember God. But then two questions arise. First, if it were for your benefit to remember me, am I entitled to cause you to suffer just to make you remember me? Second, how is God omnipotent if he needs suffering to make us remember him? If he doesn't need to make use of suffering then he is not omnibenevolent for there would be an alternative that doesn't involve suffering.

2) God could have created beings that attain perfection without suffering thus God is omnipotent.
An omnipotent God only does what He chooses to do, not what humans think He should do.
The omnipotent God decided that suffering is necessary to attain perfection so that is how it is.

If God chose suffering to be necessary to attain perfection then God is not omnibenevolent.

 

[dybmh]

It should be clear that if our ultimate state has no freewill then why would God be excused of allowing suffering in our current state for the sake of freewill now. If robots is what we would be ultimately then what is all this nonsense talk about how valuable freewill is??

I'm not saying suffering is for the sake of free-will. People use that as A reason, but I don't think it is THE reason. It's a good reason, but not the only reason.

Your next set of sentences is not clear to me. What sort of afterlife are you suggesting

The words I hear sometimes are "basking in godliness". So, you're at the beach, basking in the sun. Nothing else.

 

[Koldo]

If the random chaos is the source for illness, and genetic deformaties, it does entail suffering. Now, one could say that God magically waves its magic wand and people start enjoying a flesh eating virus. But that would be a very strange world. I'm not sure people would want to live in that sort of world. A world where people enjoy being hurt? I light you on fire, and that's fun for you?

I meant there is no logical necessity between chaos and suffering. Wherever there is chaos, there might or might not be suffering.

Putting a limit on the suffering is order and structure. That is not OTHER any longer.

Are you proposing a Deist, hands off God? Because if I am following your reasoning any interference from God would entail more order and structure. This is not compatible with Judaism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, the intention was to elaborate in the next part of the reply.



It does mean opposite in this context. If God is order. Let's start there. Then let's say that God creates 50/50 order/chaos. That's still order. There's still order there. The 50/50 mix is order. It's just diminshed order. For it to be different than order, it needs to the potential to be chaos. A little chaos is not chaos.

So let's continue with this...

Here is order. here is order&chaos. If order is immediately next to order&chaos, the result is order&order&chaos. Still, the result is order/chaos. So the otherness, chaos, the opposite, is still created. If it's combined differently, order combined with chaos&order. The result is order&chaos&order. Still, the opposite is created. Other-ness in this context IS opposite. The only way to have otherness here is to have opposite. That's the only way to have a true difference.

But a positive and negative together is not a positive, it is nothing. The problem is that if you have order and chaos in the same sense you don't get order, you get absurd or nothing. It is meaningless.
You are playing with words in your brain. If you try to bring them together you get nothing as it is absurd.
Now maybe the answer is that God is absurd, so you can't express it in words. Have you ever consider that? That the concept of God is empty, because we can't express in meaningful terms.

 

[dybmh]

I meant there is no logical necessity between chaos and suffering. Wherever there is chaos, there might or might not be suffering.

Illness and genetic mutations are not reliably going to cause suffering?

Are you proposing a Deist, hands off God? Because if I am following your reasoning any interference from God would entail more order and structure. This is not compatible with Judaism.

No. I'm not. But, before creation, there is nothing to interact with. At that point, sure, it's a deist God.

So there are 2 questions being asked and answered:

1) Why was suffering made in the first place? Answer: because any creation requires it
2) Why doesn't God intervene? God does, but not completely, for various reasons.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is a fair criticism but, you need to show there is a pertinent distinction between God and humans as far as establishing that a distinctive behavior on God's part would still be benevolent.

God has a will and sometimes God wills things to happen. God does not have behavior since God is not a human. Only humans have behavior.

Let me elaborate on why with an example: Imagine that I were to tell you that it is immoral for a woman to rape. Imagine I also proceed to say that since Joe is a man, he is not acting immorally by raping since he is not a woman, and it is a false equivalence to judge Joe by standards that are only applicable to a woman. You could easily reply there is no pertinent distinction in terms of judging the morality of rape between when men do it and when women do it, and that therefore the standards applicable to women are also applicable to men as far as rape goes.

You are comparing humans to humans. Human standards do not apply to God because God is not a human. Again, when you compare humans to God and try to apply the same standards that is the fallacy of false equivalence.

You seem to be saying that it is for our benefit to remember God. But then two questions arise. First, if it were for your benefit to remember me, am I entitled to cause you to suffer just to make you remember me?

First, you are comparing humans to humans. Human standards do not apply to God because God is not a human.
Again, when you compare humans to God and try to apply the same standards that is the fallacy of false equivalence.

Second, God is not 'causing' anyone to suffer, suffering is simply inherent in life in a material world.

Third, God has no needs, only humans have needs, so God does not need to be remembered, we need to remember God.

Second, how is God omnipotent if he needs suffering to make us remember him? If he doesn't need to make use of suffering then he is not omnibenevolent for there would be an alternative that doesn't involve suffering.

God does not need suffering to make us remember Him. Humans need suffering in order to remember God, because otherwise we would just bask in the pleasures of the material world forgetful of God. It is when we need help with our suffering that we will remember that God is the only one who can help.

If God chose suffering to be necessary to attain perfection then God is not omnibenevolent.

Again, that is only a personal opinion yet you state it as if it was a fact.
In my opinion, if God chose suffering to be necessary to attain perfection because God is omniscient, so God knew that was the best way to achieve His purpose for humans.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Illness and genetic mutations are not reliably going to cause suffering?



No. I'm not. But, before creation, there is nothing to interact with. At that point, sure, it's a deist God.

So there are 2 questions being asked and answered:

1) Why was suffering made in the first place? Answer: because any creation requires it
2) Why doesn't God intervene? God does, but not completely, for various reasons.

So you are saying you know God and how God works and that is based on how you think. In effect you are saying that your thinking is what causes God to be how God is. Remember what you do. You make proof based on how you think and thus God can't be any different, but then your proof controls God.

 

[Trailblazer]

I meant there is no logical necessity between chaos and suffering. Wherever there is chaos, there might or might not be suffering.

That's actually true because some people can rise above the chaos if they are detached from it and thus not suffer.

 

[dybmh]

Yes, but that is empty as other than not-me. Objective reality in itself is not my experience of it, it is what it is in itself. I don't know that nor for God. "Otherness" or "diffentness" is that other than or different than me and nothing else.
Not me is that, not me. What is other than no me, I don't know.

OK. We're starting from an only-god reality. There is only "known". There is no "unknown". From this reality, anything which is created which is/was actually included in god-reality, would immediately reassimilate back into god-reality. And this is the test for what is "other" when considering an only-god reality becoming an god&other reality.

Any blunders in the above?

 

[Koldo]

I am arguing that, at least, there is the potential.

Then those are the immortals I was referring to.

Right! But you could. You could, but you don't. And that is why there is no compromise on God's omnipotence simply because it doesn't intervene.

I couldn't because I need to do other things other than keeping my eyes glued to the kid. Let's however presume that I actually could do it in practice. If I could, then I should because constant watch is good whenever possible. I am talking about kids though. As one grows older and fully understands the consequences of one's actions then it is a different beast.

All I have said is that there is a purpose. And actually there are many purposes. Each person's suffering is NOT IN VAIN. The highest purpose of suffering is creation. And then God established creation so that the suffering would have potential to do good, just like everything else.

Since we are talking about this part on other posts I will keep this discussing there.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OK. We're starting from an only-god reality. There is only "known". There is no "unknown". From this reality, anything which is created which is/was actually included in god-reality, would immediately reassimilate back into god-reality. And this is the test for what is "other" when considering an only-god reality becoming an god&other reality.

Any blunders in the above?

No, we are not starting there. You are assuming an only-god reality, but assuming it doesn't make it a fact.
And the blunder is that & is a process in your brain/mind, that makes sense to you. You have in this argument only been in your brain/mind.

 

[Koldo]

Right! There is no malpractice in the example I brought. And if they are immortal, there are no damages.

I am not sure I understand. A temporary damage doesn't excuse malpractice.

That means no material creation at all. Or people are robots. Or there is no diversity and everyone is identical. Or people can inflict heinous acts on themself and others. It would be bizarre to say the least.

Or people can choose to fully shield themselves from any harm?

 

[ratiocinator]

It does mean opposite in this context. If God is order. Let's start there. Then let's say that God creates 50/50 order/chaos. That's still order. There's still order there. The 50/50 mix is order. It's just diminshed order. For it to be different than order, it needs to the potential to be chaos. A little chaos is not chaos.

Doesn't make any sense at all. I am made of matter. I can make something else made of matter that is 'other' than me.

 

[dybmh]

So you are saying you know God and how God works and that is based on how you think. In effect you are saying that your thinking is what causes God to be how God is. Remember what you do. You make proof based on how you think and thus God can't be any different, but then your proof controls God.

Actually no, I am beginning with an unlimited creator god concept. If those to attributes / qualities are abandoned then there is no real blame for evil that can be established. The perpatrator is unknown in that case.

So, either we posit an unlimited creator god and this affords making claims of responsibility.
Or, there it is unknown who/what is to blame.

either way, the Problem of evil is resolved.

 

[Koldo]

Illness and genetic mutations are not reliably going to cause suffering?

Not really?
Chaos doesn't even have to reliably cause illnesses, just change.

No. I'm not. But, before creation, there is nothing to interact with. At that point, sure, it's a deist God.

So there are 2 questions being asked and answered:

1) Why was suffering made in the first place? Answer: because any creation requires it
2) Why doesn't God intervene? God does, but not completely, for various reasons.

But if God intervenes then it brings about more order and structure... Which is contrary to what you are proposing to be the reason as to why God doesn't prevent suffering.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Doesn't make any sense at all. I am made of matter. I can make something else made of matter that is 'other' than me.

It is rationalism. If we start by thinking P1 is true and add other thoughts and consider them true, then we get a true answer even about something independent of thinking.

 

[dybmh]

I am not sure I understand. A temporary damage doesn't excuse malpractice.

It's not malpractice if it is the result of random events. If you're in the Dr's office and an earthquake brings the roof down on top of you, is it malpractice?

Or people can choose to fully shield themselves from any harm?

Not if they want an opportunity of a material existence and all that it entails.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Actually no, I am beginning with an unlimited creator god concept. If those to attributes / qualities are abandoned then there is no real blame for evil that can be established. The perpatrator is unknown in that case.

So, either we posit an unlimited creator god and this affords making claims of responsibility.
Or, there it is unknown who/what is to blame.

either way, the Problem of evil is resolved.

You are beginning.... That tells it all. It is rationalism. It is based on how you think. But I doubt God depends on how you think.

 

[dybmh]

Doesn't make any sense at all. I am made of matter. I can make something else made of matter that is 'other' than me.

Context mismatch. You are in a domain of material multiplicity.