Logical deduction (religion, the PoE)

[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.

Just to be clear, I see no logic at all that prevents a god who is 'order' creating something else that is also perfectly ordered.

 

[ratiocinator]

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

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

 

[dybmh]

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

Give it time, and it will.

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.

If suffering is completely elminiated it will result in nothing but chaos. There are no consequences.

Again, it's a two part question. Let's not confuse the answer for part 1 with the answer for part 2.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

So are you. You think that thinking a context makes it an actual context.

 

[dybmh]

Just to be clear, I see no logic at all that prevents a god who is 'order' creating something else that is also perfectly ordered.

Sure. It's a difficult concept.

Try adding infinity to infinity, what do you get? That's what happens when order creates order if there is only order in the domain.

Proper definition of the domain, results in what I am describing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

He is doing philosophy and doesn't get that he is thinking God as he thinks God and then he claim that this is how God is independent of him thinking God.
That one is standard in rationalism. I can think something and it make sense to me, therefore it is an objective fact.

 

[ratiocinator]

Sure. It's a difficult concept.

Looks more like contrived and made up than difficult. Show me the logical contradiction in a god who is ordered creating something else that is ordered.

Try adding infinity to infinity, what do you get? That's what happens when order creates order if there is only order in the domain.

You have not shown any connection at all between these different concepts.

Proper definition of the domain, results in what I am describing.

What's that supposed to mean? Looks like a classic deepity.

 

[Koldo]

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.

Potato, patato.
Both mean the same to me. If you care about this distinction I can use the term as you prefer.

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.

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.

A man and a woman are not the same either. Therefore, whatever standards apply to a woman doesn't apply to a man... This is literally what you are doing.

I am sorry but this is not going to work. You can't merely state that two things are not identical to state the same standard doesn't apply to them.

Even if two things are very different you need to show the pertinent distinction makes the standard not applicable. You can't merely claim they are very different.

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

It is inherent in this material world, but not in all possible material worlds. Therefore, you are pointing out something inconsequential.

But more importantly, you previously gave me two reasons as to why humans suffer: 1) so they don't forget God and 2) that suffering is necessary to attain perfection. If God is not directly causing that suffering, he is at least enabling it though. Am I entitled to enable your suffering just because you might forget me and forgetting me is not beneficial to you?

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

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.

Then we don't need suffering.

Again, that is only a personal opinion yet you state it as if it was a fact.

What moral justification would a benevolent being, be it God or human, have to willfully choose suffering as the pathway to achieve perfection if a path without suffering was feasible?

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.

That would still entail God is not omnibenevolent. If God's purpose for humans is achieved through suffering, then God is not omnibenevolent. For omnibenevolence necessarily entails choosing the path where suffering would be minimized.

 

[Kenny]

Tangent: do you believe there will be free will in heaven?

Yes.

Not really... More like I'm making a case for the nonexistence of your God.

I do agree that man is responsible for our suffering. I just do not agree that your God exists, because of it.

Which, as I pointed out, would be a wrong deduction.

Can you force love on someone?

 

[Koldo]

Give it time, and it will.

Chaos is unpredictable.

If suffering is completely elminiated it will result in nothing but chaos. There are no consequences.

Again, it's a two part question. Let's not confuse the answer for part 1 with the answer for part 2.

I am still trying to figure out how you reconcile God being unable to intervene to prevent suffering because that would destroy this 'otherness' and yet being able to interact and intervene at multiple other occasions without destroying this 'otherness'.

 

[dybmh]

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.

I am only talking about an attribute. Order. But there are so many more.

What you are observing is resolved if God is a unity. Then the otherness is division. So order and chaos are not mixed. They are divided. And all of this is happening simultaneously.

 

[dybmh]

Then those are the immortals I was referring to.

But if you have never met one, and you have no immortal experiences to rely on, how are you ruling out what I am describing as a diminshed suffering when comparing mortal to immortal?

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.

The analogy was teaching a child to walk.

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

OK I'm happy to discuss, answer whatever questions you have, and see if there are any gaps or faults in my understanding. That is, until it gets close to nightfall. Then we can resume on sunday.

 

[an anarchist]

Yes.

Then how come there won't be suffering in heaven? We won't be robots in heaven, right? You said if God made sure there was no instances of suffering, we'd be no different than robots.

Which, as I pointed out, would be a wrong deduction.

I still dont understand why you say that.

Can you force love on someone?

No, but you can force suffering on them. It seems this is what your God has done.
What would've been the difference if Adam and Eve never sinned (let's say they had no tree of knowledge of good and evil) and humanity lived in Eden perpetually, how would have that been any different than Christians predicted heaven on earth?

 

[dybmh]

Chaos is unpredictable.

Sure, but odds are greatly in favor of illness and genetic maladaptions especially given billions of years.

I am still trying to figure out how you reconcile God being unable to intervene to prevent suffering because that would destroy this 'otherness' and yet being able to interact and intervene at multiple other occasions without destroying this 'otherness'.

This is mixing the answers. So, depart from the idea of the required otherness. That is the beginning.

In the here and now:

1) You don't know that God isn't intervening.
2) Things could be so much worse.
3) If there was no suffering at all there would be no consequences.
4) All that's left is: Why isn't God intervening more?

Correct? #4 is where we're at in the discussion?

 

[Trailblazer]

A man and a woman are not the same either. Therefore, whatever standards apply to a woman doesn't apply to a man... This is literally what you are doing.

A man and a woman are both humans but God is not a human. Therefore human standards do not apply to God. This is basic logic.

I am sorry but this is not going to work. You can't merely state that two things are not identical to state the same standard doesn't apply to them.

Even if two things are very different you need to show the pertinent distinction makes the standard not applicable. You can't merely claim they are very different.

I am sorry but this is not going to work. You can't merely state that two things are identical to state the same standard applies to them.

If two things are very different you need to show how, given the pertinent distinction, the same standard is applicable. You can't merely claim they are the same.

It is inherent in this material world, but not in all possible material worlds. Therefore, you are pointing out something inconsequential.

Any other 'possible' material worlds are irrelevant since they do not exist. Therefore, you are pointing out something inconsequential.

But more importantly, you previously gave me two reasons as to why humans suffer: 1) so they don't forget God and 2) that suffering is necessary to attain perfection. If God is not directly causing that suffering, he is at least enabling it though. Am I entitled to enable your suffering just because you might forget me and forgetting me is not beneficial to you?

God is entitled to DO anything He wants to DO because He is God. How are you going to stop an omnipotent God from doing something?

You are not entitled to enable my suffering unless I allow you to.
Why would I want to remember you? Remembering you is not beneficial to me but remembering God is beneficial to me.

Then we don't need suffering.

Not unless you want to remember God.

What moral justification would a benevolent being, be it God or human, have to willfully choose suffering as the pathway to achieve perfection if a path without suffering was feasible?

Again, you are conflating God with humans which is the fallacy of false equivalence since God is not a human.
God needs no moral justification for anything He does. Only humans need moral justification since only humans are subject to morality.

moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. moral means - Google Search

Even if a path without suffering was feasible that does not mean it is a better path. An omniscient God has to know the best path to choose of all available options since He knows everything. Humans are not omniscient so we don't know everything so we cannot ever know as much as God.

That would still entail God is not omnibenevolent. If God's purpose for humans is achieved through suffering, then God is not omnibenevolent.

No, that is not a fact because you cannot prove that an omnibenevolent God would not achieve His purpose for humans through 'some' suffering.
That is only your personal opinion.

For omnibenevolence necessarily entails choosing the path where suffering would be minimized.

How do you know suffering is not minimized? I know lots of people who hardly suffer at all.

 

[dybmh]

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

LOL. It means you don't understand these concepts.

Looks more like contrived and made up than difficult. Show me the logical contradiction in a god who is ordered creating something else that is ordered.

Sure. The contradiction is the word "creating". Nothing is being created in the example you have brought.

You have not shown any connection at all between these different concepts.

God is infinite.

What's that supposed to mean? Looks like a classic deepity.

You don't know what a domain is? Come on. I don't believe you.

Here's what I said, if you want to have a serious discussion, put on your thinking cap.

"Proper definition of the domain, results in what I am describing."

Try to imagine a reality with only-God and nothing else. Can you do it? If not, then work on it, and get back to me.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then how come there won't be suffering in heaven? We won't be robots in heaven, right? You said if God made sure there was no instances of suffering, we'd be no different than robots.

I don't think there will be free will as we know it here in heaven, but even if there is something akin to free will in heaven, if we made it to heaven we would only make good choices so there would be no potential for evil.

Aside from that, there will be no suffering in heaven since heaven is a spiritual world, so there is nothing that could cause suffering in heaven.
The reason we suffer here is because this is a material world which has the potential for suffering. In heaven there will be only joy.

 

[Kenny]

Then how come there won't be suffering in heaven? We won't be robots in heaven, right? You said if God made sure there was no instances of suffering, we'd be no different than robots.

Because people would have made their choice to follow the God of love. ie... the last question posted

I still dont understand why you say that.

because it would make us robots.

No, but you can force suffering on them. It seems this is what your God has done.
What would've been the difference if Adam and Eve never sinned (let's say they had no tree of knowledge of good and evil) and humanity lived in Eden perpetually, how would have that been any different than Christians predicted heaven on earth?

Not at all...

Let me ask it differently.

If you, out of love, gave the title of a car to your son/daughter who are of adult age. Do you have the right to take it back when it is in their name? If it is theirs completely, would it be completely theirs if you were always in the side seat forcing them to drive the way you want them to?

Yes, you knew they could do something crazy with it, as you can do with just about any gift, but we give it out of love and for their blessing.

If they wrecked the car because they were fooling around, was it your fault?

 

[Koldo]

But if you have never met one, and you have no immortal experiences to rely on, how are you ruling out what I am describing as a diminshed suffering when comparing mortal to immortal?

I am not sure what you are talking about then, because we would be the immortals... How have I not met them?

The analogy was teaching a child to walk.

Sure. And the harm of giving a walker to a child is caused by delaying development, and accidents that happen because there is no constant watch.

 

[Koldo]

Sure, but odds are greatly in favor of illness and genetic maladaptions especially given billions of years.

Hmm...
If we assume that organic life is only possible under very specific circumstances, I dare saying the existence of complex organisms itself would be extremely unlikely in a chaotic universe.

This is mixing the answers. So, depart from the idea of the required otherness. That is the beginning.

In the here and now:

1) You don't know that God isn't intervening.

As in never intervening? Agreed.

2) Things could be so much worse.

Agreed.

3) If there was no suffering at all there would be no consequences.

I don't really agree... I mean, it is easy to imagine the existence of consequences without suffering existing.

4) All that's left is: Why isn't God intervening more?

Correct? #4 is where we're at in the discussion?

I thought your answer was that he is unable to do so. So, I think we are at 5) Why is he unable to interven more?