So... is God incompetent or uncaring? Which of the two?

[waitasec]

If by "God" you mean the God of the Monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc) then the answer is simple: God probably doesn't exist.

Hope that helps,

Paul Rusco.

:spit:

ha ha...

the simplicity of this post is very telling.

frublas to you

 

[Storm]

If you consider an omnimax God that has all knowledge there is, then it seems pretty viable for him to create beings that already know all things to be known about suffering.

1) God may be omniscient, but people obviously aren't.
2) I don't believe that omnipotence means God can do the logically impossible, such as creating understanding without context.

Either way, it is rather vague what sort of knowledge there is to be acquired through this manner other than knowing how to avoid suffering ( which would be useless ).

I disagree. Moral awareness is not vague, nor is it possible in the absence of evil.

Good would still be good. It just wouldn't be recognized as such.

Again, I disagree. For one thing, "good" is necessarily a relative adjective. More importantly, Good - in the sense of moral opposition to Evil is binary. You can't have one without the other.

Anyway, it is hard to explain why our current ammount of evil would be necessary. It is possible, given one has the power to do so, create immortal bodies that can't be harmed. In this sort of world, stealing could still exist as evil.

That's fair wimpy and frequently justified.

More to the point, why are death and pain considered evil? I wouldn't want to be immortal, and pain is an unrivaled teacher. Just consider the martial arts.

 

[Koldo]

1... motion in the sense that our minds cannot accept stagnation. but that isn't saying people don't stagnate...i know a few 70 yr olds who act as if they were 10..., know what i mean..as they continually repeat the same mistakes over and over and suffer because they haven't moved on.

2....i need that claim to be verified accurate in order for me to accept it...(something i've learned through suffering)

3....you are right, no we don't... hence #1

1) Why would our minds have to stagnate in a world without suffering?
2) Do you mean you need to verify whether it is possible for an omnipotent being to make himself happy? Really?

 

[javajo]

I believe: In the beginning all things were very good. But when sin entered, the whole creation fell. It will be restored. God did provide the way for anyone to be freely saved. God's wisdom is far above ours. I believe we should trust Him.

 

[waitasec]

1) Why would our minds have to stagnate in a world without suffering?
2) Do you mean you need to verify whether it is possible for an omnipotent being to make himself happy? Really?

1...can you tell me a situation that does not require a push and pull system that would result in motion. envision a bike and the purpose of it's pedals.

2...yes, where did that idea come from?

 

[waitasec]

I believe: In the beginning all things were very good.

ignorance is bliss.

But when sin entered, the whole creation fell.

knowledge isn't always blissful

It will be restored. God did provide the way for anyone to be freely saved. God's wisdom is far above ours. I believe we should trust Him.

now you're just speculating. i can do that too.

 

[arthra]

ryanam wrote:

9 million children die each year before they reach the age of 5.

My comment:

Humans also likely had some responsibility ... and could probably take measures such as safety and nutrition to reduce the figure...

ryanarn:

An Asian tsunami (2002 variety which killed over 250,000 people) happening every 10 days killing children only under 5. That's around 24,000 a day, 1,000 an hour, 17 or so per minute. By the time I finish this post a handful will have died in agony, scared for their life.

My comment:

And again are there steps that can reduce mortality such as early warnings and evacuations?

ryanarn:

Other factors involved in this horrendous process are things like the parents. Many of these parents believe in a god of some description and will be praying for their children to live or, in many cases because of the suffering involved, to die. Their prayers will not be answered. Is this part of gods original plan?

My comment:

Again child mortality is possible to prevent ...if the professionals have the tools and supplies to offer.. God's Plan might be for us to set some priorities and better allocate some resources to reduce suffering.

ryanarn:

I submit that any god willing to watch this happen is one of two things. Either it doesn't care to stop this perpetual cycle of death, or it doesn't have the ability to.

My comment:

Maybe God is watching us to see what we are doing about... either we don't give a damn and we're too focused on meeting our needs... and we just haven't figured out yet what to do...

ryanarn:

The fact that, under many views, these children will be going straight to hell because of where they were born or because they were told to worship the wrong god is almost as bad.

My comment:

Well I think the hell of war that we humans have devised beats anything in Milton's Paradise Lost.

ryanarn:

If human's have free will which is likely the explanation for all of this, then what's the point? Is god there only for people to think they have an explanation to the creation of the universe? Does this god guide the hand of those chosen few? Or are we all left to our own devices for god to sit back and watch?

My comment:

Ah...you've hit the nail on the head! "humans have free will"... They have the power to walk awaay from the plans of God and mess things up royally! The "chosen few" are us...ryanarn included!

 

[waitasec]

Ah...you've hit the nail on the head! "humans have free will"... They have the power to walk awaay from the plans of God and mess things up royally! The "chosen few" are us...ryanarn included!

if god granted us the power to walk away, then our original state is not having free will.
you understand what "allowing" implies.

 

[Koldo]

1) God may be omniscient, but people obviously aren't.
2) I don't believe that omnipotence means God can do the logically impossible, such as creating understanding without context.

1) Contingent.
2) It is not logically impossible to create understanding without context. Not only this, it has never been seen as such. The christian God, for example, has always been omniscient. It didn't live through every possible situation to acquire it.

I disagree. Moral awareness is not vague, nor is it possible in the absence of evil.

What is the relevance of moral awareness when there is nothing immoral to be seen/done?

Again, I disagree. For one thing, "good" is necessarily a relative adjective. More importantly, Good - in the sense of moral opposition to Evil is binary. You can't have one without the other.

To cite an example: we could still have justice without injustice.

That's fair wimpy and frequently justified.

More to the point, why are death and pain considered evil? I wouldn't want to be immortal, and pain is an unrivaled teacher. Just consider the martial arts.

1) Unwanted pain stands in opposition to happiness. Unwanted pain decreases your well-being.
2) It is pure conjecture what you would want in a world like that.
3) You wouldn't need pain to learn anything ( useful ).

 

[Koldo]

I believe: In the beginning all things were very good. But when sin entered, the whole creation fell. It will be restored. God did provide the way for anyone to be freely saved. God's wisdom is far above ours. I believe we should trust Him.

Why doesn't God reveal himself to us in a manner that it will be impossible not to know he exists?

 

[Koldo]

1...can you tell me a situation that does not require a push and pull system that would result in motion. envision a bike and the purpose of it's pedals.

2...yes, where did that idea come from?

1) Why does the push and pull system have to be based on suffering and happiness?
2) The definition of omnipotence.

 

[waitasec]

1) Why does the push and pull system have to be based on suffering and happiness?
2) The definition of omnipotence.

1....it doesn't, it just works that way
the push and pull system works in any relationship.
2....well how can we verify it's an attribute of god?

 

[predavlad]

I didn't assume, I know due to what was said. You said yourself you've read the Bible and parts of the Qur'an. You do know that there's more to Christianity and Islam than just what you personally understand from reading their scriptures, right?

You don't understand the wisdom, there is a difference between just having knowledge and understanding the wisdom behind that knowledge.

And don't worry about the 2 Rabbi's.

Yes, I know. But that wisdom isn't as good as I though when I read the bible as a religious person (at about 16, when I stopped believing in god and religion because I read the bible). And you can only get that wisdom after you ignore 3/4 of the "perfect book"(the bible or quran) that tells you to kill ... basically everyone who doesn't agree with you, to follow 2000 year old rules that were stupid even then, or simply nonsensical statements, fallacious historical stories, and so on.

I can't get over the fact that a few pages after the commandment "You shall not kill" god commands genocide. I don't even see the wisdom in having heaven or hell - they seem highly immoral. Maybe there was a time when people needed to be told not to kill or steal - but this need no longer exists as we have societies with rules in place, outside of religion. They're far from perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better than what religion suggests (cutting the hands of thieves, honor rape/murder/marriage, etc)

I'd rather get wisdom from other places.

Because "religion" doesn't do ANYTHING. People do, and the Buggs Bunny Law* never fails.

* "No matter where you go, people are people... and you know what stinkers they are."

It's true that people do evil things and not religion (directly), but it's not ok if they find justification for their actions - and more than that - direct commandments to do evil in their holy books.

Would anyone cut bits off a newborns genitalia if it were not for religion ?

PS: The Bugs Bunny law seems pretty true

 

[Storm]

1) Contingent.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Seriously, I don't get your objection. For one thing, it's a statement of fact contingent on absolutely nothing but the world we know.

2) It is not logically impossible to create understanding without context. Not only this, it has never been seen as such. The christian God, for example, has always been omniscient. It didn't live through every possible situation to acquire it.

I disagree completely. Data may be possible, but with no context, understanding is not.

As to your example of God, the Christian God (Abrahamic, for that matter) is understood to be utterly unique and without peer, much less rival. Humans, not so much.

What is the relevance of moral awareness when there is nothing immoral to be seen/done?

There is none, of course. The question is whether such a state is preferable when human desires are set aside. I don't believe it is.

To cite an example: we could still have justice without injustice.

The exception that proves the rule. Even then, we would have no understanding of justice or its worth.

1) Unwanted pain stands in opposition to happiness. Unwanted pain decreases your well-being.

Is happiness the ultimate benefit? I think not.

Well being is increased by wisdom, which is often born in unwanted pain.

2) It is pure conjecture what you would want in a world like that.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - it's pure conjecture to say you wouldn't want to die.

But you mistook my phrasing. I DON'T want to be immortal. Not in this body, not in heaven.

3) You wouldn't need pain to learn anything ( useful ).

Contingent conjecture.

If you'll indulge me, my thoughts on sin and evil were beautifully articulated in an article elsewhere. Do you have the time and patience to read for a bit?

 

[Koldo]

1....it doesn't, it just works that way
the push and pull system works in any relationship.
2....well how can we verify it's an attribute of god?

1) So, what is the point of this argument?
2) The problem of evil is an argument used against an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God. If we are not talking about a God that isn't even potent enough to "destroy" evil, then there is no reason to even talk about the problem of evil. By chance, is he potent enough to ''destroy'' evil but not potent enough to make himself happy?

 

[Storm]

I'm pressed for time, and skipped over the bits of your post addressed to eselam. If there's anything in there you'd like me to address, let me know.

It's true that people do evil things and not religion (directly), but it's not ok if they find justification for their actions - and more than that - direct commandments to do evil in their holy books.

People can find justification for anything anywhere.

For instance, iirc, Hitler justified much of his bigotry with Nietzche's concept of the Ubermensch, and latched onto eugenics (a warped offshoot of evolution) as the means to enforce it. Shall we blame philosophy and science for the Holocaust, then?

Would anyone cut bits off a newborns genitalia if it were not for religion?

Oh, God! Please don't open THAT can o' worms!

I don't know why, but it seems to be as controversial here as abortion. Don't want to derail an interesting topic with it. Suffice to say, I don't think it's a big deal.

PS: The Bugs Bunny law seems pretty true

Sad to say.

 

[waitasec]

1) So, what is the point of this argument?

what is the point of any argument based on speculation?
i reckon it's to come to the conclusion;
we still don't know.

2) The problem of evil is an argument used against an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God. If we are not talking about a God that isn't even potent enough to "destroy" evil, then there is no reason to even talk about the problem of evil. By chance, is he potent enough to ''destroy'' evil but not potent enough to make himself happy?

i don't know

 

[InChrist]

The fact that, under many views, these children will be going straight to hell because of where they were born or because they were told to worship the wrong god is almost as bad.

I believe from my understanding of the biblical scriptures that all children who have never consciously rejected the Creator God go directly to be with Him in heaven.

 

[Koldo]

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Seriously, I don't get your objection. For one thing, it's a statement of fact contingent on absolutely nothing but the world we know.

Contingent propositions are those that are true in some possible worlds and false in others (for example: "Richard Nixon became President in 1969" is contingently true and "Hubert Humphrey became President in 1969" is contingently false) - Wikipedia

I disagree completely. Data may be possible, but with no context, understanding is not.

As to your example of God, the Christian God (Abrahamic, for that matter) is understood to be utterly unique and without peer, much less rival. Humans, not so much.

That just happens to be the case. He could very well have created other omniscient beings.

There is none, of course. The question is whether such a state is preferable when human desires are set aside. I don't believe it is.

A state where human desires are set aside?
Isn't the ultimate desire of every (mentally healthy) human being to be happy?

The exception that proves the rule. Even then, we would have no understanding of justice or its worth.

What value is there in understanding it?
And how could this value offset the happeness everyone would feel?

Is happiness the ultimate benefit? I think not.

What is the ultimate benefit, in your opinion?

Well being is increased by wisdom, which is often born in unwanted pain.

Once again, contingent. It happens to be the case we gain wisdom by undergoing pain.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - it's pure conjecture to say you wouldn't want to die.

But you mistook my phrasing. I DON'T want to be immortal. Not in this body, not in heaven.

Why is this particularly relevant to our conversation?
I mean, it is not like the core of the argument is that God should do something at this moment, but rather that he should have done it already since the beginning. So, in other words, none of us would be here to talk about this.

Contingent conjecture.

If you'll indulge me, my thoughts on sin and evil were beautifully articulated in an article elsewhere. Do you have the time and patience to read for a bit?

Contingent in what sense? It is describing a possible world.

And i do have the time and patience to read it as long it does not have the size of a book.

 

[predavlad]

I'm pressed for time, and skipped over the bits of your post addressed to eselam. If there's anything in there you'd like me to address, let me know.

No problem, I don't think you missed anything

People can find justification for anything anywhere.

For instance, iirc, Hitler justified much of his bigotry with Nietzche's concept of the Ubermensch, and latched onto eugenics (a warped offshoot of evolution) as the means to enforce it. Shall we blame philosophy and science for the Holocaust, then?

A bunch of fallacies here, don't mean to offend. Will try to take them one at a time:
1. Comparing philosophy or science to religion is wrong for so many reasons. I'll take science because it's the easiest to relate to. Science isn't and can't be inherently good or evil, it just gives us information on the surrounding world and make predictions. It can be used for evil, but there is no law in science that commands you to do it.
2. Religion directly commands evil (talking about the christianity / islam), you only stopped at the justification part

Oh, God! Please don't open THAT can o' worms!

I don't know why, but it seems to be as controversial here as abortion. Don't want to derail an interesting topic with it. Suffice to say, I don't think it's a big deal.

Ok, will ignore the disagreement in ideas to not hijack the post and move to a more benign example (well, at least another example )

I linked an article, and I will summarize it very shortly. Basically a man wanted to marry his own daughter, and he wasn't allowed to according to Islam. But he found a loophole, he said that he received divine sanction from Allah, and thus it was ok (even with his wife).

If a father wants to marry his own daughter

The point being that in todays society there is nothing you can do or say to justify this behavior. Except for religion.