Theodicy -- Let's Dig Deeper

[rational experiences]

Evil is human taught.

O our planet naturally evil thought upon as it is reactive O by the thought concept mass as O. A planet.

Man brothers agreed theosophy.

O a planet created its owned presence being its owned planet body with its heavens.

Theosophy. Entity theory.

Man thought God reactive by mass O in natural form evil. Can harm life.

Science to think theorise in knowledge. I will therefore accept God reactive is evil. I want reactive. I want evil.

Life however on a reactive planet was its highest self in natural form.

Science conversion reaction changed our highest natural human life. A variant of evil human chosen.

God reactive never did it. Natural God state on planet.

God reactive changed by human science owned causes. Yet a human knowingly changed God.

Humans reason and preach.

Preaching after the fact too late.

Science then said science you are wrong.

A human condition.

 

[ratiocinator]

In my opinion, the many denominations only show that they are wrong if they disagree on the fundamentals of faith.

As defined by you? I mean it's pretty fundamental whether the god you believe in is omniscient or not, and it looks like you're in a minority on that one.

However, this doesn't necessarily mean that the Bible is not clear.

If lots of people try to follow a book and get to different conclusions, that is good evidence that it's not clear. I've also read it and seen for myself that it's an incoherent mess riddled with contradictions.

When you blame God to not have been clear enough... the onus is on you.

I'm not blaming god for anything - I don't believe in any god. I just think it somewhat comical when people claim to be following the bible because, in practice, it tells you very little about what they actually believe. I mean you can bet your all you own that they believe the bible is clear and that everybody who disagrees with their interpretation has got it wrong, but that's about it.

In my opinion you didn't present an argument that true randomness, true predetermination and true free will cannot coexist.
You didn't show that potentially some events are determined by randomness or God's choice while others are subject to free will.
In my opinion, all you did was declaring that these three cannot coexist on different matters at the same time. But you did not present any reasoning why this sould be that way. This is at least how I read what you had to say in this regard.
All I did was saying that I don't believe this to be true. That's all.

I did actually give an argument, but lets try again. If an event is not fully determined by all its antecedents, in other words all the things that can possible influence it, then, to the extent it isn't so determined, it is determined by nothing (we've already taken into account everything that can influence it) and something determined by nothing can only be random.

There is no logical 'space' for a third option. Human minds are either deterministic systems ("...a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system") or they aren't (and therefore involve randomness).

If you don't get that then try a thought experiment. Imagine you could rewind time to the point at which you made a choice, so everything (including your exact state of mind) was the same. Then ask the question: could you have chosen differently? If the answer is no, then clearly your choice was fully determined by all the antecedents of the choice, if the answer is yes, then, as everything is exactly the same, there can be no reason for the difference, so it must be random.

 

[thomas t]

"Bible only" (or Sola Scriptura as some Protestant sects might call it) suffers from one tiny self-contradiction: it isn't supported, in fact, by anything in canonical scripture. Therefore, it must be supported by extra-scriptural doctrine. That is self-referentially incoherent, I think.

oh what a tiny little self-contradiction (just kidding).
There is no other authority simply you can trust in, as I see it.
There is the Bible... and there are others who merely claim to be as authoritative as the Bible.
I trust the Bible.
Many claim to be spirit lead. But from the outside, only Bible is trustworthy, I think.

In fact, the Bible goes as far as to warn against self-declared authorities in Matthew 24:11. from the outside you can't tell, if it's a good guy or a false teacher.

Also, there is no other great prophet the Bible is hinting to like the the OT did. The Old Testament did announce a big prophet (it's Jesus, I think).
But not the NT.

 

[thomas t]

As defined by you? I mean it's pretty fundamental whether the god you believe in is omniscient or not, and it looks like you're in a minority on that one.

for those who want to do philosophy it's highly needed. However, it's irrelevant for the faithful. God knows a lot that's just fine.
This is at least my stance from my experience. Never was omniscience yes or no a topic in the chuches I visited and keep visiting, if I recall well. For theology it's highly important, but not for faith, as I see it.

If lots of people try to follow a book and get to different conclusions, that is good evidence that it's not clear.

it's evidence that man is prone to error, I think.

I'm not blaming god for anything - I don't believe in any god.

atheists commonly blame the God as depicted in the Bible for everything they can possibly blame an entity for.
Take for instance this claim: the Bible is not clear.
In this case you blame it's author. You say they are many, but if you're wrong here you bame the author.
It's like saying: "the author of that book is bad!". If the author is God, you blame God.

Or, if I want to insult you telling you that the owner of your car is an [enter word]... it's at you. Even if I tell you that I don't believe you're the owner of your car.

Then ask the question: could you have chosen differently? If the answer is no, then clearly your choice was fully determined by all the antecedents of the choice, if the answer is yes, then, as everything is exactly the same, there can be no reason for the difference, so it must be random.

why is everything exactly the same in that case?
No, it isn't since the decision was different. The decision itself makes the difference, as I see it.

I believe you cannot exclude the existence of free will.
I believe that God is enough powerful to establish true free will.

 

[ratiocinator]

it's evidence that man is prone to error, I think.

Seriously? If I write a clear and unambiguous document, then there will be a few people who aren't bright enough or don't pay enough attention and will get it wrong, but most people who take it seriously and read it carefully, will get it right. If I write an incoherent, ambiguous, and contradictory mess, then even if people devote their lives to studying it, there are bound to be different interpretations. Which situation is more like the multiple Christian cults, sects, and denominations?

atheists commonly blame the God as depicted in the Bible for everything they can possibly blame an entity for.

Atheists, by definition, do not believe in any god(s). They may present arguments that are of the form "if the god depicted in these parts of the bible were real, then...".

Take for instance this claim: the Bible is not clear.
In this case you blame it's author. You say they are many, but if you're wrong here you bame the author.
It's like saying: "the author of that book is bad!". If the author is God, you blame God.

Reading your blind faith into what other people say is bound to lead you to misunderstanding. I don't believe there is an (singular) author of the bible, let alone some god. If there were a single author (even a human one) it might not be such a mess.

why is everything exactly the same in that case?

Because the whole premiss of the thought experiment is that you've rewound time.

No, it isn't since the decision was different. The decision itself makes the difference, as I see it.

You're supposed to be considering if the decision could be different if everything was exactly the same. You don't seem to have grasped the point.

I believe you cannot exclude the existence of free will.
I believe that God is enough powerful to establish true free will.

I know what you believe - there really is no point in just repeating it. The problem is that you (apparently) cannot address the argument that says it's impossible; or even understand it, so it seems from your comments so far.

 

[PureX]

The logical basis for making this presumption are the numerous claims of people who claim to speak the Will of their benevolent, all-powerful God.

Those claims are baseless. No human knows the limits or will of God. That's my point. So why even pass judgment on God for purely imagined failures deficiencies? Failures and deficiencies that are clearly our own.

Obviously, if you don't buy into a concept of the Divine popularized by the Abrahamics, then a Theodicy is of no value to you. The Problem of Evil was, for example, almost never a philosophical problem for pagan worshippers, because they generally did not expect the forces they worshipped to be intrinsically benevolent.

Neither did the Abrahamics. But humans have a strong tendency to personify the great mystery of their own existence, which includes both joy and suffering. So they tend to invent reasons based on personality traits to resolve the mystery.

But if you and I can recognize and understand this, we don't have to play along. We will know that the question that's being asked, here, is based on fantasy, and ignorance. We are projecting our own failures onto our image of God. We should be asking ourselves why we allow so much human suffering. Not God.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As defined by you? I mean it's pretty fundamental whether the god you believe in is omniscient or not, and it looks like you're in a minority on that one.

Sorry to butt in, @thomas t, but here I think that you are on sound footing. Think about it, the Bible makes it perfectly clear (assuming, here, that the Bible is historically true) that God was disappointed in humans on at least a couple of occasions. Now, can anybody really argue that it is possible to be disappointed by what you already knew for an absolute certainty was to happen? Of course it isn't!

 

[thomas t]

Sorry to butt in, @thomas t, but here I think that you are on sound footing. Think about it, the Bible makes it perfectly clear (assuming, here, that the Bible is historically true) that God was disappointed in humans on at least a couple of occasions. Now, can anybody really argue that it is possible to be disappointed by what you already knew for an absolute certainty was to happen? Of course it isn't!

under the premise that God has foreknowledge of everything.
But this is theology, not Bible. It's doctrine. But you can't back this premise up by scripture.
This is where my discussion with ratiocinator started.

Seriously? If I write a clear and unambiguous document, then there will be a few people who aren't bright enough or don't pay enough attention and will get it wrong, but most people who take it seriously and read it carefully, will get it right. If I write an incoherent, ambiguous, and contradictory mess, then even if people devote their lives to studying it, there are bound to be different interpretations. Which situation is more like the multiple Christian cults, sects, and denominations?

why not. Why could man not have made a mess out of what was originally clear? I think it was so. Do you think that man's capacity of making a mess of something ois limited? Foremost in a topic that is full of emotions?

Reading your blind faith into what other people say

I didn't do that.

If there were a single author (even a human one) it might not be such a mess.

Man makes a mess out of it, I think.

Because the whole premiss of the thought experiment is that you've rewound time.

... up to the point when there is a decision to be made.
The decision maker at that point has the same exact opportunity to make a decision.
I think I grasp your point, in principle, I simply add free will. No contradiction whatsoever, I think.

You're supposed to be considering if the decision could be different if everything was exactly the same. You don't seem to have grasped the point.

everything exactly the same up to the point when the decision maker need to make a decision. That was my point. If there is free will, the decision could be that way or that way. I wouldn't exclude that.

The problem is that you (apparently) cannot address the argument that says it's impossible; or even understand it, so it seems from your comments so far.

I think I just addressed it, see above.

 

[Kooky]

Those claims are baseless. No human knows the limits or will of God. That's my point. So why even pass judgment on God for purely imagined failures deficiencies? Failures and deficiencies that are clearly our own.

If God is beyond human ethics, then we can't claim that his/her/its/their will is Good, and if God is beyond comprehension, then we can't argue that he/she/it/they is/are benevolent; and if we don't know God's limits, then we can't argue in favor of his/her/its/their omnipotence.

But if you genuinely believe that God is unknowable, then what's the point of even engaging in discussion about the Divine Mystery in the first place?

Neither did the Abrahamics.

That claim is trivially falsifiable by simply looking at Christian, Judaic or Islamic theology, or even just casually perusing their sacred scriptures.

But humans have a strong tendency to personify the great mystery of their own existence, which includes both joy and suffering. So they tend to invent reasons based on personality traits to resolve the mystery.

Assuming there is a mystery to begin with, which is yet another reason invented to cope with the fundamental meaningless void of existence.

But if you and I can recognize and understand this, we don't have to play along. We will know that the question that's being asked, here, is based on fantasy, and ignorance. We are projecting our own failures onto our image of God. We should be asking ourselves why we allow so much human suffering. Not God.

What a joyless approach to discussing the Divine! If we can't entertain different people's opinions on divine mysteries or certainties, gods or goddesses, cosmos and self, meaning and nihilism, being and nothing, then what's the point of joining together in discussion? Personally, I find the act of entertaining other opinions to be rather literal, in that it is both enlightening and amusing to attempt to comprehend different beliefs and thoughts.

 

[PureX]

If God is beyond human ethics, then we can't claim that his/her/its/their will is Good, and if God is beyond comprehension, then we can't argue that he/she/it/they is/are benevolent; and if we don't know God's limits, then we can't argue in favor of his/her/its/their omnipotence.

But if you genuinely believe that God is unknowable, then what's the point of even engaging in discussion about the Divine Mystery in the first place?.

Because the mystery remains, and because it's enormously significant to us. And because we can wonder at the endless possibilities it presents us. We humans both love and loathe a great mystery. We love it for it's wondrous possibilities, and we loathe it for our not being 'in control' of it.

 

[Kooky]

Because the mystery remains, and because it's enormously significant to us. And because we can wonder at the endless possibilities it presents us. We humans both love and loathe a great mystery. We love it for it's wondrous possibilities, and we loathe it for our not being 'in control' of it.

Indeed - the mystery arises from human desire, much like any other Divine attribute arises from the wants, thoughts and emotions of human beings.

 

[ratiocinator]

why not. Why could man not have made a mess out of what was originally clear? I think it was so. Do you think that man's capacity of making a mess of something ois limited? Foremost in a topic that is full of emotions?

Unless you're arguing that the bible we have today is a mess because humans have made a mess of translating, copying, and so on, which didn't appear to be the case before, then my point stands. If something is written clearly, few people will have different interpretation of it. If it's a mess, even people who study it for a lifetime could come to different conclusions - which is the situation we observe with the bible. Just saying that it all humans' fault isn't a counterargument.

... up to the point when there is a decision to be made.
The decision maker at that point has the same exact opportunity to make a decision.
I think I grasp your point, in principle, I simply add free will. No contradiction whatsoever, I think.

You still don't get it. When you rewind time you rewind the mind of the choice-maker too. Hence the argument applies. If it's possible to choose differently, then there can be no possible reason for the difference (either external or internal to the mind), so the difference must be random. The words "free will" are not a magic spell that makes the logic disappear. You need to add some actual reasoning, not a trite and logically meaningless phrase like "free will".

Again: minds are either deterministic systems or not (and therefore involve randomness) - there is no third option.

 

[thomas t]

If something is written clearly, few people will have different interpretation of it.

that's your assumption.
However, in a topic highly charged with emotions, this might be different, in my opinion.
Religion: what counts in life, how to lead a good life, who has how much power, what is permitted, what should be banned... all these questions are so very much linked to human desires that a mess is all too understandable, I'm afraid. I mean given the fact that humans are prone to error. Where else should they make mistakes if not in Bible translation?

Even for soccer: ask three different journals about the same match (one from England, one from Italy, and one from say Switzerland), what you get is three totally different points of view about the same exact match. Three different types of analysis, three different conclusions with regards to why a team won who played well what the referee did and so on.

The Wembley Goal. As a matter of fact, it only can have been a goal or not. The rules are clear, there is no such thing as a maybe-goal in soccer. It's a goal or not.
Even today the soccer press argues if this was an actual goal or not.

If this is true for soccer, how much more for Bible interpretation. A problem accerbated by its different translations.

Unless you're arguing that the bible we have today is a mess because humans have made a mess of translating, copying, and so on, which didn't appear to be the case before, then my point stands.

Translations are a mess sometimes. The opriginal is clear, from my standpoint.

You still don't get it. When you rewind time you rewind the mind of the choice-maker too. Hence the argument applies. If it's possible to choose differently, then there can be no possible reason for the difference (either external or internal to the mind), so the difference must be random. The words "free will" are not a magic spell that makes the logic disappear. You need to add some actual reasoning, not a trite and logically meaningless phrase like "free will".

Again: minds are either deterministic systems or not (and therefore involve randomness) - there is no third option.

the red part is assumption.
Free will implies that the humans mind does have the capacity to decide freely.
So the difference is not random but free will.
I thing I did understand the argument well.

Concerning the green part: I think mind can have free will. Humans have a soul, this is where decisions are made I think. You suppose there is no third option. But this is an assumption. I wouldn't sweep the possibility of there being true free will off the table like this...
You're saying that minds either have true randomness or act like computers (deterministic). This isn't an argument in favor of the absence of free will, it's an assumption, as I see it. Based on nothing except declaration as I see it. It's ruling out free will as a premise, arriving to the conclusion that there is no free will. It's circular, as I see it.

There is no natural law saying that minds only can be deterministic or involving randomness.
You made it up, I suppose.

 

[ratiocinator]

However, in a topic highly charged with emotions, this might be different, in my opinion.
Religion: what counts in life, how to lead a good life, who has how much power, what is permitted, what should be banned... all these questions are so very much linked to human desires that a mess is all too understandable, I'm afraid.

A mess that could easily be cleared up by a sufficiently clear set of instructions. People might no like them, but if they were clear, it would simply be a question of accepting or rejecting them.

Even for soccer: ask three different journals about the same match (one from England, one from Italy, and one from say Switzerland), what you get is three totally different points of view about the same exact match. Three different types of analysis, three different conclusions with regards to why a team won who played well what the referee did and so on.
The Wembley Goal. The reality is: it only can have been a goal or not. The rules are clear, there is no such thing as a may-be goal. It's a goal or not.
Even today the soccer press argues if this was an actual goal or not.

If this is true for soccer, how much more for Bible interpretation with its different translations.

False analogy. Setting out clear instructions is not like describing something like a football match.

Translations are a mess sometimes. The opriginal is clear, from my standpoint.

So you're questioning the scholarship or honesty of the translators? Or do you mean back in ancient times? In the first instance, everybody is excluded from the clear message unless they learn the original languages, in the second, everybody is excluded full stop, so there is no clear message. Is your god not capable of dealing with these sorts of problems?

the red part is assumption.

No, it is not. It's a direct consequence of premiss of rewinding time. Every single thing (internal and external to the mind) is exactly the same. If there is a difference it must have just appeared for no reason.

Free will implies that the humans mind does have the capacity to decide freely.
So the difference is not random but free will.
I thing I did understand the argument well.

Again, you're just using "free will" like you think it's some sort of magic spell that can make the logic go away. Of course minds are 'free' to decide but (unless there's randomness) they decide for reasons. Those reasons have to be present at the time the choice is made. Hence being able to have chosen differently (when everything, including all the reasons are the same) means randomness.

Humans have a soul, this is where decisions are made I think.

Simply irrelevant. My use of 'mind' includes any soul if one exists.

You suppose there is no third option. But this is an assumption.

It isn't an assumption, it simply the application of logic to the situation. If you think there is a third option, then you need to explain how something can be both purposeful and appear for no reason at all. Just saying "free will" is logically meaningless.

If all the pre-existing reasons and influences on a choice do not fully determine it, then there is simply nothing left that is logically connected to it or the person making it. It can only be random.

 

[thomas t]

When the different readings of a soccer match cannot be "cleared up" by the simple rules given in soccer,.... the clarity of the scriptures cannot guarantee a homogenous picture of Bible translations either, given free will.

False analogy. Setting out clear instructions is not like describing something like a football match.

Bible interpretations are just that: describing Bible.
Instead of a football match they make Bible a topic. Same thing, I think.

So you're questioning the scholarship or honesty of the translators?

no, I remain neutral on the honesty. Scholarship alone cannot guarantee a good translation.
It's like music: a good music education does not guarantee you to become a good musician.

Again, you're just using "free will" like you think it's some sort of magic spell that can make the logic go away.

And you're using the absence of it as if there were a spell that allows to sweep aside all living souls.
Living means other than being deterministic systems or inclining to true randomness.

Of course minds are 'free' to decide but (unless there's randomness) they decide for reasons. Those reasons have to be present at the time the choice is made.

of course, but a living sould might interpret the reasons differently, eben if time is rewound and youb find yourself in the same exact situation.
This is at least how I interpret the issue here.

It isn't an assumption, it simply the application of logic to the situation. If you think there is a third option, then you need to explain how something can be both purposeful and appear for no reason at all. Just saying "free will" is logically meaningless.

If all the pre-existing reasons and influences on a choice do not fully determine it, then there is simply nothing left that is logically connected to it or the person making it. It can only be random.

no, there is no logic in simply ruling out living souls that God created. It's an assumption based on nothing.

If you want to exclude a third reason (meaning the existence of living souls that are no deterministic systems or prone to randomness) than you are the one needing to explain why there cannot be a living God that simply wanted these souls in place.

 

[ratiocinator]

When the different readings of a soccer match cannot be "cleared up" by the simple rules given in soccer,.... the clarity of the scriptures cannot guarantee a homogenous picture of Bible translations either, given free will.

You're simply missing the point. The bible could be compared to the rules of soccer, but the comparison to descriptions of a match is totally inappropriate. The bible deals with things like the nature of god and morality (rules for life), if it doesn't do that clearly, then it is a failure.

Bible interpretations are just that: describing Bible.
Instead of a football match they make Bible a topic. Same thing, I think.

Nonsense - they are like people looking at the rules of soccer and coming to different conclusions - which would mean the rules are not expressed clearly.

And you're using the absence of it as if there were a spell that allows to sweep aside all living souls.

I've set the logic out clearly. You are not addressing it.

Living means other than being deterministic systems or inclining to true randomness.

Baseless assertion.

of course, but a living sould might interpret the reasons differently, eben if time is rewound and youb find yourself in the same exact situation.
This is at least how I interpret the issue here.

But it would either interpret things differently for reasons (which, remember, are all the same in this experiment) or for no reason (randomly).

no, there is no logic in simply ruling out living souls that God created. It's an assumption based on nothing.

I didn't rule them out. Their existence does not affect the logic of choice-making.

If you want to exclude a third reason (meaning the existence of living souls that are no deterministic systems or prone to randomness) than you are the one needing to explain why there cannot be a living God that simply wanted these souls in place.

I have done. Choice-making that isn't either deterministic or involves randomness, is as impossible as a square circle - it's logically self-contradictory because something has to happen that is both for reasons and not for reasons. I've now explained why several times and you've just ignored and asserted that something called "free will" makes all the reasoning go away.