Your biggest intellectual compromise for faith

[tarasan]

That's not necessarily the case. Do you believe in heaven? If so, then this assumption by you is incorrect. If we are individuals in heaven, and heaven is a perfect place where you are eternally happy, then why can't God just send us straight there?

he is giving you an opertunity to reject him or not, as well as showing you a world which is imperfect therefore stopping people from sinning like Adam and Eve did which again is another reason why God might want to us to see what suffering is like. So we dont make the same mistake they did.

This was already addressed as just a semantic problem. Yes, God can't make a square circle. However, God could make us individuals who are perfectly happy without pain and suffering. That's within the realm of omnipotence.



I'm not asking him to do anything illogical. I'm the one trying to use logic to explain how you're doing mental backflips.

your asking him to MAKE you happy without suffering God is forcing you to be happy he is comprimising your free will, he is forcing you to be happy rather than let you get there yourself. since God cant force you to be happy and make you have free will, then he opts for free will.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

since God cant force you to be happy and make you have free will

This directly contradicts the notion of omnipotence.

 

[tarasan]

This directly contradicts the notion of omnipotence.

can i ask how?

it seems to me that this is logically incoherant.

to make someone be happy is to violate their free will, God cant give/and not give us free will, its illogical

at least thats how I see it.

 

[Willamena]

It's not a false dichotomy. Currently there are more options for the outcomes for my kids, but the point was if I was given those two choices, that's what I'd pick. God had those two choices, since he's omnipotent, but he still chose pain and suffering for us.

It's not the outcome for the kids fate that presents a false dichotomy, as they are not the real issue. The false dichotomy is the idea expressed in your last line.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

can i ask how?

it seems to me that this is logically incoherant.

to make someone be happy is to violate their free will, God cant give/and not give us free will, its illogical

at least thats how I see it.

Well, it's like saying that God's presence is not in hell, because he's omnipresent.

The solution to that problem is that God's presence is what makes hell so horrible.

The solution to the freewill problem is that God can apply freewill however he sees fit. As an omnipotent Being, God can apply his will on us and we can freely choose it at the same time. After all, God is the God of freedom.

Also, in the NT God called some apostles from before the earth was made, forcing them into their roles as the first bearers of the Gospel. And other apostles were chosen by the church by both parties' freewill.

 

[tarasan]

Well, it's like saying that God's presence is not in hell, because he's omnipresent.

The solution to that problem is that God's presence is what makes hell so horrible.

The solution to the freewill problem is that God can apply freewill however he sees fit. As an omnipotent Being, God can apply his will on us and we can freely choose it at the same time. After all, God is the God of freedom.

Also, in the NT God called some apostles from before the earth was made, forcing them into their roles as the first bearers of the Gospel. And other apostles were chosen by the church by both parties' freewill.

hmmmm i think i understand what you mean when you say doing theology

so how would you respond to Mball?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

hmmmm i think i understand what you mean when you say doing theology

so how would you respond to Mball?

Mball is essensially presenting a flaw in theism that is in the Epicurean question, "If God is good and powerful, why doesn't God just make us as we will be in heaven."

Well, I don't know. I can simply say first that in Christian tradition, that's just the way that it is. Christianity typically blames humanity for the state that we are in - and God did create us without sin in a perfect environs - and we are redeemed to everlasting life through Christ. This theology is fundamentally flawed to many people, but IMHO we can lay all of our anger towards God on the cross of Christ.

But I have thought of it like this. God is redeemed through Christ as well as humanity, and God will recoincile humanity to Godself on a cosmic level when God chooses.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I thought about it and looked up apologetics to see if they had come to any conclusions as of yet to the problem of evil which thankfully they had, at least in part.

There reasoning is that the statement is rather presumptious, I mean you have no idea if God has a good reason to allow pain and suffering your just assuming that he doesnt. So unless I can come up with a good reason as to why God couldnt have a good reason for allowing pain and suffering, then my claim is Bogus. I havnt been able to come with one yet, how about you?

Unfortuantely however there is also the emotional side of that arguement that seems to be forever present, which is to be expected of course, and the only answer I can give to that is that God didnt just leave us in our pain and misery, he came down and suffered with us and then Died for our sins so that things ultimately could be made right.

so how is my state when it comes to intellectual backfilps?

That is one of the four classic approaches to the problem of evil, pain and suffering. It basically says "it's a mystery". You have no idea why God would do nothing to help those in pain, yet you yourself probably consider it to be a good and noble act to help those who are suffering. I would call this an intellectual compromise. If an Olympic swimmer stood at the edge of a pool and watched and did nothing as an infant fell in, sank to the bottom and drowned, would it ever occur to you to think that maybe he had a good reason to do so?

 

[tarasan]

Mball is essensially presenting a flaw in theism that is in the Epicurean question, "If God is good and powerful, why doesn't God just make us as we will be in heaven."

Well, I don't know. I can simply say first that in Christian tradition, that's just the way that it is. Christianity typically blames humanity for the state that we are in - and God did create us without sin in a perfect environs - and we are redeemed to everlasting life through Christ. This theology is fundamentally flawed to many people, but IMHO we can lay all of our anger towards God on the cross of Christ.

But I have thought of it like this. God is redeemed through Christ as well as humanity, and God will recoincile humanity to Godself on a cosmic level when God chooses.

My response to this for the most part would be I think that if God created like we would be in heaven then we could potentially fall as adam and eve did in the Garden of Eden, however because we now know what life is like if we rebel aginst God and have experienced it, then we will not want to rebel when we get to heaven.

does that make any sense?

 

[Willamena]

IMO, to trivialize pain and suffering is also to trivialize what they create, namely compassion, which is our greatest expression of virtue.

 

[tarasan]

That is one of the four classic approaches to the problem of evil, pain and suffering. It basically says "it's a mystery". You have no idea why God would do nothing to help those in pain, yet you yourself probably consider it to be a good and noble act to help those who are suffering. I would call this an intellectual compromise. If an Olympic swimmer stood at the edge of a pool and watched and did nothing as an infant fell in, sank to the bottom and drowned, would it ever occur to you to think that maybe he had a good reason to do so?

Im saying that we cant make a move either way because your right you cant account for every possible reason that an omniscent might have for permitting evil and suffering, its just something that I have found impossible to defend.

to the olympic swimmer analogy. I beleive this statement doesnt represent God, I help people because I see no good reason not to help them, for example i dont see any deterent from helping a person who is obviously drowning, however I would have a good reason not to help some say who isnt elegible for a liver transplant and who refuses to stop being an alcholic, because it would only cause more harm than good if I helped them.

the fact is we cannot know why God chooses to not make a big scene and save someone but in my opinion we have no reason to think he doesnt have a good reason.

(a tougue tangler there)

 

[PolyHedral]

Compassion arises from empathy, surely? Getting rid of suffering shouldn't affect our ability to empathise with one another.

 

[Willamena]

Compassion arises from empathy, surely? Getting rid of suffering shouldn't affect our ability to empathise with one another.

Sure, but not about suffering.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

you should look up perfect being being theology because an omnipotient God cant do two things, he cant fail and he cant be imperfect. heck the statement can do anything anything implies that he cant fail at doing anything.

Okay... so is the existence of suffering part of God's perfection, or would the lack of suffering imply a failure of God?

Frankly, so are phrases in the form of "God could ..." or "God can ..."

How so? "God can do anything" implies that God can do any specific thing.

That's one interpretation.

Then maybe this might be the time for us to settle on one set of definitions.

thats one interpretation used by people who are ignorant of the the theology the attributes of God are housed in. That interpretation has never been used by any good theologians

... or by true Scotsmen.

Mball is essensially presenting a flaw in theism that is in the Epicurean question, "If God is good and powerful, why doesn't God just make us as we will be in heaven."

Well, I don't know. I can simply say first that in Christian tradition, that's just the way that it is. Christianity typically blames humanity for the state that we are in - and God did create us without sin in a perfect environs - and we are redeemed to everlasting life through Christ. This theology is fundamentally flawed to many people, but IMHO we can lay all of our anger towards God on the cross of Christ.

But I have thought of it like this. God is redeemed through Christ as well as humanity, and God will recoincile humanity to Godself on a cosmic level when God chooses.

IMO, the idea that God could be in need of redemption or reconciliation to himself would create major issues for most Christian belief systems.

 

[Willamena]

Then maybe this might be the time for us to settle on one set of definitions.

Whose? The Scotsman's?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Im saying that we cant make a move either way because your right you cant account for every possible reason that an omniscent might have for permitting evil and suffering, its just something that I have found impossible to defend.

Wait... you acknowledge that your position is logically indefensible, but you don't consider it to be an intellectual compromise?

to the olympic swimmer analogy. I beleive this statement doesnt represent God, I help people because I see no good reason not to help them, for example i dont see any deterent from helping a person who is obviously drowning, however I would have a good reason not to help some say who isnt elegible for a liver transplant and who refuses to stop being an alcholic, because it would only cause more harm than good if I helped them.

No, it wouldn't. If an alcoholic with a failing liver would die without a transplant, then the transplant will cause more good than harm. Extending the person's life, even a short time, is a good thing.

The only reason that harm is caused is because the abilities of the medical establishment are constrained: there aren't enough livers to go around, so giving a liver to one person means you can't give a liver to someone else.

Are God's abilities constrained? Does he withhold his blessings because he only has a limited supply?

the fact is we cannot know why God chooses to not make a big scene and save someone but in my opinion we have no reason to think he doesnt have a good reason.

A question for you - one that I think I may have asked you before in other threads: if we're so morally deficient that we mistake God's perfectly good actions as perfectly evil, then how would it be just to pass judgement on our moral choices? After all, apparently, we can't tell the difference between right and wrong, can we?

 

[Magic Man]

he is giving you an opertunity to reject him or not, as well as showing you a world which is imperfect therefore stopping people from sinning like Adam and Eve did which again is another reason why God might want to us to see what suffering is like. So we dont make the same mistake they did.

First, if he's going to give me that opportunity, and make the consequences of decision so extreme, it would be nice if he gave me all the information for sure. It would be a much easier decision, if God gave it to me directly and told me the specific consequences.

Second, I really don't understand your Adam and Eve comment.

your asking him to MAKE you happy without suffering God is forcing you to be happy he is comprimising your free will, he is forcing you to be happy rather than let you get there yourself. since God cant force you to be happy and make you have free will, then he opts for free will.

But why? Even if there's no way for an omnipotent god to give me free will and make me happy, why choose free will? As I said, I'd take heaven, where I'm perfectly happy all the time with no pain and suffering. If I had kids, and I had the option of letting them live on Earth and letting them live in heaven, I'd choose heaven for them.

 

[tarasan]

Okay... so is the existence of suffering part of God's perfection, or would the lack of suffering imply a failure of God?


How so? "God can do anything" implies that God can do any specific thing.

suffering shows us what a world without Gods perfection is, remeber we rejected God so suffering is the consequence of that, ultiamtely makes our rebelion out for God because for those who reach heaven we will know what being wihtout GOd will be like therefore not fall like Adam did.

Ill give you that, ill go back to omnipotient and being all powerful within the context of perfect being theology it means God cant fail or be imperfect.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Whose? The Scotsman's?

I'm happy to go with anyone's, as long as we make it clear from the beginning what it actually says.

 

[Magic Man]

It's not the outcome for the kids fate that presents a false dichotomy, as they are not the real issue. The false dichotomy is the idea expressed in your last line.

No, it's not. He had many other choices, too, but they are irrelevant. The point of the comment was that he had two ways to make us good people: either through suffering or without suffering. He chose the method that involves suffering. The reason I only used those two options is because obviously any good parent wants their kid to end up a good person who enriches the world around them. If a parent wants their kid to end up like in your option, they should not be considered a good, loving parent like God's supposed to be.