Originally posted by jebry1) Doesn't in itself affect my behavior as I don't know what the characteristics of God are (see comments to 3-5 below).
Thanks for the response Kelly, but I was hoping someone would answer my question. So, I'll repeat it here and give my answer:
You see a child in the street playing and there is a car coming. Neither the driver nor the child seem to notice and you can reach the child with little or no chance of harm to yourself.
Assuming no.s 1-5 in the original post's ...[text shortened]... t could have prevented the suffering, if they had acted as God had intended they should.
Jeff
2) Describes the past and in no way affects this event.
3) What God can do in no way affects my behavior unless I know what he's going to do with his power.
4) What God knows does not affect my decisions unless I know his motives.
5) As "morally perfect" is undefined, I still don't know what God's motives are or how he will act in any particular circumstance.
So, given those 5, I'd go save the child.
Your explanation is flawed because it assumes that
You have learned from your parents or teachers or just from hard experience that there is nothing you can do.
You didn't mention that ahead of time. If that's a sixth premise, then maybe I wouldn't act. Did you mean it to be a sixth premise?
You seem to prioritize humans having the chance to use our extremely limited powers and ability to choose suffering over happiness for others over relief of suffering. I myself have different priorities and so by my standards a god that allows suffering when he doesn't have to is not morally perfect.
he also provided a person, or group of people, in every situation that could have prevented the suffering
If that's the case, and I don't think it is, then God is accepting that great suffering will occur, because he knows people don't always choose to alleviate suffering. Again, God is not morally perfect by my standards.
Exactly my argument, Kelly, I had no problems with your reply at all. I am just going a step further and pointing out that there is in fact no such thing as "unnecessary suffering" except for where people fail to act as God intended them to. And I think that is your argument as well.
I also pointed out that, if God did act to alleviate all "unnecessary suffering", then we would never be able to develop morally as individuals nor as a society because we would never have to act morally. Therefore a perfectly moral God would indeed allow suffering because, if He didn't, it would adversly affect us all and finally, that suffering is not unnecessary either.
So all I added was that you are right even if you don't consider the eternal and all you consider is life right here.
Jeff
P.S. I am hoping bbar, or others who agree with him, rejoin the conversation with rebuttals.
Originally posted by jebryIn the abscence of suffering, why do we need morality?
Exactly my argument, Kelly, I had no problems with your reply at all. I am just going a step further and pointing out that there is in fact no such thing as "unnecessary suffering" except for where people fail to act as God intended them to. And I think that is your argument as well.
I also pointed out that, if God did act to alleviate all "unnecessary ...[text shortened]...
P.S. I am hoping bbar, or others who agree with him, rejoin the conversation with rebuttals.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI don't understand your point. What if it was a simple "yes, no, or I don't know" question? Would that make it easier for you to answer?
It is not a simple yes or no question.
God does not have to meet our demands, our understanding of what is "morally perfect".
Our demands of God have nothing to do with the question. Your sentence is awkwardly written - can you clarify what you mean by the part after the comma?
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungGod does not have to meet our demands of what constitutes "moral perfection" in our understanding.
I don't understand your point. What if it was a simple "yes, no, or I don't know" question? Would that make it easier for you to answer?
Our demands of God have nothing to do with the question. Your sentence is awkwardly written - can you clarify what you mean by the part after the comma?
Our understanding of what constitutes "morality" applies to human beings not to God. If God sends a devil to Job to test him than this does not influence his "goodness", his being without sin in any way. Is Job's suffering necessary or unnecessary ? Are God's actions towards Job just and "morally perfect" ?
Why didn't God just snap his fingers to save the world ? He is allmighty isn't He ? Why did He send His son Jesus Christ to earth to suffer, to die on the Cross ? Necessary suffering ? Unnecessary suffering ?
This whole exercise is meaningless because this is about a god that doesn't exist. This isn't about the God of Abraham. This is about some Santa Claus god, a Unicorn god, invented by people like Bbarr to prove that this Santa Claus god doesn't exist. I agree with Bbarr. This god does not exist.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThat's a good question. Yes, morality would be important, because pleasure should be maximized.
Do you thnk morality important if all there was, was just degrees of
pleasure?
Kelly
However, a world with only degrees of pleasure would be far superior to the one we live in now. Therefore elimination, or at least vastly lessening, of suffering is more valuable to me than any kind of morality. I do not believe the world we live in now represents a maximum pleasure/minimum pain scenario. A maximum pleasure/minimum pain scenario would have infinite pleasure for everyone and no pain, unless you know of some constraint on the maximum amount of pleasure possible or the least amount of pain possible.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI didn't say God has to do anything, and neither did BDP. He asked you to give your evaluation of God. Now, you can refuse to evaluate, which would be "I don't know/I don't have any idea".
God does not have to meet our demands of what constitutes "moral perfection" in our understanding.
Our understanding of what constitutes "morality" applies to human beings not to God. If God sends a devil to Job to test him than this does not influence his "goodness", his being without sin in any way. Is Job's suffering necessary or unnecessary ? A ...[text shortened]... o prove that this Santa Claus god doesn't exist. I agree with Bbarr. This god does not exist.
Our understanding of what constitutes "morality" applies to human beings not to God.
So it looks like you dispute that God is morally perfect. OK.
his being without sin in any way
Is there a relationship between sin and morality?
This isn't about the God of Abraham.
Why not?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell, would your pleasure universe simply be superior because of
That's a good question. Yes, morality would be important, because pleasure should be maximized.
However, a world with only degrees of pleasure would be far superior to the one we live in now. Therefore elimination, or at least vastly lessening, of suffering is more valuable to me than any kind of morality. I do not believe the world we live i ...[text shortened]... some constraint on the maximum amount of pleasure possible or the least amount of pain possible.
the lack of suffering? I mean because we did not discuss what
acts were not forbidden only that suffering was removed.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIf pleasure levels were unchanged, then yes, the universe would be a better place without suffering.
Well, would your pleasure universe simply be superior because of
the lack of suffering? I mean because we did not discuss what
acts were not forbidden only that suffering was removed.
Kelly