2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFirst, you clearly have no idea what is meant here by 'logically necessary'. To be clear, when we say that X is logically necessary for Y, it means that if X is not the case, then it is logically impossible for Y to be the case. In your little Freaky world, you seem to think that The Problem of Evil doesn't carry much weight. But consider this: given the attributes that you have assigned to your conception of God; and given the fact that you are not willing to admit your God is callous; then you are committed to the stance that EVERY instance of evil/pain/suffering is logically necessary for the greater good -- that is, you are committed to the stance that if even one of these instances had not been the case, then it would be logically impossible to bring about the greater good. I only need one example of logically unnecessary suffering to dissolve from reality your God. That is why your overt refusal to answer my straightforward question about the Down's baby is quite revealing indeed.
[b]I did not assert this, and I'm not even sure what 'unacceptable' is supposed to mean here.
Of course you did. You have asserted that the suffering of a DS baby is not compatible with the greater good, i.e., the greater good cannot be the "greater" or the "good" if a baby has DS. Ergo, that suffering is unacceptable to your view of both "greater" ecomes a possibility, and thus a necessity based upon the others' actions.[/b]
Again, all that occurs is necessary. Could it have been different? Only if the agents involved had made different decisions.
Again, this is not even remotely what is meant by 'logically necessary'. See above.
Once God's character is revealed, the question becomes, "Why would anyone not want a relationship with Him?"
You must be joking. Go read the OT. People generally don't desire to enter into relationships with those who are blood-lusting bastards. I also wouldn't care to enter into a relationship with a being who considers it logically necessary for the greater good that some babies be stricken with painful diseases, or that over 10,000,000 hapless persons suffer and die during the course of The Holocaust, or that...
Free will necessitates...
Why do you pretend like free will has something to do with the discussion of the Down's baby? It doesn't. Your claim that all pain and suffering are the direct result of human free will is patently absurd. Ever hear of natural evils?
When free will is granted to any other agency, hell becomes a possibility, and thus a necessity based upon the others' actions.
I also don't understand why you keep making this false claim. There is just no way that the existence of free will logically entails the existence of hell.
Originally posted by LemonJelloStraight up. Nice post.
First, you clearly have no idea what is meant here by 'logically necessary'. To be clear, when we say that X is logically necessary for Y, it means that if X is not the case, then it is logically impossible for Y to be the case. In your little Freaky world, you seem to think that The Problem of Evil doesn't carry much weight. But consider this: given t ...[text shortened]... t no way that the existence of free will logically entails the existence of hell.
Originally posted by LemonJelloWell - no.
But consider this: given the attributes that you have assigned to your conception of God; and given the fact that you are not willing to admit your God is callous; then you are committed to the stance that EVERY instance of evil/pain/suffering is logically necessary for the greater good -- that is, you are committed to the stance that if even one of these ...[text shortened]... es had not been the case, then it would be logically impossible to bring about the greater good.
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloWell. This is going nowhere fast. Kind of like the rest of the posts in the thread, huh.
First, you clearly have no idea what is meant here by 'logically necessary'. To be clear, when we say that X is logically necessary for Y, it means that if X is not the case, then it is logically impossible for Y to be the case. In your little Freaky world, you seem to think that The Problem of Evil doesn't carry much weight. But consider this: given t t no way that the existence of free will logically entails the existence of hell.
First, you clearly have no idea what is meant here by 'logically necessary'.
While you may think you possess the vaunted Secret Decoder Ring for this area of thought, it is a concept that isn't above the cognitive abilities of the average bear. Take me, for instance. I'm a pretty average bear, when it comes to ideas and stuff, and I get it just fine. The problem lies in when/where one chooses to apply the word equation. Put it in too soon, and the cake won't rise; too late, and you'll scorch the whole thing. As the real estate folks are fond of saying, "Timing is location." ...or, something like that.
Let's be clear on at least one thing that is delineated in the decree: God did not create out of need for completion. His pleasure was perfect prior to, during and will continue to be perfect after this whole opportunity is complete. Man does not somehow fulfill a need of God's.
That being said, God did not need man to 'help' Him secure the greater good: He already had the perfect good within Himself. Nonetheless, His glory is active, with the universe and all that is in it being an example of His action.
Some people have a difficult time with it, but hell is the most unusual thing God could have created. It is the eternal reminder to all free will creatures of their dependency upon God for all that is good, intrinsically good.
EVERY instance of evil/pain/suffering is logically necessary for the greater good...
You are correct, sir.
I only need one example of logically unnecessary suffering to dissolve from reality your God.
And yet this you have been unable to do. By all means, however, press on.
or that over 10,000,000 hapless persons suffer and die during the course of The Holocaust
Pretty aggressive number. Please continue.
Ever hear of natural evils?
My breath in the morning, etc., etc.
I also don't understand why you keep making this false claim.
1. You could help out by making it, as well. That way there'd be more than just me making it.
2. It ain't false.
3. See number four.
4. See number two.
The world we see around us now is a direct result of man's rejection of God. 'Really pissed off by Down's syndrome?
Blame that part of you that chooses against God.
'Tired of the various pograms that man has inflicted upon man over the years?
Rail against arrogance.
'Blood boil when you hear of children abused and exploited by adults?
Curse any thought you have ever had that is in opposition to God.
Even the natural disasters that occur only occur because man gave rulership of the planet over to Satan.
Garden of Eden = perfection. Eat the fruit = imperfection.
Guess which one we chose?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis is one of the more ridiculous tenets of Christianity. Because two humans screwed up 6000+ years ago, all the other billions of people must suffer. What a sense of justice god has!
The world we see around us now is a direct result of man's rejection of God. 'Really pissed off by Down's syndrome?
Blame that part of you that chooses against God.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe majority of your post is mindless parroting of unjustified beliefs. I am not interested in addressing the indecipherable slop that drips from your pen.
Well. This is going nowhere fast. Kind of like the rest of the posts in the thread, huh.
[b]First, you clearly have no idea what is meant here by 'logically necessary'.
While you may think you possess the vaunted Secret Decoder Ring for this area of thought, it is a concept that isn't above the cognitive abilities of the average bear. Tak ...[text shortened]... en = perfection. Eat the fruit = imperfection.
Guess which one we chose?[/b]
However, I am glad to see that you finally did (albeit indirectly) answer one of my questions about the Down’s baby. You admitted that you advocate the position that every instance of evil/pain/suffering is logically necessary for the greater good. In that case, surely you must thank your God often for these necessary evils. Take those Down’s babies for example: surely you must get on your knees and thank God for His willfully planning/causing/permitting the suffering, pain, and speedy death of all those cute (but, thankfully for us, doomed) little tykes. After all, if He had spared even one of them, the greater good simply would not be logically obtainable. And surely we should all hold hands in a circle and give thanks for God’s planning/causing/permitting The Holocaust (and no, 10,000,000 is not an overly ‘aggressive’ number). I think we should probably give thanks 10,000,000 times over – roughly one for each of the logically necessary deaths. If even one fewer person had been relieved of such torture, anguish, pain, and eventual death, the world would have been worse off. Surely, we should also give thanks for all the earthquakes, tsunamis, and hurricanes that have decimated cities and homes around the world in recent years. And don’t forget diseases of all types, along with all instances of rape, assault, and murder. Boy, there sure is a long laundry list of things for which to be thankful. Thank you, Freaky's God!!!
Get real, Freaky. Stop feeding your delusions. Stop worshipping a figment (a vile one at that, too).
Originally posted by LemonJelloAs has been said time and again, but as has been ignored time and again--- I'll go out on a limb here and guess that you don't like the answer, not that you can't figure it out, as you're a pretty bright guy--- you are equating human suffering as the pinnacle (nadir?) of transgression. In that, you error to no small degree.
BDP is not quibbling. He is pointing out how utterly ridiculous your notion of divine justice really is.
As has been asked time and again, but as has been side-stepped--- on this one I'm guessing that you simply don't understand enough to grasp the answer--- who is hurt when a lie is told?
Originally posted by LemonJelloI am not interested in addressing the indecipherable slop that drips from your pen.
The majority of your post is mindless parroting of unjustified beliefs. I am not interested in addressing the indecipherable slop that drips from your pen.
However, I am glad to see that you finally did (albeit indirectly) answer one of my questions about the Down’s baby. You admitted that you advocate the position that every instance of evil/pain/su ...[text shortened]... l, Freaky. Stop feeding your delusions. Stop worshipping a figment (a vile one at that, too).
I type all of my slop, but who could possibly argue with your decrees?
However, I am glad to see that you finally did (albeit indirectly) answer one of my questions about the Down’s baby.
Sure. You have brushed aside my question to you...how many times?
In that case, surely you must thank your God often for these necessary evils.
As those NE's necessarily result from the free will of agents other than Him, I don't; I do thank Him for the opportunity to even be in the game, however.
After all, if He had spared even one of them, the greater good simply would not be logically obtainable.
Where do those babies go, upon death? Hmm...
Thank you, Freaky's God!!!
He says your sarcasm is noted. Tsk, tsk.
Stop worshipping a figment (a vile one at that, too).
Vile based on what, exactly? Here's where your logic (so-claimed) breaks down to absurdity. Let's roll back to the argument of acceptable levels of suffering. Take God out of the equation (I know, I know, it already starts out bound for failure, but bear with me), and essplain to my weary little brain how you reconcile 'good' with 'life.'
Is 'life' 'good' if even one person loses their sense of balance? Is 'life' 'good' if even one person gets an upset stomach? In this world view, you may as well be an animal of indiscriminate existence, and there is certainly no such thing as reason, let alone your ability to attain its front step.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI think it's safe to call you a Pessimistic Pangloss.
[b]I did not assert this, and I'm not even sure what 'unacceptable' is supposed to mean here.
Of course you did. You have asserted that the suffering of a DS baby is not compatible with the greater good, i.e., the greater good cannot be the "greater" or the "good" if a baby has DS. Ergo, that suffering is unacceptable to your view of both "greater" ...[text shortened]... ecomes a possibility, and thus a necessity based upon the others' actions.[/b]
That is unless you do think this necessary world is the best of all possible worlds?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH"If you had a friend who was a tightrope walker, and you were walking down the sidewalk with him, and he fell, that would be completely unacceptable!" -Mitch Hedberg
Quit your quibbling and get to your own Garden.
Suffering is not the 'ultimate transgression' - but even one instance of unnecessary suffering is unacceptable in a universe under the watch of an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect God.
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionThat's a pretty good characterization of the Freakster. Of course, Freaky is willing to tolerate the pessimism because, although this world is quite simply as good as it possibly can be, Freaky just knows that things will get infinitely better once he enters the eternal sanctuary of heaven -- the next 😵 possible world 😵 !
I think it's safe to call you a Pessimistic Pangloss.
Originally posted by LemonJelloYes, there's a lot of confusion there.
That's a pretty good characterization of the Freakster. Of course, Freaky is willing to tolerate the pessimism because, although this world is quite simply as good as it possibly can be, Freaky just knows that things will get infinitely better once he enters the eternal sanctuary of heaven -- the next 😵 possible world 😵 !
I guess if he were on trial for being unreasonable and I was his attorney, I claim that heaven cannot exist without this fallen earth. The two worlds are not separable.
The downside though is that man's free will is completely irrelevant (not that it wasn't before, but I doubt Freak wants to let that one go).