Originally posted by FreakyKBHOkay, so Adam's freely willed act was the promixate cause of the world becoming imperfect. Let's assume this is true.
[b]God arbitrarily striketh down unsuspecting future generations for current transgressions.
Eh? At what point in the decree did you ever see this being posited? At what point in my conversations here have you ever seen this posited? I'll save you the time: you haven't because it isn't true.
Help clear up the issue, will you? What is it that ca ...[text shortened]... g a free will moral agent existing prior to any errors in system, fits the bill. No joking.[/b]
Note, however, that, even if it were true, it would still not absolve God from all responsibility for the pain and suffering experienced bysubsequent humans. After all, God set up the system whereby, if Adam freely chose to sin, imperfection, and all the natural evils it entails, would arise. God didn't have to do this; but He did. If He hadn't done so, then clearly natural eveil would not have arisen. Adam, on his own, lacked the power to set up this system. Without God making the introduction of imperfection into the world contingent on Adam's freely willed actions, imperfection could not have been introduced. Adam would have merely sinned away, without cosmic consequence. Hence, by any reasonably criterion, God had a hand in the creation of evil and pain in this world.
The question then is, roughly, whether every single instance of natural evil is logically necessary for the bringing about of a good that at least offsets it. If it isn't, then God, being all-knowing and all-powerful, cannot be morally perfect, because he would then have facilitated the occurrence of logically unnecessary natural evil, which is inconsistent with His being morally perfect. There would therefore be no God who was at once all-knowing, all-powerful, and morally perfect.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeYou are assuming too much here.
Okay, so Adam's freely willed act was the promixate cause of the world becoming imperfect. Let's assume this is true.
Note, however, that, even if it were true, it would still not absolve God from all responsibility for the pain and suffering experienced bysubsequent humans. After all, God set up the system whereby, if Adam freely chose to sin, imper ...[text shortened]... would therefore be no God who was at once all-knowing, all-powerful, and morally perfect.
pain and suffering experienced bysubsequent humans.
Assumption 1: pain and suffering is bad.
Assumption 2: p/s by humans is bad.
God didn't have to do this; but He did.
Assumption 1: other free will agents could exist without Him having done so.
Without God making the introduction of imperfection into the world contingent on Adam's freely willed actions, imperfection could not have been introduced.
God is not responsible for other agents' choices; they are responsible for their own choices, relative to truth.
Adam would have merely sinned away, without cosmic consequence.
Not necessarily. Adam was created perfect, and was able to avoid sin (he had a choice in the matter). Cosmic consequences were not the issue for Adam. The issue he faced was life or death. Choosing death brought cosmic consequences, just as choosing life would have brought different consequences--- and, in fact, this is exactly what he originally was choosing for an undetermined amount of time.
every single instance of natural evil is logically necessary for the bringing about of a good that at least offsets it.
This is not a balance thing, a yin/yang thing. The glory of the Lord will fill the universe.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHA god like yours who is so perverse as to find that 6,000,000 dead people is
Alright (for sake of an argument that will yield about as much as No1's various speciousness), I'll bite: what do you mean?
better than 5,999,999 hardly needs to be taken seriously much less worshiped
(except out of pure fear).
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIndeed. An assumption where pain and suffering is good, say, is an indication of an evil
Assumption 1: pain and suffering is bad.
Assumption 2: p/s by humans is bad.
god, and an assumption where pain and suffering are neutral things, say, is an indication of
an indifferent and callous god.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioNot assuming that p/s is good (or bad, for that matter); however, assigning a value to the same is necessary. Without a value assessment and a standard of measure, all discussion is worthless.
Indeed. An assumption where pain and suffering is good, say, is an indication of an evil
god, and an assumption where pain and suffering are neutral things, say, is an indication of
an indifferent and callous god.
Nemesio
In creating gods, there must be logical conclusions.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not assuming that p/s is good (or bad, for that matter); however, assigning a value to the same is necessary.
This is not a sentence and I cannot discern what it was trying to
communicate.
Without a value assessment and a standard of measure, all discussion is worthless.
If you cannot concede that the Holocaust entailed human suffering
without trying to quantify/qualify what suffering is, then your stonewalling
obstuseness is too powerful for me to overcome.
Nemesio
2 edits
So let's try assigning a value to suffering.
Suffer-O-Meter
-10- Stomach punctured and toenails ripped off
-9-- Ear drums punctured and fingernails ripped off
-8-- Groin kick with pointy shoe
-7-- Groin kick
-6-- Naggy wife/girlfriend
-5-- Forced watching of Pauly Shore movies
-4-- Forced watching of reality TV
-3-- Hammer blow to toe
-2-- Hammer blow to finger
-1-- Caffeine withdrawal
-0-- Lack of sleep
Now we're ready for a worthwhile discussion! (And this after only 215 posts!)
Originally posted by NemesioThis is not a sentence and I cannot discern what it was trying to
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Not assuming that p/s is good (or bad, for that matter); however, assigning a value to the same is necessary.
This is not a sentence and I cannot discern what it was trying to
communicate.
Without a value assessment and a standard of measure, all discussion is worthless.
If you cannot concede th ...[text shortened]... suffering is, then your stonewalling
obstuseness is too powerful for me to overcome.
Nemesio[/b]
communicate.
Technically speaking, this was not a sentence. It was a puncutated response to your post, and should have been prefaced with "I was."
Here's the point. Evveryone here who has attempted to argue against OOO has done so from the standpoint of p/s being bad. However, no one (save BDP) has attempted to assign value to p/s. Specifically, who has suffered the most in this process? Man? Or, God? That was the intent of the post asking 'who is hurt when a lie is told?'
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnd everyone who has made that argument has said that the standard of suffering is not material
Evveryone here who has attempted to argue against OOO has done so from the standpoint of p/s being bad. However, no one (save BDP) has attempted to assign value to p/s. Specifically, who has suffered the most in this process? Man? Or, God? That was the intent of the post asking 'who is hurt when a lie is told?'
to the argument. That is, if you want to have a very strict standard, the argument still holds; if
you want to have a very permissive standard, the argument still holds.
The only thing that the argument requires is the admission that suffering (of whatever sort) occurs.
If you deny that suffering occurs, then the argument falls apart, because it rests on that assumption.
Once you admit that suffering (of whatever sort) occurs, then the argument holds (unless you want
to show how it doesn't); qualifying that suffering -- if you want to say that stubbing your toe is
suffering or not, if you want to say that dying of cancer is suffering or not, if you want to say that
being tortured systematically is suffering or not -- doesn't affect the argument since the argument's
structure is not predicated on the nature of the suffering in question.
I hope you understand this now.
Whom do you think suffers the most: God when a man sins, or the man when he ends up in hell for
having irrevocably sinned?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioIn essence, we are back to the same idea as has been posted earlier, namely, perfect allows for imperfection.
And everyone who has made that argument has said that the standard of suffering is not material
to the argument. That is, if you want to have a very strict standard, the argument still holds; if
you want to have a very permissive standard, the argument still holds.
The only thing that the argument requires is the admission that suffering (of whatever ...[text shortened]... hen a man sins, or the man when he ends up in hell for
having irrevocably sinned?
Nemesio
The argument from suffering is only used for its emotional punch, but it is decidely prejudicial in its perspective, seeing everything from the gaze of the afflicted... so long as the gazer is human, of course. No consideration is given to the affront to righteousness for some odd reason!
As all action on the part of the free will agents (man and angels) which has occured since creation is the result of those agents' free will, all action was necessary for the greater good. The greater good should be taken to mean God's pleasure. His intended result is to bring as many 'sons' as possible into His glory, to share in it.
Those free will agents who utilize their free will and freely choose against God, freely choose to enter a realm completely without Him. That realm is known as hell.
There might have been an argument against the fairness of God, had He not made the default position salvation. But, as no one dies for their personal sins; as all sin has been removed from consideration; as Jesus Christ's work on the cross has far surpassed the entire body of human sin; as the only issue for anyone reaching God consciousness and Gospel hearing is non-meritorious belief; God is more than fair. God sends no one to hell: all who end up there go by their own volition.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo, the Holocaust was necessary to maximize God's pleasure. Your God is a monster.
In essence, we are back to the same idea as has been posted earlier, namely, perfect allows for imperfection.
The argument from suffering is only used for its emotional punch, but it is decidely prejudicial in its perspective, seeing everything from the gaze of the afflicted... so long as the gazer is human, of course. No consideration is given to th ...[text shortened]... s more than fair. God sends no one to hell: all who end up there go by their own volition.