Epicurus 300 BC

Originally posted by ua41
No, because you didn't create the conditions for your son to suffer through, whereas apparentally God did.

However , I am quite capable of reducing his chances of suffering but I still choose not to. Why on earth would I do such a thing? I may not have created his world but i am still choosing a world for him that is more risky than it might be if I intervened.

Presumably God maybe considered many other possible universes and scenarios that were considerably safer and more free of moral badness than this one. Maybe he considered them but still rejected them because they were too sanitised or had no freedom in them for human autonomy.

The problem is that with autonomy also comes the possibility of a person turning against you. The ability to be able to feely choose good over bad is also fraught with danger because if we are truely free to choose then we might choose the bad.

I'm sure if God made you into a robot living in a sugar coated paradise that never challenged you then you would be the first to complain - but then again you would never think of complaining - it would never occur to you to do so. You wouldn't really be alive.

Originally posted by knightmeister
However , I am quite capable of reducing his chances of suffering but I still choose not to. Why on earth would I do such a thing? I may not have created his world but i am still choosing a world for him that is more risky than it might be if I intervened.

Presumably God maybe considered many other possible universes and scenarios that were conside ...[text shortened]... ver think of complaining - it would never occur to you to do so. You wouldn't really be alive.

Yes, the only logical conclusion for you is that this is the best of possible worlds. You'll forgive some of us from looking at all the things that cause suffering that are nothing whatever to do with human will and pondering a little.

We might then reflect upon heaven, a place where nasty arbitrary and fatal accidents presumably don't happen, and wonder why it was beyond the wit of god to make earth more like that, you know, either free will is a priority, in which case they must have it in heaven and get by fine, being nice with the safety settings on MAXIMUM, or it isn't, in which case robotland is fine.

In summary, your view is logically possible but implausible.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Earlier you made this claim:
"...I am completely on top of my life and just in God's waiting room waiting for my ego to finally die. "

Seems extremely doubtful for someone who is self-centered. Seems extremely doubtful for someone who advocates "pleasure,in whatever form, as a way to coming to understand God."

Asking, "How does it feel?", also indi ...[text shortened]... at you're going to be waiting for a very long time unless you gain better understanding.

I'm just being honest. I don't need you to verify my life's outlook.
The ego is part of life. It must be understood in its fullness to be trancended.

Ok then. Answer me this, if you will: Do you consider yourself an adult? What constitues adulthodd in your opinion?

Also , do you understand that I understand the difference between worldy pleasures and the pleasure of "being with God"?

Anyway what is wrong with being self-centered? I suspect we have different opinions on what "self-centered" means. Trust me,(if you want), that I have a solid understanding that my egos collapse is imminent and that there is nothing wrong with seeking pleasure as a means to understand God. Now having said that I also realize that "one size does not fit all" and that my lifepath may be completely different from yours.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I'm just being honest. I don't need you to verify my life's outlook.
The ego is part of life. It must be understood in its fullness to be trancended.

Ok then. Answer me this, if you will: Do you consider yourself an adult? What constitues adulthodd in your opinion?

Also , do you understand that I understand the difference between worldy pleasure one size does not fit all" and that my lifepath may be completely different from yours.

"Adult" is a word with several meanings. Why do you ask?

I understand that you believe that you "understand the difference between worldly pleasures and the pleasure of 'being with God'" and that such an "understanding" is significant.

The ego leads people to believe they have a "solid understanding" of all manner of things. It's called "delusion".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
"Adult" is a word with several meanings. Why do you ask?

I understand that you believe that you "understand the difference between worldly pleasures and the pleasure of 'being with God'" and that such an "understanding" is significant.

The ego leads people to believe they have a "solid understanding" of all manner of things. It's called "delusion".

We are all living in delusion. Those who realize they are asleep already have one eye open.

If you dont want to answer my question about adulthood, fine. But dont dance around the issue like a wuss.
I ask because I'm interested to know what your deifintion is since you have labelled me "immature" in the past.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
We are all living in delusion. Those who realize they are asleep already have one eye open.

If you dont want to answer my question about adulthood, fine. But dont dance around the issue like a wuss.
I ask because I'm interested to know what your deifintion is since you have labelled me "immature" in the past.

Let it go... 🙂

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Let it go... 🙂

thnx Lord.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
We are all living in delusion. Those who realize they are asleep already have one eye open.

If you dont want to answer my question about adulthood, fine. But dont dance around the issue like a wuss.
I ask because I'm interested to know what your deifintion is since you have labelled me "immature" in the past.

Sorry to see that you remain as immature as ever.

Seems like you also have much to learn about the word "adult". Maybe the following excerpt from Wiki will help:

The term adult has at least three distinct meanings. It can indicate a biologically grown or mature person. It may also mean a plant, animal, or person who has reached full growth or alternatively is capable of reproduction, or the classification legal adult, generally determined as a person who has attained the legally fixed age of majority; as opposed to a minor.

Adulthood can be defined in biology, psychological adult development, law, personal character, or social status. These different aspects of adulthood are often inconsistent and contradictory. A person may be biologically an adult, and have adult behavior but still be treated as a child if they are under the legal age of majority. Conversely one may legally be an adult but possess none of the maturity and responsibility that define adult character.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I'm sure if God made you into a robot living in a sugar coated paradise that never challenged you then you would be the first to complain.

First off, I appreciate your input on how I would feel.

Second, I say I'd say that these experiences of suffering and pleasure is actually a good thing too. It makes any effort for each other that much more genuine. however, I really dislike breaking up suffering and pleasure in such a dualistic nature but for the sake of conversation. I think when this is associated as a system created by a deity (or however it wants to be described) it immediately devalues it and subjugates into a system of personal biases and reflection. Why do people contain something that is supposed to be supernatural and omniscient etc. into human values- like why does the Christian God hold the double standard and can be jealous? why do we attach morality and guidelines to fables/stories/myths/old cultures when we should find what is relevant to us and each other? True, there's lots to be learned from religions and beliefs, but it's hidden behind so much fluff usually you have to weed through it. If it doesn't hold up, there's no point in holding such a defensive faith for it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Sorry to see that you remain as immature as ever.

Seems like you also have much to learn about the word "adult". Maybe the following excerpt from Wiki will help:

The term adult has at least three distinct meanings. It can indicate a biologically grown or mature person. It may also mean a plant, animal, or person who has reached full growth or ...[text shortened]... dult but possess none of the maturity and responsibility that define adult character.

Do you think the people that wrote wiki are adults?
(Sorry Lord, the child in me couldn't help it,hee,hee)

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Sorry to see that you remain as immature as ever.

Seems like you also have much to learn about the word "adult". Maybe the following excerpt from Wiki will help:

The term adult has at least three distinct meanings. It can indicate a biologically grown or mature person. It may also mean a plant, animal, or person who has reached full growth or ...[text shortened]... dult but possess none of the maturity and responsibility that define adult character.

Sorry to see that you remain as immature as ever.
------ToO-----------

It must be so hard for you surrounded by all these "children"! Good job we have you , the bastion of truth and adulthood to hold us all together.

It's interesting to see that your patronising, condescending , disguised contempt is not reserved just for me.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Yes, the only logical conclusion for you is that this is the best of possible worlds. You'll forgive some of us from looking at all the things that cause suffering that are nothing whatever to do with human will and pondering a little.

We might then reflect upon heaven, a place where nasty arbitrary and fatal accidents presumably don't happen, and wond which case robotland is fine.

In summary, your view is logically possible but implausible.

Presumably , there is some connection between God raising the safety settings and compromising free will. I don't fully understand that connection but I can see it in practice sometimes (eg my example of not driving my son to school constantly) .

The fact that the principle exists in human affairs is the point I am making. I have control over the safety settings of my son's life (to an extent) - I choose not to turn them up too high so as to effect his autonomy - thus putting him at risk of harm. There's a pay off between safety and autonomy and a relationship between my control over his environment and my choices.

An arbitary accident may occur to my son and it would be my choice that had contributed to it. It's an inevitable consequence of my choice for him - I cannot avoid it. Presumably there is some logical relationship between the danger we experience in this world and the process which God has planned for us in creating free will. I will admit though that sometimes it is hard to see - but then no-one said it was easy.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Presumably , there is some connection between God raising the safety settings and compromising free will. I don't fully understand that connection but I can see it in practice sometimes (eg my example of not driving my son to school constantly) .

The fact that the principle exists in human affairs is the point I am making. I have control over the s ...[text shortened]... ll. I will admit though that sometimes it is hard to see - but then no-one said it was easy.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Presumably , there is some connection between God raising the safety settings and compromising free will.
It is a big presumption.

I don't fully understand that connection but I can see it in practice sometimes (eg my example of not driving my son to school constantly) .
I think this is filed under 'god's mysterious plan' since I've not seen a plausible explanation of the connection yet.

I will admit though that sometimes it is hard to see - but then no-one said it was easy.
I think that's honest, and so if one is a believer, one has to assume that the precise reasons are beyond our understanding, since although analogies to parenthood might seem superficially plausible, they don't solve the problem. This is because these analogies don't extend to an all powerful being.

To see why, rerun your parent analogy but imagine you are all-powerful dad. You wouldn't have to restrict your son's freedom at all to ensure that no lasting irreversable harm came to him. You could both ensure that his choices had consequences sufficient to build moral character and set limits on how adverse those consequences could be.

If that didn't result in a stable solution, you could simply design your son to be benevolent and gentle in nature, kind and polite and put him in a safe world with as much freedom to explore and create as he could handle. He would still have free will.

If you find the above world a bit disturbing and you feel uneasy about the amount of freedom left, just ask yourself-doesn't that world seem a bit like heaven?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]Presumably , there is some connection between God raising the safety settings and compromising free will.
It is a big presumption.

I don't fully understand that connection but I can see it in practice sometimes (eg my example of not driving my son to school constantly) .
I think this is file ...[text shortened]... amount of freedom left, just ask yourself-doesn't that world seem a bit like heaven?[/b]

To see why, rerun your parent analogy but imagine you are all-powerful dad. You wouldn't have to restrict your son's freedom at all to ensure that no lasting irreversable harm came to him. You could both ensure that his choices had consequences sufficient to build moral character and set limits on how adverse those consequences could be.
------Lord shark-----------------------------

Easy on paper, but there's a catch. My position is that the kind of autonomy and moral charactor that God has in mind for us is logically impossible (even for God) to create without having some undesirable consequences. The creation of real free will (and not some pseudo freedom) entails for me the possibility of a person turning against God (and thus against morality and goodness). A person can only be said to be freely loving and choose God if he has a real option to freely do evil and turn against God. So in one sense evil has to exist in order for free will to really exist. God cannot create free will (real free will) without evil becoming also real , in the same sense that God cannot create a square circle or a rock too heavy for him to lift. In this model God can be said to have allowed something bad to happen for the sake of a higher good - why? - because he has no choice.

So , in a situation like that , even an all powerful God , could be said to be restricted by logical constraints. You may disagree with my concept of free will but it stands up for me very well. The argument says that in one sense some moral qualities cannot exist unless some suffering is also created. It's just a logical by product.

Of course , this does not explain everything , far from it , but it does show at least one case where even God cannot overcome the logical constraints.

The issue of heaven , in my opinion , is different because in order for us to get to heaven , the conditions of this world have to take place first. The kind of joy and love that God intends for the human race somehow requires the existence of this world. It's like what St Paul described as the birth pains of creation. It's something to do with heaven only being heaven because it is a voluntary thing (and not forced) and the only way this can happen is to create beings in a "non"-heaven first and then invite them. This idea implies that God could have created a heaven for us as persons and bypassed the whole earth thing , but the problem with it would be that it would be compulsary and not voluntary and thus can be seen as very different from a voluntary heaven.

Can you not see that ultimately it is about creating real , free beings who can make real choices. Can you not also see that such a freedom means a letting go of creation and creating some existence for said beings that is separate from God. Then , all you have to realise is this. Separation from God is going to entail suffering of at least some description.

That's how I feel with my son , I could control his environment , but I have to let go. Because I love him. It's agony though.

Originally posted by knightmeister
To see why, rerun your parent analogy but imagine you are all-powerful dad. You wouldn't have to restrict your son's freedom at all to ensure that no lasting irreversable harm came to him. You could both ensure that his choices had consequences sufficient to build moral character and set limits on how adverse those consequences could be.
------Lord s ...[text shortened]... control his environment , but I have to let go. Because I love him. It's agony though.

Yes, your analysis of the weak point in your own argument is superb. It is your notion of 'real free will', which is question begging.