Epicurus 300 BC

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Oh yeah sure. I mean do you have a problem with that?

Of course the pleasure associated with knowing God takes longer to attain.
Much pain and suffering of the dying ego.
But ,you know, at the end of the day its not good to dwell on anything too long... 😵

Neeto. A hedonistic utilitarian Christian/Jew/Muslim. You're a rarity.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What makes you think pi and how the universe began are beyond our descriptive abilities?

Pi is especially easy. It's the ratio of the circumference to the radius of a circle(right? Something like that).

The diameter. C/D = Pi

Originally posted by Lord Shark
knightmeister,

Thanks for engaging honestly, I appreciate it.

I'll have to think carefully about my response. For now, I'll say that there are two strands to your position. You are committed to a kind of libertarian free will which you call RFW and you see this as a necessary condition for what I'll call deep moral responsibility (DMR).

The other ...[text shortened]... quired.

I think this does shed light on why we differ on this, since I am a compatibilist.

This is a good discussion , I'm enjoying it.

The evidential problem of Evil , I prefer to re-phrase as the problem of the imperfect of creation. I don't see an earthquake as Evil in this sense , because there is no devious motive or intent to harm. An earthquake cannot be held morally responsible. So for me a natural event that causes suffering is not "evil" as such , but a reflection of the imperfect world we live in.

The fact that you say "why does the world have to be quite so icky?" suggests that you maybe accept that the natural world in which we live (ie not heaven) does logically have to have some "ickiness" for us to exist as free beings?

Originally posted by knightmeister
This is a good discussion , I'm enjoying it.

The evidential problem of Evil , I prefer to re-phrase as the problem of the imperfect of creation. I don't see an earthquake as Evil in this sense , because there is no devious motive or intent to harm. An earthquake cannot be held morally responsible. So for me a natural event that causes suffering is ...[text shortened]... not heaven) does logically have to have some "ickiness" for us to exist as free beings?

Originally posted by knightmeister
This is a good discussion , I'm enjoying it.
Me too.

The evidential problem of Evil , I prefer to re-phrase as the problem of the imperfect of creation.
That makes sense, though we all have our preferences and mine is to run a parallel Problem of Suffering in conjunction with each version of the PoE. I'm happy to use your term though.

I don't see an earthquake as Evil in this sense , because there is no devious motive or intent to harm. An earthquake cannot be held morally responsible. So for me a natural event that causes suffering is not "evil" as such , but a reflection of the imperfect world we live in.
Agreed. But this is difficult to reconcile with the notion of god who is capable of making heaven, which doesn't have natural disasters, and which is populated by people with free will who are precisely the people god knew would be there at the moment of creation. It is difficult to see the best way to argue this I think. You could say that god needed a universe with physical laws that would give rise via evolution to sentient beings, and that this universe necessarily is prone to tsunami, earthquake, flood and so on, because the physics and chemistry for one necessarily involves the other. This doesn't seem to work though, since such a world leaves very little for god to do or explain. It is compatible with turtles all the way down, where by 'turtle' I mean 'blind algorithmic process'.

Ok, suppose we take another path, we could reject evolution and say that the 'icky' factor is a moral test. The world needn't have been so disaster prone, but god wanted to test his created beings by introducing mechanisms that cause massive suffering that is arbitrary. It is arbitrary in the sense that no rational agent could meaningfully link the suffering to our free will. This fits with our experience of earthquakes and the like. But the cost is that prima facie, this seems morally dubious on the part of god, to say the least. Here is a quote (I have posted once before) which captures the notion quite well:

"For now we have to explain not only why an omnipotent, omniscient and all-good God should create such a universe and such a man, but also why, foreseeing every move of the feeble, weak-willed, ignorant, and covetous creature to be created, He should nevertheless have created him and, having done so, should be incensed and outraged by man's sin, and why He should deem it necessary to sacrifice His own son on the cross to atone for this sin which was, after all, only a disobedience of one of His commands, and why this atonement and consequent redemption could not have been followed by man's return to Paradise - particularly of those innocent children who had not yet sinned - and why, on Judgement Day, this merciful God should condemn some to eternal torment." K. Baier

The fact that you say "why does the world have to be quite so icky?" suggests that you maybe accept that the natural world in which we live (ie not heaven) does logically have to have some "ickiness" for us to exist as free beings?
I think that the logical possibility of ickyness is compatible with the OOO god if:

1) we have a libertarian view of free will
2) we assume that this free will is of such intrinsic value that its preservation outweighs the risk that bad things will happen to innocent people as a result of 1)

The reasons for this, as I see them, are twofold.

Firstly, if 1) is true, then god cannot control what we choose without depriving us of our free will. If free will is the good which facilitates a meaningful loving relationship with our creator, then god would choose not to intervene if that meant sacrificing our free will.

Secondly, within this frame of reference, massive arbitrary suffering of innocents on earth needs to be put into the perspective of their eternal bliss in communion with god in heaven. We can then see that even the most terrible agony of an innocent who dies alone through no fault of their own, is small potatoes. (Don't say that to the relatives though...🙂)

I'm not sure some atheists are that good at taking this second point on board. But enough of me griping. What's the problem with this explanation? It seems ok, in logical terms, to me.

My answer is: plausibility. To illustrate, I'll offer a second quote, from the philosopher Simon Blackburn. He draws this analogy:

"Suppose you find yourself in a school or university in a dormitory.Things are not too good. The roof leaks, there are rats about, the food is almost inedible, some students in fact starve to death. There is a closed door, behind which is the management, but the management never comes out. You get to speculate [about] what the management must be like. Can you infer about the management from the dormitory as you find it that the management, first, knows exactly what conditions are like, second, cares intensely for your welfare, and third, possesses unlimited resources for fixing things? The inference is crazy."

Further, if you design a moral test based on no efficient mechanism for punishing the wicked and rewarding the worthy, set that in the context of a dangerous world full of seemingly arbitrary suffering, thus making inferences to a benign creator speculative at best, then require as a condition for passing said test precisely such an inference..... well have I given you a flavour of why it doesn't work for me?

Your turn.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Neeto. A hedonistic utilitarian Christian/Jew/Muslim. You're a rarity.

I could've sworn I was more of a hindu.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]This is a good discussion , I'm enjoying it.
Me too.

The evidential problem of Evil , I prefer to re-phrase as the problem of the imperfect of creation.
That makes sense, though we all have our preferences and mine is to run a parallel Problem of Suffering in conjunction with each version of t ...[text shortened]... I given you a flavour of why it doesn't work for me?

Your turn.[/b]

You could say that god needed a universe with physical laws that would give rise via evolution to sentient beings, and that this universe necessarily is prone to tsunami, earthquake, flood and so on, because the physics and chemistry for one necessarily involves the other. This doesn't seem to work though, since such a world leaves very little for god to do or explain. It is compatible with turtles all the way down, where by 'turtle' I mean 'blind algorithmic process'.
------Lshark--------------------------

It is this very idea that I do subscribe to , but I didn't fully get your response. I did read the rest of what you said , but there was so much that I felt it best to focus on one part of it. Is that Ok with you?

Originally posted by knightmeister
You could say that god needed a universe with physical laws that would give rise via evolution to sentient beings, and that this universe necessarily is prone to tsunami, earthquake, flood and so on, because the physics and chemistry for one necessarily involves the other. This doesn't seem to work though, since such a world leaves very little for god ...[text shortened]... but there was so much that I felt it best to focus on one part of it. Is that Ok with you?

Yes that's fine, one part at a time works for me, although we'll need to look at how the parts might fit together too I think.

So what was it about my response that you didn't get fully?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Yes that's fine, one part at a time works for me, although we'll need to look at how the parts might fit together too I think.

So what was it about my response that you didn't get fully?

This doesn't seem to work though, since such a world leaves very little for god to do or explain. It is compatible with turtles all the way down, where by 'turtle' I mean 'blind algorithmic process'.
------Shark--------------


This bit......

Originally posted by knightmeister
This doesn't seem to work though, since such a world leaves very little for god to do or explain. It is compatible with turtles all the way down, where by 'turtle' I mean 'blind algorithmic process'.
------Shark--------------


This bit......

Ok, what I'm saying is that the sort of god that takes the path of setting up a universe with physical laws that allow for evolution, complex intelligent life but with the downside of natural disasters is at odds with the personally involved interventionist god of christianity. There is a tension there, between a kind of deism on the one hand and the christian view on the other.

So according to the bible, god does not regard the laws of nature that created us as inviolable, otherwise god would not have intervened in history in a miraculous way. Therefore, it is difficult to see why god doesn't save people from natural disasters. There is no obvious threat to free will from god doing this that I can see.

A better fit for the evidence might be that god is strictly non interventionist and doesn't intervene at all. That would explain why miraculous salvation from natural disaster is in such short supply. But in that case, it is difficult to deduce god's personality from what happens in the world. We could even substitute a blind algorithmic process as the fundamental origin and sustainer of all the regularity in the world, and this would have fewer contradictions in need of resolution.

Does that help?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Ok, what I'm saying is that the sort of god that takes the path of setting up a universe with physical laws that allow for evolution, complex intelligent life but with the downside of natural disasters is at odds with the personally involved interventionist god of christianity. There is a tension there, between a kind of deism on the one hand and the chri he world, and this would have fewer contradictions in need of resolution.

Does that help?

It does help.

The first thing to point out is that there are two separate issues here.

1) the question of whether a certain level of imperfection in creation is logical if God creates a free universe capable of sustaining free will.

2) What God chooses to do or not do after creating such a universe , and why

Secondly , it's also important to question what consitutes badness/evil/ or imperfection ("ickiness" ) and what that means and how much significance we place on it.

(Baer in mind what I say below I do not say flippantly or unsympathetically)

For example , we could automatically assume that a natural disaster (like Haiti) is obviously "bad" because a large number of people died. However , from a Christian perspective one could argue that all of us must die and that death is a beginning not an ending.

I know of some Christians who are excited about dying and in some ways long for it (not in the suicidal sense). I'm not overly keen on dyimng right now myself , but it's a perspective to consider.

The problem comes if we judge God's attitude to disasters by our own worldy standards. To us large numbers of people dying suddenly is unquestioningly bad. But if God is real - then maybe it's not so bad afterall. What's death if the human race has an eternal soul?

This is of course very very easy to "say" and I realise this. But the philosophical point is valid I think.

We could say "why does God allow 100,000 people to die in an earthquake? " - but God might say "95,000 of them (arbitrary figure) are now with me in eternal perfection. "

You see , because the world thinks in terms of death being "bad" and there being nothing afterwards then the significance it places on natural disasters and the problems it is supposed to create for Christians is not the same.

There is of course the brute physical suffering as well and that is something no doubt you want to bring up?

Originally posted by knightmeister
It does help.

The first thing to point out is that there are two separate issues here.

1) the question of whether a certain level of imperfection in creation is logical if God creates a free universe capable of sustaining free will.

2) What God chooses to do or not do after creating such a universe , and why

Secondly , it's also importan ...[text shortened]... hysical suffering as well and that is something no doubt you want to bring up?

Originally posted by knightmeister

The first thing to point out is that there are two separate issues here.

1) the question of whether a certain level of imperfection in creation is logical if God creates a free universe capable of sustaining free will.

2) What God chooses to do or not do after creating such a universe , and why
I agree that we can tackle these separately. I think I have agreed with you that the existence of evil is logically compatible with the OOO god. I sketched this out in the long post, but 1) rests on a number of assumptions that we haven't examined yet. We might get to that.

On 2), I have yet to see a plausible account of why god does not intervene in the case of natural disasters. So this remains to be addressed.

Secondly , it's also important to question what consitutes badness/evil/ or imperfection ("ickiness" ) and what that means and how much significance we place on it.

(Baer in mind what I say below I do not say flippantly or unsympathetically)

For example , we could automatically assume that a natural disaster (like Haiti) is obviously "bad" because a large number of people died. However , from a Christian perspective one could argue that all of us must die and that death is a beginning not an ending.
Did you realise I'd already said this? If you are unsure, I'll point out where.

There is of course the brute physical suffering as well and that is something no doubt you want to bring up?
The agony and anguish of those trapped and their relatives, yes. I don't think that pointing out the relative insignificance of this from the perspective of eternity constitutes a plausible account of why god should allow this. Do you? If so, why?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by knightmeister

[b]The first thing to point out is that there are two separate issues here.

1) the question of whether a certain level of imperfection in creation is logical if God creates a free universe capable of sustaining free will.

2) What God chooses to do or not do after creating such a universe , and why ...[text shortened]... rnity constitutes a plausible account of why god should allow this. Do you? If so, why?[/b]

On 2), I have yet to see a plausible account of why god does not intervene in the case of natural disasters. So this remains to be addressed.
----------------shark----------------------

And it's not an easy question with any cheesy and simplistic answer likely to be forthcoming. I don't actually have a full and complete answer on this , just an outlook and philosophy that is satisfying enough for me , but may not be for others.

One component of the "answer" for me comes from a different area of faith. For example , having a personal experience of God makes a difference here because although the answers are not always apparent , this does not have the disasterous effect on my belief that there is a reason for suffering to exist as an outside observer might think.

This is why from the outside Christians look disingenuous because one cannot understand how belief can be maintained in the face of such an overwhelming problem. But maintained it is because of the certainty gained from other areas of faith.

One of the ways I approach problem 2 (non-intervention in natural disasters) is to try and follow the whole thing through to it's logical conclusion. For example , if God did intervene where would he stop and how far woud he go? What would the hidden consequences be? Does he stop the tectonic plates moving altogether or only when an earthquake looks likely? Does he move on from interfering with faultlines all the way up to controlling the braking systems of every car that is just about to have an accident?


There is also the idea of the principle of non-intervention similar to the "prime directive" in the Star Trek series , where the principle is held to as a philosophy or approach despite circumstances where it seems pratically cruel to do so (although it is also broken). Maybe God swore to not intervene (or only intervene in certain ways) as a solemn promise to himself long before the univers was created?

There is also the idea that on one level God actually does not know what is going to happen until it actually happens. And that he had set up the universe in a way that can surprise him (because that was the whole point). To intervene in a predictive way (ie prevent an earthquake ) takes away some of this quality and might be the thin end of a wedge , although with this one there is still the problem of why he intervenes in other ways.

The other idea is that God is hiding himself from creation in order to allow freedom and choice. This may sound strange , but in this sense he does not want to make his existence or presence obvious. He is looking not to suffocate creation with his presence so that we can still have choice. The idea is that there will come a time when God's existence will be believed and known by all creation , because he will tear back the curtain reveal himself. But on that day no-one will have any choice whether to believe in him or not. In a way we cureently live in a little vaccuum of reality that God has allowed to exist so that we can decide for ourselves as it were.

There's a lot to pick at and criticise here , but these are some of the things I debate in my head when I think about this subject.

Originally posted by knightmeister
On 2), I have yet to see a plausible account of why god does not intervene in the case of natural disasters. So this remains to be addressed.
----------------shark----------------------

And it's not an easy question with any cheesy and simplistic answer likely to be forthcoming. I don't actually have a full and complete answer on this , just an ou ...[text shortened]... , but these are some of the things I debate in my head when I think about this subject.

I'm going to offer a response point by point, but I hope this doesn't come across as picky or critical. I think I can see how it hangs together for you, and how it would have to be beyond our capacity to explain rigorously if it were true.

So I hope you'll accept my rejoinders as my explanation of why the story falls apart for me. I wanted to understand why it held together for you, and as far as I'm concerned you've gone the extra mile, so thank you.

One component of the "answer" for me comes from a different area of faith. For example , having a personal experience of God makes a difference here because although the answers are not always apparent , this does not have the disasterous effect on my belief that there is a reason for suffering to exist as an outside observer might think.
I think I get that. This makes god a premise of any argument rather than a conclusion, since your knowledge of god is immanent (indwelling).

One of the ways I approach problem 2 (non-intervention in natural disasters) is to try and follow the whole thing through to it's logical conclusion. For example , if God did intervene where would he stop and how far woud he go? What would the hidden consequences be? Does he stop the tectonic plates moving altogether or only when an earthquake looks likely? Does he move on from interfering with faultlines all the way up to controlling the braking systems of every car that is just about to have an accident?
He wouldn't have to interfere with tectonic plates or braking systems. Just make it so that, on impact (of rubble, another car, a virus...etc) we were shielded. Simple really. And why not?

There is also the idea of the principle of non-intervention similar to the "prime directive" in the Star Trek series , where the principle is held to as a philosophy or approach despite circumstances where it seems pratically cruel to do so (although it is also broken). Maybe God swore to not intervene (or only intervene in certain ways) as a solemn promise to himself long before the univers was created?
The prime directive was honoured more in the breach than the observance by Kirk, but the fundamental point about directives is that they are a way of lashing ourselves to the mast. Recall Odysseus knew his ship would encounter the Sirens. He knew he would be unable to resist their song, so by binding his future actions by tying himself to the ship's mast, he ensured the right course of action would be followed.

That's what the prime directive attempted. The Federation knew it would face moral dilemmas that would render the voice of their liberal instincts as irresistable as a Siren song, but they recognised the peril of the unforseen consequences of intervention.

That's why this argument fails as far as I'm concerned. God isn't prone to Sirens and there are no unforseen consequences.


There is also the idea that on one level God actually does not know what is going to happen until it actually happens. And that he had set up the universe in a way that can surprise him (because that was the whole point). To intervene in a predictive way (ie prevent an earthquake ) takes away some of this quality and might be the thin end of a wedge , although with this one there is still the problem of why he intervenes in other ways.
Some strands of modern process theology embrace this idea, they label it 'kenosis', where god does the journey with us to the extent not just of the incarnation and suffering death on the cross, but even more fundamentally, god gives up, voluntarily, aspects of his own omniscience. An emptying out of self, on god's part.

Although this strand of faith has a powerful emotional appeal, logically it fails for the same reason all these slippery slope arguments fail, namely because it begs a huge question. That is, why set up such a world in the first place when there is no logical reason not to start at the heaven stage? If free will is of supreme value, god can be surprised by our decisions without having people crushed by rubble. Your argument establishes a logical possibility without approaching plausibility in my view.

The other idea is that God is hiding himself from creation in order to allow freedom and choice. This may sound strange , but in this sense he does not want to make his existence or presence obvious. He is looking not to suffocate creation with his presence so that we can still have choice. The idea is that there will come a time when God's existence will be believed and known by all creation , because he will tear back the curtain reveal himself. But on that day no-one will have any choice whether to believe in him or not. In a way we cureently live in a little vaccuum of reality that God has allowed to exist so that we can decide for ourselves as it were.
Why should the ability to decide for ourselves on the basis of sketchy, inconclusive evidence be a good thing? I think I have made sincere attempts to open my heart to Jesus, I have investigated and participated in other traditions also, but no revelation happened.

The truth is, you suffocate in a vacuum, not in god's loving atmosphere. I'd rather god tore back the curtain, because I don't see the choice to be sincerely wrong to to be of any value whatsoever.

So it seems that we have debated the same questions in our heads, but have come to different conclusions. I think I have a better picture of your path to the extent that I can imagine how I'd tread it. I would do it this way: I would trust in the infinite wisdom of god whilst recognising that my all too finite wisdom cannot explain or solve the problems of suffering and evil. I would have a general idea, as through a glass darkly, that there was no easier way to make a universe that is as rich with possibility as this, and I would believe that if I followed the path of rightousness revealed to me, when I met my maker, the pieces of the puzzle would fall into a pattern exquisite beyond all mortal understanding, and then the purpose of creating such a rich world would be manifest.

Or something like that...🙂

Maybe my imagination is so limited that I have a very poor grasp of how to tread such a path as yours. To think otherwise commits the sin of pride, perhaps.

In any case, I can't walk that walk. I don't believe in it. The plot is so full of holes from my perspective that I just can't get into it. Logically I can't rule out the possibility that I'll get to hell and kick myself. "Doh! I'm here for eternity, if only I'd realised, it seems so obvious now. But of course, I now also realise why my ability to be so wrong about it all, yet unaware of the fact, was essential to god's plan for me." But morally and credibly, day to day, I do dismiss the idea.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I'm going to offer a response point by point, but I hope this doesn't come across as picky or critical. I think I can see how it hangs together for you, and how it would have to be beyond our capacity to explain rigorously if it were true.

So I hope you'll accept my rejoinders as my explanation of why the story falls apart for me. I wanted to understan ...[text shortened]... " But morally and credibly, day to day, I do dismiss the idea.

What I like about your response is that it is very considered and authentic. Unlike some responses I get you have not sought to be-little the attempts I have made at explaining this issue. I also think you have recognised that I am not seeking to "explain away" the problem myself. In this sense we are both being authentic , which is all a truthseeker can do.

Anyway, before this becomes a love-in , may I pick up on one isolated point you made. You said............

"That's why this argument fails as far as I'm concerned. God isn't prone to Sirens and there are no unforseen consequences." ---shark


Could you explain this further? I fail to see why God could not commit himself to a course of action and follow it through even though at times he may be tempted to depart from it.

I also don't agree that there are "no unforeseen circumstances". My belief is that God has set things up so that he can be surprised and delighted with his creatures/ creation but also saddened by it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
What I like about your response is that it is very considered and authentic. Unlike some responses I get you have not sought to be-little the attempts I have made at explaining this issue. I also think you have recognised that I am not seeking to "explain away" the problem myself. In this sense we are both being authentic , which is all a truthseeker c ...[text shortened]... e can be surprised and delighted with his creatures/ creation but also saddened by it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Thanks and likewise.

Could you explain this further? I fail to see why God could not commit himself to a course of action and follow it through even though at times he may be tempted to depart from it.
I don't quite see how a perfect being like god could be prone to temptation in that way though.

I do accept your point about god creating things so he can be surprised, but I think this 'kenosis' has limited scope. God might have eschewed meddling in human affairs to the extent of stifling our creativity, but I can see no reason why god should be surprised by plate tectonics. Nor can I see why his intervention in such matters as natural disasters would threaten our free will or creativity.

I can see the need for flawed beings like us to adopt things like a Prime Directive, because our ability to see the full consequences of our actions is limited and our ability to fix things if they go horribly wrong is also not great.

But it is different with god, even if we can surprise him, god can fix things. If we think of the analogy of chess, if I played against the world number 1, some of my moves might surprise him, even to the extent of causing him to alter his game plan. But at no stage would he lose control of the game.