For Better or Worse, II

Originally posted by Soothfast

Whoa, man.

I think you can chalk up the Ty-D-Bol in the hookah as a fail.

Mathematicians love being clever too:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259863/Worlds-cleverest-man-turns-1million-prize-solving-mathematics-greatest-puzzles.html
.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Mathematicians love being clever too:

[b]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259863/Worlds-cleverest-man-turns-1million-prize-solving-mathematics-greatest-puzzles.html
.[/b]

I read a book about that character. A strange duck.

Originally posted by Soothfast
I read a book about that character. A strange duck.

Imagine the squalid conditions he's content to live in. Whether genetic predisposition, culturally imposed

or socio-economic status learned... still seems strange to those of us whose lives are more complicated.

Originally posted by LemonJello
remember that prior to the Fall, both the man and the woman were autonomous wholly volitional creatures for an unspecified amount of time.

And I take it that the man and the woman did not have to endure any tsunamis prior to the fall. See, this would only show that premise 2 is true under your own reading of the "greater good". This only affirms ...[text shortened]... You've already shot yourself in the foot on the rejection of premise 2 approach.[/b]

And I take it that the man and the woman did not have to endure any tsunamis prior to the fall.
Correct.
In God's plan, the environment was in perfect balance, without need of occasional catastrophe in order to right itself.


This only affirms that instances of suffering such as those associated with the tsunami I brought up are not logically necessary for some greater good, even by your own lights regarding what constitutes the greater good.
Um, how so?
You apply "logically necessary" only because you assume that the post-Fall consists of nothing more than defiant volition, when the entire realm of the post-Fall world is what needs to be considered in order for anything to make sense.

When man rejected Lives, supplanting it with Good and Evil, it wasn't as though he initiated volition at that moment.
Volition was in play the entire time up to that point of the Fall and has remained in play ever since.
What changed was the system.
We we went from a system dependent upon God (Lives), wherein we enjoyed a perfectly harmonious environment without hint of suffering or ill, to a system independent from God (Good and Evil), wherein we struggle to survive in a somewhat hostile environment full of suffering and death.

While you might not label tsunamis and the like as "logically necessary," they are nonetheless the result of a system which does not benefit from God's control.
You seem to think the Christian views the post-Fall reality as nothing more than giving everyone a chance to exercise their volition.
God didn't need the Fall in order for that to happen; you will recall how man exercised his volition from the moment he was formed from the dust.

Are you saying that God, under your conception, is not as defined in the GAFE; that God, under your conception, does not possess one or more of those capacities attached to the definition of 'God' in the argument (omnipotence, omniscience, moral perfection)? Or are you saying that God, under your conception, possesses said capacities but chooses not to exercise them in the "post-fall"?
The latter is the case.

If the former, then you should simply reject the GAFE on the grounds that the 'God' defined in the argument does not match your own conception (which is fair enough, but of course you will have to live with whatever upshot there is).
I couldn't reject the stated properties of God, as they are true to form.
Premise 2 seems to be the place to argue from, since the events which are crucial to the whole exercise are described therein.
Premise 2 is also where the biggest gaps exist, as it makes an unwarranted assumption (how post-Fall is strictly for the volitional aspect) as well as misses a crucial reality (the restraint of God's attributes during this phase of human history).

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And I take it that the man and the woman did not have to endure any tsunamis prior to the fall.
Correct.
In God's plan, the environment was in perfect balance, without need of occasional catastrophe in order to right itself.


This only affirms that instances of suffering such as those associated with the tsunami I brought up are not logically necessary cial reality (the restraint of God's attributes during this phase of human history).

"You seem to think the Christian views the post-Fall reality as nothing more than giving everyone a chance to exercise their volition.
God didn't need the Fall in order for that to happen; you will recall how man exercised his volition from the moment he was formed from the dust."

Long before man was formed from the dust and excercised volition, volition was alive and well. Along with a person's unique sense of being and identity, it's an essential component of selfhood. Before The Fall; before Adam and Isha were formed; even before the creation of angels, God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit were making choices in Eternity Past. This panorama dwarfs man's exercise of volition in time.
.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And I take it that the man and the woman did not have to endure any tsunamis prior to the fall.
Correct.
In God's plan, the environment was in perfect balance, without need of occasional catastrophe in order to right itself.


This only affirms that instances of suffering such as those associated with the tsunami I brought up are not logical reality (the restraint of God's attributes during this phase of human history).

Um, how so?
You apply "logically necessary" only because you assume that the post-Fall consists of nothing more than defiant volition, when the entire realm of the post-Fall world is what needs to be considered in order for anything to make sense.

No, I have told you exactly in what sense the argument applies the phrase 'logically necessary'. I cannot help you here if you cannot even bother to understand what the term means here, when you have been provided with a clear definition now multiple times.

As to why your explanations already affirm that premise 2 is true, it is a very straightforward matter. What you have done is outlined a possible world (what you call the pre-fall, which is clearly possible in your view, since you hold that it was in fact actualized) wherein both (1) the specifics of the greater good are fully satisfied inasmuch as you have articulated them (that the greater good is served by God's providing for human creatures who are fully autonomous, volitional creatures) and (2) yet where instances of suffering such as those associated with tsunamis do not obtain. It follows IMMEDIATELY from this and and the definition of logical necessity that such instances of suffering are not logically necessary for greater good, according to your own detailing of what constitutes the greater good. So, premise 2 is true under your own detailing of what constitutes the greater good. Again, all very straightforward.

While you might not label tsunamis and the like as "logically necessary," they are nonetheless the result of a system which does not benefit from God's control.

Again, I have told you precisely in what sense the argument employs the label 'logically necessary'. You can continue to play dumb here, but the following is the fact of the matter: under the definition as given, your own arguments entail that tsunamis and the instances of suffering that attend them are not "logically necessary"; hence, premise 2 is true under the reading of the greater good that you yourself have provided.

I couldn't reject the stated properties of God, as they are true to form.

Fine, then you have to reject one or more of the GAFE's premises. Which one(s) are you going to bring argument against?

Premise 2 seems to be the place to argue from, since the events which are crucial to the whole exercise are described therein.

No. As I've already clearly explained, your arguments up to now actually entail that premise 2 is true. You'll need to reject some other premise, or revise your argument up to this point.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Um, how so?
You apply "logically necessary" only because you assume that the post-Fall consists of nothing more than defiant volition, when the entire realm of the post-Fall world is what needs to be considered in order for anything to make sense. [/b]

No, I have told you exactly in what sense the argument applies the phrase 'logically necessary'. I can ...[text shortened]... 'll need to reject some other premise, or revise your argument up to this point.[/b]

No, I have told you exactly in what sense the argument applies the phrase 'logically necessary'. I cannot help you here if you cannot even bother to understand what the term means here, when you have been provided with a clear definition now multiple times.
And yet I think I have a pretty clear understanding of what the phrase is intended to mean.
Let’s see if you think I have it right.

The suffering occurring in the world is a result of volition in opposition to God.
Yet some suffering has nothing to do with volition, either directly or indirectly.
That suffering is not necessary to achieve God’s aims.
God ought to act in such as way as to eliminate such needless suffering.

Does that about cover it?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]"You seem to think the Christian views the post-Fall reality as nothing more than giving everyone a chance to exercise their volition.
God didn't need the Fall in order for that to happen; you will recall how man exercised his volition from the moment he was formed from the dust."

Long before man was formed from the dust and excercised volit ...[text shortened]... ing choices in Eternity Past. This panorama dwarfs man's exercise of volition in time.
.[/b]

Good point.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]No, I have told you exactly in what sense the argument applies the phrase 'logically necessary'. I cannot help you here if you cannot even bother to understand what the term means here, when you have been provided with a clear definition now multiple times.
And yet I think I have a pretty clear understanding of what the phrase is intended to mean. ...[text shortened]... t in such as way as to eliminate such needless suffering.[/quote]

Does that about cover it?[/b]

Sorry, I don't understand your question or what precedes it. At any rate, no, this does not convince me that you understand how the term 'logically necessary' applies here, which is what I thought was at issue.

Let's go through this again. To say that X is logically necessary for Y means, basically, that if X does not obtain, then it is logically impossible for Y to obtain. That is, it means there is a logical contradiction of the form P & not-P that is entailed by the conjunction of "It is not the case that X" and "It is the case that Y". So, again, it is a very straightforward matter that your arguments up to now actually entail the truth of premise 2. To recap yet again:

(A.1) You say the greater good is served by God's providing for human creatures that are fully autonomous creatures.
(A.2) According to you, there is a logically possible (entails no contradictions) state of affairs instantiated in the "pre-fall" under which God provides for human creatures that are fully autonomous creatures and yet where instances of suffering such as those associated with tsunamis do not obtain.
(A.3) From A.2 and from the definition of logical necessity, instances of suffering such as those associated with tsunamis are not logically necessary for God's providing for human creatures that are fully autonomous creatures, on your view.
(A.4) From A.1 & A.3, instances of suffering such as those associated with tsunamis are not logically necessary for the greater good, on your view.
(A.5) Instances of suffering such as those assocated with tsunamis have obtained.
(A.6) From A.4 & A.5, there have obtained instances of suffering that are not logically necessary for some greater good, according to your own view of what constitutes the greater good.
(A.C) Hence, premise 2 is true, according to your own view of what constitutes the greater good.

Seems very straightforward to me. Again, you'll need to revise your position (if you still intend to reject premise 2), or reject some other premise(s).

Originally posted by LemonJello
Sorry, I don't understand your question or what precedes it. At any rate, no, this does not convince me that you understand how the term 'logically necessary' applies here, which is what I thought was at issue.

Let's go through this again. To say that X is logically necessary for Y means, basically, that if X does not obtain, then it is logically imp ...[text shortened]... osition (if you still intend to reject premise 2), or reject some other premise(s).

Okay, I see the finer point you have been trying to get me to see--- that is, if it got through this time.

So you're essentially saying that if the greater good was achievable pre-Fall without natural disasters, then it should be achievable post-Fall as well?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Okay, I see the finer point you have been trying to get me to see--- that is, if it got through this time.

So you're essentially saying that if the greater good was achievable pre-Fall without natural disasters, then it should be achievable post-Fall as well?

Right. We may focus LJ's point by asking whether the Fall itself was logically necessary. I see no contradiction in supposing that humans could have simply continued to live in harmony with God's will. If they freely did so pre-Fall, then there is a logically possible world where they continued to freely do so; where nobody messed up. But if that is right, then the trials and ills of the post-Fall world are not logically necessary. Note here that I am not claiming God could have intervened to prevent humans from acting contrary to His will. He could have, but perhaps it would be morally sub-optimal to violate human freedom in this way. Rather, God could have chosen to create a world where humans freely and continuously hewed to His will. Humans would have had the capacity to choose to act contrary to God's will, but wouldn't, as a matter of fact, ever have done so. In any case, God could have created any number of less severe post-Fall worlds. He could have created a world without cancer, for instance, or without reality television. Alternatively, God could have equipped us to better navigate a post-Fall world. He could have imbued us with psychologies that more easily tend towards compassion and generosity, or that make the cultivation of these character traits easier than their contrary vices. This all gets back to LJ's point about you actually arguing in a manner that supports premise 2. When you point out how things were better with us, and in us, and between us and God pre-Fall, you are painting the picture of a way it is logically possible for the world to be. Unless you are prepared to argue that the Fall was logically necessary; that it would be contradictory to suppose it could have not happened, then you seem to be stuck with premise 2. But how would such an argument go? You could claim that there are some moral goods or values that could only be exemplified in a post-Fall world. Perhaps certain types of other-regarding virtues can only be instantiated in a world where people are sometimes subject to severe harms. But would these harms have to be as ubiquitous as they are in the actual world?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Okay, I see the finer point you have been trying to get me to see--- that is, if it got through this time.

So you're essentially saying that if the greater good was achievable pre-Fall without natural disasters, then it should be achievable post-Fall as well?

So you're essentially saying that if the greater good was achievable pre-Fall without natural disasters, then it should be achievable post-Fall as well?

What I am essentially saying is that your arguments up to now would only count in favor, not against, premise 2. You provided a possible description wherein the greater good was brought about in the absence of instances of suffering such as those that attend natural disasters; so, that only implies that instances of suffering such as those that attend natural disasters are not logically necessary for bringing about the greater good. But of course, instances of suffering such as those that attend natural disasters have obtained; hence, premise 2.

So, basically, I do not see how you can reject premise 2 without substantial revision or restructuring of your argument.

Also, bbarr has good clarifying remarks in his post above.

Originally posted by bbarr
Right. We may focus LJ's point by asking whether the Fall itself was logically necessary. I see no contradiction in supposing that humans could have simply continued to live in harmony with God's will. If they freely did so pre-Fall, then there is a logically possible world where they continued to freely do so; where nobody messed up. But if that is right, the ...[text shortened]... vere harms. But would these harms have to be as ubiquitous as they are in the actual world?

...or without reality television.

Hallelujah!

Originally posted by bbarr
Right. We may focus LJ's point by asking whether the Fall itself was logically necessary. I see no contradiction in supposing that humans could have simply continued to live in harmony with God's will. If they freely did so pre-Fall, then there is a logically possible world where they continued to freely do so; where nobody messed up. But if that is right, the ...[text shortened]... vere harms. But would these harms have to be as ubiquitous as they are in the actual world?

Thanks for the thoughtful post, bbarr.
Here's what I can muster, given all the particulars and whatever limitations my eloquence suffers.

The GAFE wishes God's attributes to never be restrained, no matter what the reaction of man.
If man rejects, refuses and otherwise supplants His system in favor of a system without intrinsic good, God is expected to mitigate (what? the most egregious? the most physically/psychologically painful?) the damages.
It begs the question, of course: why those things?
Why draw the line on some of the suffering, and not all of it?

If man knowingly and willfully options for 'Good and Evil' instead of 'Lives,' why are we to expect God to act as though the decision was never made?

If He doesn't require suffering in order to see the greater good (ala pre-Fall), why was it allowed?
Because this--- post-Fall, sans God's rulership of the planet--- is what man chose.
The question posed was 'does man need God to be good?'
Satan denies the need for God.
Human history says something different.
His plan for pre-Fall is different than His plan for post-Fall, wherein His attributes are muted.
Yet He continues to work with the material created: He leaves the choice to man.
That's really the answer, too.
You paint a picture of a better-equipped creature, which looks mysteriously like the Christian... the same one who enters back into God's system, regardless of the environment.

Put simply, we can't reasonably expect God to put forth the same benefits of His character when we are (in essence) His enemy, as He would put forth toward His friends.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Thanks for the thoughtful post, bbarr.
Here's what I can muster, given all the particulars and whatever limitations my eloquence suffers.

The GAFE wishes God's attributes to never be restrained, no matter what the reaction of man.
If man rejects, refuses and otherwise supplants His system in favor of a system without intrinsic good, God is expec ...[text shortened]... acter when we are (in essence) His enemy, as He would put forth toward His friends.

So, specifically, which premise(s) of the GAFE are you rejecting?

If He doesn't require suffering in order to see the greater good (ala pre-Fall), why was it allowed?
Because this--- post-Fall, sans God's rulership of the planet--- is what man chose.

So you're saying that God allows gratuitous suffering because it is what man chose? Really? Man (collectively, somehow) chose to be visited by tsunamis and cancers and whatnot? Do you know any persons who choose to get visited by natural disasters and other unfortunate articles of the natural lottery? And don't natural disasters and whatnot sometimes visit members of the human race who do not even have the capacity to make morally relevant, reasoned choices (like a neonate or something)? And anyhow, how is it a coherent idea to suggest that man collectively (and somehow across the ages and generations) made a morally releavant choice, as if "man" is itself an agent? This all sounds pretty bizarre. Also, what are you suggesting is my culpability in regards specifically to the decisions and actions of my forebears?