For Better or Worse, II

Originally posted by LemonJello
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? M ...[text shortened]... ng is my culpability in regards specifically to the decisions and actions of my forebears?[/b]

There have been countless debates as to the man's (Adam) ability to ascertain exactly what God meant when He said, "Dying, you will die."
Clearly, Adam did not foresee me, right?
Whatever he took the double-death to mean--- even if it was nothing more than a fuzzy unknown--- he knew it was not-God... and he chose it anyway.

The seminal progeny of Adam were thus cast into his choice.
When we bitch and moan against it, our complaints do nothing more than underscore our ignorance of what it is truly all about.
Having been coddled and cuddled into believing the Great Being is supposed to be the equivalent of a Giant Teddy Bear Hug, we petulantly demand that God deal with us on the basis of His love.
Thank God (ha!) He had a plan much greater than that; instead opting to approach man on the basis of justice--- knowing beforehand that man's choice would make the love approach an infinite deal breaker for man.

We didn't ask for natural disasters.
However, we didn't ask to be born, either.
We were born into an era with natural disasters as a result of Adam's choice.
Had Adam continued to choose Lives instead of Good and Evil, there would be no natural disasters.
Had Adam continued to choose Lives instead of Good and Evil, there would be no us.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

There have been countless debates as to the man's (Adam) ability to ascertain exactly what God meant when He said, "Dying, you will die."
Clearly, Adam did not foresee me, right?
Whatever he took the double-death to mean--- even if it was nothing more than a fuzzy unknown--- he knew it was not-God... and he chose it anyway.

The seminal progeny of Adam ...[text shortened]... isasters.
Had Adam continued to choose Lives instead of Good and Evil, there would be no us.

"Having been coddled and cuddled into believing the Great Being is supposed to be the equivalent of a Giant Teddy Bear Hug, we petulantly demand that God deal with us on the basis of His love.
Thank God (ha!) He had a plan much greater than that; instead opting to approach man on the basis of justice--- knowing beforehand that man's choice would make the love approach an infinite deal breaker for man."

Rare clarity of expression, FK. Implied (though not elaborated), the fact that 'love' provided the motivation to execute His Divine Plan.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
There have been countless debates as to the man's (Adam) ability to ascertain exactly what God meant when He said, "Dying, you will die."
Clearly, Adam did not foresee me, right?
Whatever he took the double-death to mean--- even if it was nothing more than a fuzzy unknown--- he knew it was not-God... and he chose it anyway.

The seminal progeny of Ada ters.
Had Adam continued to choose Lives instead of Good and Evil, there would be no us.

So which premise(s) are you rejecting?

Despite your innuendo that the GAFE incorrectly views God as some giant teddy bear, you've already admitted that the GAFE is "true to form" in its stated properties of God. Remember?!? Think waaaaayyyyyy, waaaayyyyy back to...uh, uhm, uh....oh yeah, one whole page ago in this thread. I put the ball in your court then to reject the GAFE on the grounds that its stated properties of God do not accurately reflect your conception of God. And what was your response? Oh no, you said, you couldn't do that because the stated properties are "true to form". So, give over.

Now, since you admit that the GAFE's stated properties of God are true to form, and since the argument is logically valid; if you don't like the conclusion of of the GAFE (that no such God exists); then you're committed to one or more of the premises being false. So, which premise(s) are you going to reject? You started out by saying that you are going to reject premise 2. But, on the contrary, I've already shown that your arguments do not support a denial of premise 2 (actually, just the opposite, they affirm premise 2 to be true). So, sorry to be a broken record, but: WHICH PREMISE(S) ARE YOU GOING TO REJECT?

And now you also seem to be contradicting yourself. You said before that God allows gratuitous suffering that attends things like natural disasters because it was our choice. But now you say we didn't choose things like natural disasters. Which is it?

Also, I don't see here any coherent response to the question about our culpability for the actions or choices of our forebears. In what bizarro world does it hold that I am personally culpable for the actions/choices of some ancient long-dead man? It would be a very bizarre contortion of reasoning to suggest that modern man receives or deserves natural disasters because some long-dead guy made a choice once upon a time. First, it's bizarre to suggest that something like a human act of volition would cause or bring about natural disasters. 😵😵 Does that follow from some sort of bizarro chaos theory? Secondly, even if there were such bizarro causal chains that regulate how natural disasters spring up due to the fact that some dead guy made a choice thousands of years ago, God could simply disallow their playing out. And He would, given that He has those true-to-form stated properties.

Originally posted by LemonJello
So which premise(s) are you rejecting?

Despite your innuendo that the GAFE incorrectly views God as some giant teddy bear, you've already admitted that the GAFE is "true to form" in its stated properties of God. Remember?!? Think waaaaayyyyyy, waaaayyyyy back to...uh, uhm, uh....oh yeah, one whole page ago in this thread. I put the ball in your cour ...[text shortened]... playing out. And He would, given that He has those true-to-form stated properties.

So which premise(s) are you rejecting?
As stated, I reject premise 2, on the basis of its incorrect assumptions.

Pre-Fall, was anyone questioning God's interaction with man?
Were there any moral misgivings about why natural disasters didn't occur, why man was living forever?
Nope. In its (questioning God's attributes) place, there were countless years of contented living, man communing openly with the Creator.
Eventually, however, something else presented itself: a growing, nagging belief that perhaps God was holding out on them--- that He was keeping something desirable from them.
Still no suffering, no natural disasters, no death; but certainly less contentedness.
Even in paradise, God could be questioned, could be doubted.
We are not told how long the man and the woman were content.
Neither are we privy to how long they lived with doubt.
So if you want to see God mitigate suffering while volition was yet free, look no further than the period of time of doubt immediately preceding the Fall.
But, of course, there wasn't really any suffering to mitigate, technically speaking.
No one had made the only available conscious decision against God, even during the doubting period.
There was pride, lust, even twisting of God's words--- but there was no volitional violation, thus no breaking of the renewable 24-hour contract.

The Fall was nothing more than a choice.
Either you will continue living under the system of God or you will choose the system of Good and Evil... and all that either entails.
It took a conscious choice on the part of man in order to remove man from Lives and place the entire world under the system of Good and Evil.

Post-Fall, neither the man nor the woman questioned God's interaction with man.
They knew clearly why life was hard, why the paradise they enjoyed was now unreachable, why they were slowly dying.
They taught their children, who taught their children and so on and so forth, about why man was separated from God and (more importantly) what was being done about the gap.
No one questioned the attributes of God even while they bemoaned the state of man.
Eventually the story was drowned out and replaced with other scenarios, up to and including the present time.

You complain: I didn't get the same choice as them!
Outcome of such a scenario: I'd be arguing with someone else instead of you about what that darned LemonJello did all those years before.

You complain: no one chooses natural disasters!
Reality: none of our choices brought them about; blame Adam for them since he is the one who chose this system.

You complain: how is that fair?
Better question:
Would you rather have:
a) the opportunity for eternal life of the sort Adam and the woman shared with God, in perfect contentedness forever, or
b) that same eternal life PLUS rewards and richest beyond your wildest imaginations?

We find ourselves in an age with just that question posed to each of us.
Adam and Eve made their choices in the Garden, and then again when faced with the gift of salvation.
They will once again share in the reality of communion with the Creator, as they did in Eden--- and no more.
But you were born in an age of unprecedented possible rewards--- way beyond the wonder of what is given believers born before this time.
The questions facing us bear a similarity to those the man and the woman faced, but the rewards are exponentially greater than ever before, than anyone's imagination.

Don't get hung up on a question that isn't really a legitimate question.
You can't expect the comforts of Eden when Adam made it inaccessible to us.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]So which premise(s) are you rejecting?
As stated, I reject premise 2, on the basis of its incorrect assumptions.

Pre-Fall, was anyone questioning God's interaction with man?
Were there any moral misgivings about why natural disasters didn't occur, why man was living forever?
Nope. In its (questioning God's attributes) place, there were countl ...[text shortened]... estion.
You can't expect the comforts of Eden when Adam made it inaccessible to us.[/b]

As stated, I reject premise 2

You can keep on saying that, but I have already presented a counter-argument that shows that your responses would actually go toward supporting, not rejecting, premise 2. Again, here is my counter-argument:

(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.

So, where have I gone wrong here? Which of my (A.1) through (A.6) are false?

Beyond that, how exactly does the rest of what you have posted here purport to show that premise 2 is false?

Originally posted by LemonJello
As stated, I reject premise 2

You can keep on saying that, but I have already presented a counter-argument that shows that your responses would actually go toward supporting, not rejecting, premise 2. Again, here is my counter-argument:

[quote](A.1) You say the greater good is served by God's providing for human creatures that are fully autonom ...[text shortened]... exactly does the rest of what you have posted here purport to show that premise 2 is false?[/b]

So, where have I gone wrong here? Which of my (A.1) through (A.6) are false?
(A.2) and (A.3)

The pre-Fall world shows us that God was able to interact with man on the basis of love for an undetermined period of time, without contradiction to any of His attributes.
The post-Fall world shows us that God is unable to interact with man on the basis of love unless He is willing/able to forego one or more of His attributes.
Instead, God interacts with man on the basis of justice without contradicting any of His attributes.
The post-Fall world does not benefit from God's direct rule, and as such, is subject to the harsh realities that we see.

If we've learned nothing from the lesson, we can be assured of this: environment makes no difference when it comes to man's volition.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]So, where have I gone wrong here? Which of my (A.1) through (A.6) are false?
(A.2) and (A.3)

The pre-Fall world shows us that God was able to interact with man on the basis of love for an undetermined period of time, without contradiction to any of His attributes.
The post-Fall world shows us that God is unable to interact with man on the basi ...[text shortened]... , we can be assured of this: environment makes no difference when it comes to man's volition.[/b]

Exactly how is (A.2) false? It follows directly from what you have been saying. You keep talking about how during the pre-fall, man was free and communed with God, etc, and yet there were no natural disasters. Hence, (A.2) follows directly. And (A.3) is obviously true as well. Given (A.2), (A.3) just follows from the definition of logical necessity.

I am fully willing to hear your case out, and I really appreciate that you are willing to present a considered case in response to an argument against your theism (which is quite refreshing for this forum). However, honestly, your case doesn't make any sense to me. You say you are rejecting premise 2; yet the particulars of your case entail premise 2. So, it's a bit of a head-scratcher for me.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]So, where have I gone wrong here? Which of my (A.1) through (A.6) are false?
(A.2) and (A.3)

The pre-Fall world shows us that God was able to interact with man on the basis of love for an undetermined period of time, without contradiction to any of His attributes.
The post-Fall world shows us that God is unable to interact with man on the basi ...[text shortened]... , we can be assured of this: environment makes no difference when it comes to man's volition.[/b]

The pre-Fall world shows us that God was able to interact with man on the basis of love for an undetermined period of time, without contradiction to any of His attributes.
The post-Fall world shows us that God is unable to interact with man on the basis of love unless He is willing/able to forego one or more of His attributes.

So now you're claiming that (A.2) is false because while it was true that natural disasters were not logically necessary for the greater good in the pre-fall, they are logically necessary for the greater good in the post-fall?

If so, that response fails to be coherent. The "pre-fall" would constitute one possible world; the "post-fall" another. What is logically necessary in one is logically necessary in another, since necessity "cuts across" all possible worlds. This is true axiomatically (unless you want to deny an axiom of S5 modal logic).

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]So, where have I gone wrong here? Which of my (A.1) through (A.6) are false?
(A.2) and (A.3)

The pre-Fall world shows us that God was able to interact with man on the basis of love for an undetermined period of time, without contradiction to any of His attributes.
The post-Fall world shows us that God is unable to interact with man on the basi ...[text shortened]... , we can be assured of this: environment makes no difference when it comes to man's volition.[/b]

Instead, God interacts with man on the basis of justice without contradicting any of His attributes.
The post-Fall world does not benefit from God's direct rule, and as such, is subject to the harsh realities that we see.

So you're claiming that justice demands that God let tsunamis and other natural disasters play out in the post-fall? Is this some version of bizarro-justice?

Originally posted by LemonJello
The pre-Fall world shows us that God was able to interact with man on the basis of love for an undetermined period of time, without contradiction to any of His attributes.
The post-Fall world shows us that God is unable to interact with man on the basis of love unless He is willing/able to forego one or more of His attributes.

So now you're claimi worlds. This is true axiomatically (unless you want to deny an axiom of S5 modal logic).[/b]

I think the hang-up here (as I've fixated on since the beginning) is the term "logically necessary," or at least its application to the scene.

In a world ruled by GodReveal Hidden Content, it is logically necessary that no suffering, natural disaster or death can occur.

In a world which is not ruled by GodReveal Hidden Content, it is logically necessary for suffering, natural disaster and death to occur.

The GAFE argument wants God's governance in a world ruled by natural causes--- this is the real contradiction.
Man's volition is being tested in two different systems: first in a world ruled by God and now in a world where God is remote.

It's kind of likeReveal Hidden Contenta light in a room.
If the light is on, it is logically necessary for the room to reflect that light.
If the light is off, it is logically necessary for the room to be dark.
In the pre-Fall world, the light was on.
In the post-Fall world, the light is off.

I have no idea what S5 modal logic refers to without searching for it on the internet.
If you think I need to for the discussion, I will, however.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I think the hang-up here (as I've fixated on since the beginning) is the term "logically necessary," or at least its application to the scene.

In a world ruled by God[hidden]given His attributes[/hidden], it is logically necessary that no suffering, natural disaster or death can occur.

In a world which is not ruled by God[hidden]governed by strictly ching for it on the internet.
If you think I need to for the discussion, I will, however.

Sorry, but your argument just doesn't make sense. It is self-contradictory. You're claiming that both (a) in the pre-fall, it is not the case that suffering/disasters/death are logically necessary for bringing about greater good and (b) in the post-fall, it is the case that suffering/disasters/death are logically necessary for bringing about greater good, where in both (a) and (b), the "greater good" refers to God's providing for human creatures that are autonomous creatures. But (a) and (b) obviously entail contradiction, since (a) entails that there is no logical contradiction in the state of affairs where the greater good obtains and yet suffering/disasters/death do not obtain; whereas (b) entails just the opposite. This is incoherent nonsense, plain and simple. As I already mentioned, another way to see that it is incoherent is to note that the pre-fall can be taken to constitute a possible world and the post-fall can be taken to constitute another possible world. You're claiming that instances of suffering/disasters/death are logically necessary in one but not the other. But this violates a common axiom of modal logic. So, I have no plans to take this seriously or consider it any further, unless you care to explain what justifies your jettisoning such an axiom.

I have read through your case carefully, and I think I have given it an objective read. It simply does not support a denial of premise 2 of the GAFE. If anything, I would think your case targets premise 5. After all, you seemed to be saying that in the pre-fall it was consistent with God's attributes that He disallow (or at least not provide for, or provide for the absence of, or some such) things like natural disasters; whereas, you claim, in the post-fall, justice and whatnot dictate (somehow by necessity) that He allow/provide for such things. So, I guess this implies that it is not the case that God prefer that such instances of suffering not obtain and act accordingly, which would mean denial of premise 5. Of course, this response to the GAFE makes absolutely no sense as well, since there is no sane reading of 'justice' whereby justice demands that natural disasters occur and also no sane reading whereby natural disasters are somehow logically necessary for human autonomy.

So, basically, I have enjoyed the discussion, but there is nothing here to take seriously as a response to the GAFE. Of course, if you have clarifications or modifications to your responses, I would be interested in those.

"GAFE"?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Sorry, but your argument just doesn't make sense. It is self-contradictory. You're claiming that both (a) in the pre-fall, it is not the case that suffering/disasters/death are logically necessary for bringing about greater good and (b) in the post-fall, it is the case that suffering/disasters/death are logically necessary for bringing about greater goo ...[text shortened]... have clarifications or modifications to your responses, I would be interested in those.

The assumption that suffering is (or can be) logically necessary is the root of the issue.

As stated, if we have learned anything of the nature of the issue from the pre-Fall to the post-Fall world, it is that environment doesn't change anything as it relates to man's volition.

We saw a world which benefited from all of God's attributes in full rulership, and we now live in a world which does not benefit from God's attributes while we struggle under the rulership of another system.

It is obvious that man can accept God's system just as readily as he can reject God's system--- regardless of the system in rule.

In your wording, you consider it incoherent nonsense to expect darkness when light is absent, as though light must be consistent, regardless of the local situation.
That is nonsense!

And we haven't even qualified "suffering" beyond the broadest of strokes.
How much suffering is acceptable in order for the formula to remain balanced?
Who determines the level of suffering?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The assumption that suffering is (or can be) logically necessary is the root of the issue.

As stated, if we have learned anything of the nature of the issue from the pre-Fall to the post-Fall world, it is that environment doesn't change anything as it relates to man's volition.

We saw a world which benefited from all of God's attributes in ful le in order for the formula to remain balanced?
Who determines the level of suffering?

The assumption that suffering is (or can be) logically necessary is the root of the issue.

Not sure what you mean. The argument certainly does not hinge on whether or not suffering can be logically necessary for some greater good. After all, even if some instances of suffering can be (or in fact, are) logically necessary for the greater good, premise 2 will still be true (unless, of course, ALL instances of suffering that have obtained are as such).

At any rate, you seem to have some problems assimilating 'logically necessary' as it is used in the GAFE. Again, an instance of suffering is logically necessary for the greater good iff a logical contradiction follows from the greater good's obtaining in the absence of that instance of suffering. You have implied that things like tsunamis are logically necessary for the greater good in our post-fall world. Well, put your money where your mouth is and demonstrate this putative fact: show us the contradiction (explicitly show and state what it is) that follows from the greater good's obtaining in a world like ours but in the absence of tsunamis. Other posters will no doubt identify that this is an exercise in bizarro thought.

As stated, if we have learned anything of the nature of the issue from the pre-Fall to the post-Fall world, it is that environment doesn't change anything as it relates to man's volition.

Well, if environmental circumstances are totally irrelevant with respect to man's volition; and if man's volition is the object of the greater good, as you claim; then it simply cannot be that things like tsunamis are logically necessary for the greater good. So, this is more contradiction on your part.

We saw a world which benefited from all of God's attributes in full rulership, and we now live in a world which does not benefit from God's attributes while we struggle under the rulership of another system.

And explain again why God allows things like tsunamis to play out in the post-fall. You implied before that God's allowing such things is necessitated by justice. 🙄 See, it's hard to take your argument seriously when you make such a howler of a claim.

In your wording, you consider it incoherent nonsense to expect darkness when light is absent, as though light must be consistent, regardless of the local situation.
That is nonsense!

No, in my wording, what I claimed is incoherent is your actual case against the GAFE, since it is self-contradictory and violates basic axioms of modal logic. I never said anything about your light/dark talk. What I would say about your light/dark talk, if pressed to comment on it, is simply that it is not apt.

And we haven't even qualified "suffering" beyond the broadest of strokes.
How much suffering is acceptable in order for the formula to remain balanced?
Who determines the level of suffering?

I don't understand what you are asking here. How much do we need to qualify 'suffering' to figure out whether or not tsunamis are necessary for the greater good?

Bear in mind that the co-equal and co-eternal persons of the Royal Triumvirate in Eternity Past were in and of themselves complete without any generational movement or adoption. Not only complete but totally fulfilled with perfect happiness and contentment in each other's presesence....

Yet in eternity we see God doing something on behalf of His "good pleasure" which involves the creation of the universe and the obtaining of sons. In some way then, God must have yearned for completion.

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ ... even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blemish before Him in love, predesdinating us unto sonship through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will ..." (See Ephesians 1:3-5)

Since this predestination to have sons with sonship was made "before the foundation of the world" it strongly implies that God had a plan and purpose "before" creating the universe.

Within the Three-oneness of your "Royal Triumvirate" completeness of some kind was sought in God's heart in the form of something that did not yet exist - sons "holy and without blemish before Him in love" . A collective and corporate membership which did not exist through the Triune God existed.

Since the plan to secure sons with the sonship was "according to the good pleasure of His will" this was good pleasure and satisfaction sought by God which in eternity did not yet exist. The perfect God did seek some kind of "completion" in securing many sons which did not exist.

The strong implication of this plan being made "before the foundation of the world" suggests that this plan is the very purpose for which God laid the foundation of the world. Ie. because of His plan to be completed by these sons He caused a universe to come into existence. He needs a stage for this plan to be unfolded. So He creates the universe, laying the foundation of the world. Time, space, matter, energy are brought into existence expressly for the outworking of "the good pleasure of His will".

It is a paradox - the perfect God seeking to fulfill His good pleasure in bringing about something which does not yet exist. He must feel that it "completes" Him in some way.

The mighty prayer of Jesus the incarnate Son of God reflects this scheme above in John 17.

His request of the Father is that the many sons be like Him and where He is, which state was before the foundation of the world.

"And now, glorify Me along with Yourself Father, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." (17:5)

"Father, [concerning] that which You have given, I desire that they also may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory, which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world." (17:24)

The Son here, requests to be joined in the same expression of the Divine Being which He enjoyed before the creation of the universe. The prayer is an echo of what was in the heart of the predestinating God. " ... the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ ... predestinating us unto sonship through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will ..."