23 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sumydidall things work toward good in the long run.
I know you are deeply engaged with the others, but this is my first time entering this thread and I wanted to respond to the initial post.
If you want a biblical, or, bible-believer's perspective on this... all things work toward good in the long run. Nothing exists, nothing happens, if God wills it not to happen. Therefore it is presumabl uage barriers at all and can instantly communicate with each other? That's coming soon....
You have no justification for this claim. But, we can ignore that for the moment. Even supposing this claim were true and justified, it of course is still not good enough to meet something like bbarr's general argument from evil in the thread to which I provide a link. That's because what is at issue there is not merely the idea that instances of suffering, say, can work toward good in the long run; rather, what is at issue is whether or not such instances are necessary for bringing about greater good. Obviously, the idea that some instance of suffering can, or does, work toward good in the long run is still fully compatible with the idea that this instance of suffering is unnecessary for bringing about the same good. So, this is one reason why this type of response is not good enough.
23 Oct 12
Originally posted by sumydidI do not believe in the concept of "unnecessary suffering."
Indeed KellyJay
I do not believe in the concept of "unnecessary suffering." Again, unless God is not as described in the bible, any event that causes a relevant degree of suffering, has occured with God's foreknowledge and foreordination.
The concept is described in the argument. That you "do not believe in the concept" is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the argument succeeds.
any event that causes a relevant degree of suffering, has occured with God's foreknowledge and foreordination.
Well, that's definitely a problem for you, then. Unless of course you have some account of how all the plethora of instances of suffering that have obtained and do obtain are necessary for bringing about some greater good. Do you have such an account?
23 Oct 12
Originally posted by sumydidThis of course doesn't meet the argument from evil, either. In fact, this type of response pretty much ensures that your God is, at best, callous. And I'm sorry to hear that you think our earthly lives don't really matter. More's the pity for you in the here and now.
I don't believe it is necessary per sé, as God presumably could just snap His fingers and take us instantly toward the greater good.
I believe that suffering is the inevitable result of our state of affairs, individually and expanding outward to include the entire cosmos. We were plunged into a state of imminent, unavoidable suffering, because our nature ...[text shortened]... ith people who spend all their time mulling over all the suffering they experienced as humans.
23 Oct 12
The big question here is when I am given the chance to cause suffering to someone else, and choose to do so, then either what I do is 'wrong' and the person who suffered had experienced unnecessary suffering (as in God could have prevented it in some way) or, what I do is actually for the greater good.
23 Oct 12
Originally posted by vistesdI reject it on the precise grounds as I have stated, namely, that the entire history of man is one cohesive whole in which the will of man runs coterminously with the will of God--- although God is obviously restricting certain aspects and expressions of His own throughout this time.
I confess that I am confused.
“There has occurred at least one event E such that E brought about unnecessary suffering; suffering not logically necessary for the bringing about of greater good.”
[/i]In your view, has there or has there not ever occurred such an event?[/i]
As LJ points out, the deductive argument is valid. So, if you re ...[text shortened]... I thought so, and was not challenged by any additional offerings) in order to take a position.][/b]
God, by allowing the phase of history known as the rule of fallen man to run its course, is permitting situations and actions outside of His direct will to occur. These actions--- all of these actions--- are part of that course.
Anyone with an exaggerated sense of justice, fairness or even righteousness can point to what they perceive as shortcomings in the process--- of supposed unnecessary evils--- yet the same lack the historical and broad picture perspective within which to base their opinion.
To cherry pick that event over there, or this event right here as being unnecessary to the overall good is akin to losing the forest for the trees: you get rid of enough of them, and the forest mysteriously disappears. You're left with one overriding charge: that God didn't need to allow any of the evils to occur in order to serve His greater purpose.
I suggest that those so charging might not have an exact grip on what His purpose was in the first place.
23 Oct 12
Originally posted by sumydidIf you want a biblical, or, bible-believer's perspective on this...
I know you are deeply engaged with the others, but this is my first time entering this thread and I wanted to respond to the initial post.
If you want a biblical, or, bible-believer's perspective on this... all things work toward good in the long run. Nothing exists, nothing happens, if God wills it not to happen. Therefore it is presumabl ...[text shortened]... uage barriers at all and can instantly communicate with each other? That's coming soon....
I do.
all things work toward good in the long run.
Well, kinda. The verse you are dubstepping confers the following sentiment: all things work to good for those that love God, who are called according to His purpose. While I believe that His ultimate purpose is for good, it doesn't fare so well for everyone.
Nothing exists, nothing happens, if God wills it not to happen.
To a degree.
Therefore it is presumable to say... nothing of any relevance happens without God's foreordination.
Your choice of the word 'foreordination' is incorrectly applied.
I found your likening of the internet to the Tower interesting. You might be on to something...
23 Oct 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitThere is no 'whole' to negate or throw out.
I'm just not sure where you are getting "the whole would be rendered inert" part. All you get out of a successful GAFE is that either a God is a shade less than optimal in the Omnipotence, Omnipresence, or Omniscience departments, or a shade less than morally perfect, or a rejected premise in the argument. There is no 'whole' to negate or throw out.
I ...[text shortened]... erfection and wrong doing in his past would allow us to better relate to other experiences.
The critic says 'the overall good could have been realized without this unnecessary evil, right here,' and then proceeds to imagine such a scenario wherein any reasonable person would agree, as they can find no direct link from said evil to the overall good--- surely, we could have arrived at the same result without such and such suffering or such and such perpetuation of evil. Just so.
Well, they continue, if that evil wasn't necessary, then why did God allow it to occur? Surely, God must lack one or all of His stated characteristics! What they don't realize, is that the same argument can be used for good things which occur, as well. If I can point to even a single moment of unnecessary joy--- one which demonstrably has no impact on the results of the overall good--- the same argument would hold sway. And so forth for the neutral actions, as well.
Therefore, if ANY act which occurs can be demonstrated as unnecessary for the overall results of the greater good, God cannot possess any of the stated characteristics. You need the whole--- and every aspect of it--- to not challenge God's characteristics.
I would still want to have a relationship with God, even if I discovered he had some limitations. Maybe some imperfection and wrong doing in his past would allow us to better relate to other experiences.
As I stated in one of the responses, this coterminous time of the will of man and the will of God sees God limiting certain expressions of His characteristics in order to allow man's decision to live by his own rules to play itself out to its conclusions. I don't need God to be anything less than what He is in order to reconcile faith with reality. Reality cannot be described in any other terms than the temporary restriction of God's omni-characteristics while man's rebellion plays itself out.
23 Oct 12
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIn GAFE, God is morally perfect in the sense that he always prefers the most good state of affairs to obtain. Thus, if action x leads to the same overall good as ~x, then God isn't morally obligated to intervene.
[b]There is no 'whole' to negate or throw out.
The critic says 'the overall good could have been realized without this unnecessary evil, right here,' and then proceeds to imagine such a scenario wherein any reasonable person would agree, as they can find no direct link from said evil to the overall good--- surely, we could have arrived a ...[text shortened]... ary restriction of God's omni-characteristics while man's rebellion plays itself out.[/b]
The same goes for your 'unnecessary joy'. If there is no impact on the overall goodness of the state of affairs, then God can intervene, or not, and still exist as defined.
Now, if there is an experience of joy that leads to an overall less morally good state of affairs, then yes, God is morally obligated to prevent it IF there is no other way of reaching the maximally good state of affairs.
As for the last paragraph, it is irresponsible of God to suspend his own moral obligations because the first pair of humans rebelled against him. It makes no sense for all future generations to be ignored and left to suffer because of the mistakes of the first one.
It would be like letting your grandchild go play in traffic because his father (your son) rebelled against you at some point. And then claiming you're not responsible for the grandchild's death when he gets run over. Bizarro-morality at its finest.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut if an instance of joy is itself a good thing, then it would have an impact on the overall good by virtue of partially constituting it. Of course, it may be that some instances of joy are bad things (e.g., taking joy in the suffering of others may itself be bad; minimally it indicates some viciousness of character). But I bet that a worked out conception, either secular or religious, of human flourishing would include joy as a component. Lives seem, to me at least, and other things being equal, worse overall by virtue of lacking joy. I don't mean here that joy is what flourishing is all about, nor that joy is what actions should aim at (especially if the notion of joy is Cyrenaic or Epicurean in nature). But there is something important and good about the joys of family, friends, meaningful labor, acting nobly or well, etc. So, I think there is an important difference here you may be overlooking. Or I am misreading you; it wouldn't be the first time I was being dense! Hope you're well...
[b]There is no 'whole' to negate or throw out.
The critic says 'the overall good could have been realized without this unnecessary evil, right here,' and then proceeds to imagine such a scenario wherein any reasonable person would agree, as they can find no direct link from said evil to the overall good--- surely, we could have arrived a ary restriction of God's omni-characteristics while man's rebellion plays itself out.[/b]
25 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm still waiting for you to tell me exactly which premises of the argument you think are false and why. I have already granted that you are perfectly free to read the "greater good" in the way you describe. You say that the greater good is served by nothing less than God permitting his creatures to act freely. Fine. Again, consider this fully granted for the purpose of argument. Now, proceed with explaining why you think the argument fails.
I reject it on the precise grounds as I have stated, namely, that the entire history of man is one cohesive whole in which the will of man runs coterminously with the will of God--- although God is obviously restricting certain aspects and expressions of His own throughout this time.
God, by allowing the phase of history known as the rule of fallen man hat those so charging might not have an exact grip on what His purpose was in the first place.
The problem you will have is that you cannot seriously tell me that premise 2 is false in virtue of this particular reading of the greater good. That is just absurd, since there are any number of instances of suffering that have absolutely nothing to do with facilitating human free will. Let's take a specific example. You're aware of course of all the suffering and havoc wreaked by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. Do you have some account of why your God saw fit to let such events unfold? You cannot seriously claim with a straight face that His reasons for not preventing such instances of suffering have anything to do with His needing to provide a congenial environment for the freedom of his creatures. No one in his right mind actually thinks that such instances of suffering are requisite for human freedom. There are simply countless instances of suffering that are like this; that bear no relevance to discussion of those things that provide for human free will. So, at minimum, there needs to be a lot more to your theodicy than just saying that God needs to allow His creatures to be free in order to serve the greater good. (I'm actually being quite generous here, since, in fact, even if we restricted our attention only to those instances of suffering that have been brought about directly by acts of human free will, it would still be virtually impossible to justify the claim that all such instances were necessary for human freedom and hence necessary for your greater good to be served.)
I also find it rather hilarious that you think it takes an "exaggerated sense of justice, fairness or even righteousness" to suggest that an agent who by supposition has the power; knowledge; and opportunity to prevent such an event, would do so. You imply that to suggest such a thing shows a lack of historical and broad picture perspective. Well, for me to take you seriously there, you need to actually give me reasons to think that there are substantive, relevant considerations that these persons have failed to entertain. You haven't done this in the slightest, though, because as I already explained above, your attempt at theodicy offers no reasons at all that would make any sense of why your God would stand by and watch something like that event unfold.
25 Oct 12
Originally posted by bbarrHello bbarr. What have you been up to? Nice to see you again.
But if an instance of joy is itself a good thing, then it would have an impact on the overall good by virtue of partially constituting it. Of course, it may be that some instances of joy are bad things (e.g., taking joy in the suffering of others may itself be bad; minimally it indicates some viciousness of character). But I bet that a worked out conception, ...[text shortened]... Or I am misreading you; it wouldn't be the first time I was being dense! Hope you're well...
25 Oct 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloHey, LJ! Oh, I've been teaching a bit, and helping folk open and manage bars, and looking to transition into something a bit more lucrative and stable. I got engaged to wonderful Wisconsin woman (Lutheran, so, you know, an atheist...). Things are good! How is everything with you?
Hello bbarr. What have you been up to? Nice to see you again.
26 Oct 12
Originally posted by bbarrHey! Nice seeing your name again!!
Hey, LJ! Oh, I've been teaching a bit, and helping folk open and manage bars, and looking to transition into something a bit more lucrative and stable. I got engaged to wonderful Wisconsin woman (Lutheran, so, you know, an atheist...). Things are good! How is everything with you?
Kelly
26 Oct 12
Originally posted by bbarrGlad to hear things are good with you, and congratulations on the exciting engagement news! I am doing well too. I also found a terrific woman. Not engaged yet, but she's definitely my better half.
Hey, LJ! Oh, I've been teaching a bit, and helping folk open and manage bars, and looking to transition into something a bit more lucrative and stable. I got engaged to wonderful Wisconsin woman (Lutheran, so, you know, an atheist...). Things are good! How is everything with you?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
26 Oct 12
Originally posted by bbarrIt seems to me that the progress that has been made in this thread can now be applied to the original question of whether the internet is for the better or the worse, to see if it allows an answer.
But if an instance of joy is itself a good thing, then it would have an impact on the overall good by virtue of partially constituting it. Of course, it may be that some instances of joy are bad things (e.g., taking joy in the suffering of others may itself be bad; minimally it indicates some viciousness of character). But I bet that a worked out conception, ...[text shortened]... Or I am misreading you; it wouldn't be the first time I was being dense! Hope you're well...
Perhaps there is something to be said for the ideas that:
(1) A world as it is with the internet, broadens the scope of available experiences by which we can flourish, and as part of that, can experience joy. What about the fact that it brings additional ways that these aims can be stifled? Well, so can perhaps an anesthetic that can be used to alleviate pain -- or to murder in overdose. It is up to us to make it for the better. It is a neutral object in that regard, although there is a way that it is not neutral, as follows.
(2) If there were a world without the internet, what kind of human species would have brought that world about? A human nature that does not invent the internet when the physical environment and their experience of it would allow it to be invented, might also be one that did not invent the printing press-- or the alphabet, or the shaped stone tool. The "we" that we would be, would be so different, that we might as well say, we never came to exist, and the earth's most advanced life never gets beyond blue green algae, because the physical environment doesn't allow it.
So the physical environment allows an inventive species to exist. (For later -- is that a good or bad or neutral thing?)
Because we are social beings, our inventiveness keeps new, our need to decide what is best. In that sense it is not neutral. The internet is in a long line of things that keep us thinking about what is best. That is a good thing, in my thinking. The blue green algae might disagree.