AP students question #one

[AlephBet]

Good morning all. My Brother in law has some AP students that asked the following question and I was hoping to get some thoughts from you thinkers please.

How does one look at the fails, deficiencies of our world and basic tragedy and evil, without surmising there is little evidence in a loving and omnipotent God and conclude there is not a God who is actively concerned in the affairs of humans or as the theist existentialist tenants, it is impossible to conclude or assert anything about God.

[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif'] Thank you for sharing your ideas on this question. I guess they have given him 4 main questions and the above is the first. [/FONT]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']Connect[/FONT]

Reword into a question, or questions, and I can better answer. I would not dare take a stab at what is written without first knowing what you are asking in a clearly written form.

It might be helpful to form one paragraph regarding the premise, then ask a simple question in response.

 

[Connect]

Thank u for saying that Chany. It is an opportunity for exposure to other's thoughts and I see no benefit in being confrontational. I am a guest in your (collectively) house.

 

[Connect]

Parents love children. Employees love boss. Soldiers love country. Etc.
If you do not know more examples of love, you have big problem.

Ty Juvenissun. Yes I understand examples of love. I didn't know he meant specifically love and needed clarification, as u so graciously provided. Thank u. Perhaps this group has gone through these types of questions and may be jaded covering simple things. I can participate but need to be more clear about what is being said. That's y I am trying to make sure I am on the same page.

 

[Connect]

Reword into a question, or questions, and I can better answer. I would not dare take a stab at what is written without first knowing what you are asking in a clearly written form.

It might be helpful to form one paragraph regarding the premise, then ask a simple question in response.

I agree. I wake at 05:00 and my bil sent me a text with the quote I put in the op. He listed 4 questions. I answered the first which was about "does/should logic and reason play a roll I the Christian's life? How much of one?" And I wanted to ask this community for some assistance with the others. My bil j.p., said he was meeting with his students and will have more questions soon. I need to talk to JP to get clarity on what he is asking or being asked. I see this as a good opportunity for iron to sharpen iron. I will work on clarifying with him and do as u suggest AlephBet. Ty

 

[Connect]

I think keith99 was referring to things like Satan, demons, angels and other spiritual entities. Christianity often highlights the spiritual struggle between God and Satan. Since there is such a struggle present in the literature, it would imply that God is not omnipotent.

Ty leftrightleftrightleft. Yes, it appears there is a spiritual struggle but I have a hard time seeing that as taking away from God's omnipotence. I believe God is all powerful. That is the God I worship. I do believe God allows free will/agency and I don't know if that gives up God's power. It may be a case of His permissive will but He is still sovereign in my mind. I also know that I do not know all there is to know of theological issues. A part of JP's group said, "isn't the idea of free will over perfection in accordance with original sin a bit of a cop out and unexplainable to the Christian?" Thank u LRLRL. I am here to learn.

 

[Paradoxum]

Look, this is sophomoric. We do not know everything about God's doings and purposes and we cannot know everything. That's because the nature of the inquiry deals with things above our "grade level." We can know much, but it doesn't follow that we must know everything or else there can't be a God.

I'd say this is an important issue, and not one to be brushed away with 'it's mysterious'. If there is no answer, then suffering stands in contradiction to the idea of a loving God. We don't need to know everything, but the nature of morality, and whether God is potentially evil (or apathetic), are things worth knowing. Great suffering hits at the heart of claims about God (that he is good and loving).

If God is loving, yet the world has a mix of good and evil to be expected of a godless universe, one might question if the god is even there.

I said there are a number of possible answers, all sensible.

For example?

However, I'm not going to proceed to prove God to anyone when the question of the OP didn't even ask that of us! It is sufficient to say that the question the class posed is not worth asking, being little more than a complicated and ungrammatical way of saying "We don't know everything about God, so we're going to conclude that he doesn't exist."

As I said it isn't about knowing everything. Asking for a few extremely important bits of information isn't asking for everything. Not that God telling us more or less everything would be a crazy thing to ask for.

If I told you that morally perfect parents purposely allowed a pedophile to rape their child, wouldn't you question my claim? I see no reason to make exceptions for God.

Lets say tomorrow I become God. I heal all sick people, prevent violations, and visibly work with humanity (individually and in general) to help them be better people.

Doesn't that sound like a good plan?

 

[Paradoxum]

Thank you for your replies Albion and Paradoxum as a child who does not understand the reason for their parents behavior and they feel mistreated the parent has plans and a fuller undemanding of what they do as God does.

Or maybe there is no God, and people are raped, murdered, and get cancer because there's no God to save them. I'd think that a godless universe explain it much better than a loving God.

Pradoxum pointed out why not also violate the whole population. My issue with that is God will punish many as not all will be saved. He wishes that none perish but they do, they do not come to God. He also provides a way to salvation, the gift of God which is the ransom of Jesus to cover the sins of the world. Did I understand the both of your posts?
Para you seem to think it "is an unjust moral plan" is that correct? What would make a better moral plan if that's what you are saying? Thank you. [/FONT][/COLOR]

God should heal all the sick, protect people from being violated, and provide food and water for all. He should also present a full ethical theory to humankind, and visibly (and audibly) work with each person to help them become better people.

 

[Albion]

Or maybe there is no God, and people are raped, murdered, and get cancer because there's no God to save them.

That's one possibility, of course, but it's no more likely than a number of other theories that include there being a God.

I'd think that a godless universe explain it much better than a loving God.

If so, to what do you attribute all the things that are GOOD in the universe? "Oh, that just happened." Really?

God should heal all the sick,

Ah, now we come to the real issue--the "If I were God, I would do it this way" is how I describe it. The corollary is "And since I'm not, I won't believe there is any other. So there."

 

[Chesterton]

The students mention ideas such as "deficiency", "tragedy" and "evil". I think they need to first ask the more preliminary question of how and where they got these ideas. It's my belief that these would be meaningless words were it not for us having received their meaning from a God who cares about such ideas.

When you realize that the ideas can't fully come from mere "empathy" as certain atheists might say, then you can go on to the question they're asking.

 

[Cearbhall]

Just out of curiosity, which course was this in? I'm not aware of an AP Philosophy course, though that would be awesome.

 

[Paradoxum]

That's one possibility, of course, but it's no more likely than a number of other theories that include there being a God.

I'd say it much more likely. As far as I know, there are no good theories for why a good God would allow such things, and everything look pretty Godless. There's no where God has done anything significant which nature can't do.

If so, to what do you attribute all the things that are GOOD in the universe? "Oh, that just happened." Really?

Yes, good and bad things just happen... which is to be expected in a Godless universe, because there is no aim. So sometimes there will be good, and sometimes there will be bad.

Ah, now we come to the real issue--the "If I were God, I would do it this way" is how I describe it. The corollary is "And since I'm not, I won't believe there is any other. So there."

I'm not sure I even get your point. I don't believe in God because I want to be God? And if I'm not God, I don't what anyone to be God?

Well I agree that would be a stupid way to think.

Perhaps you should deal with what I actually say, rather than make up strawmen? It doesn't seem like you can deal with what I say without twisting it to make yourself feel better.

If I said "If I were in Hitlers position, I wouldn't have killed millions of Jews", would you twist that into some weird egoistical wish for power, rather than an example of what I think is moral?

I really think killing Jews is immoral... just like I really think a God allowing great suffering would be immoral.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The students mention ideas such as "deficiency", "tragedy" and "evil". I think they need to first ask the more preliminary question of how and where they got these ideas. It's my belief that these would be meaningless words were it not for us having received their meaning from a God who cares about such ideas.

When you realize that the ideas can't fully come from mere "empathy" as certain atheists might say, then you can go on to the question they're asking.

What?

 

[Chesterton]

What?

If you're going to criticize something as wrong, you need something with which to contrast wrong. You need to know what wrong and right are, and why.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you're going to criticize something as wrong, you need something with which to contrast wrong. You need to know what wrong and right are, and why.

Why would anyone need a "god" for that?

 

[Connect]

The students mention ideas such as "deficiency", "tragedy" and "evil". I think they need to first ask the more preliminary question of how and where they got these ideas. It's my belief that these would be meaningless words were it not for us having received their meaning from a God who cares about such ideas.

When you realize that the ideas can't fully come from mere "empathy" as certain atheists might say, then you can go on to the question they're asking.

Yes peels it back to where meaning originates. Ty for pointing that out Chesterton.

 

[Cearbhall]

The students mention ideas such as "deficiency", "tragedy" and "evil". I think they need to first ask the more preliminary question of how and where they got these ideas. It's my belief that these would be meaningless words were it not for us having received their meaning from a God who cares about such ideas.

When you realize that the ideas can't fully come from mere "empathy" as certain atheists might say, then you can go on to the question they're asking.

You've been reading too much Descartes. We're in the 21st century. We know perfectly well that the human mind is capable of constructing these ideas. We don't have to wonder where they came from. They can indeed come from empathy that has developed through natural selection.

 

[parsley]

It reminds me of bringing kids over to a house to play -- where the parents are friends and the kids are not. The parent has to make a decision on whether it's good to expose them to differences which could possibly mean dangers, being thwacked with a hockey stick or cheated in a game... or to avoid it altogether and keep them safe at home.

Ideally, people could learn to help each other, and develop systems that will protect humanity in general. Learning to play together and care about others can be part of a parent's plan. Becoming less self-focused improves a society.

Taking the immunization example further, we sometimes inject a live virus to prevent a viral takeover. It seems to make more sense to avoid any germs, but we trust the process of inviting risk to prevent risk.

Military training: beat on the body, to build up the ability to endure a beating.

The AP Philosophy question? (Sometimes people at CF ask for answers to their own homework, or unethically make money writing term papers for others.)

How does one look at the fails, deficiencies of our world and basic tragedy and evil, without surmising there is little evidence in a loving and omnipotent God and conclude there is not a God who is actively concerned in the affairs of humans or as the theist existentialist tenants, it is impossible to conclude or assert anything about God.

It is disturbing that a course intended to broaden one's world view and critical analysis skills, would target faith so harshly, as though intended to destroy diversity and free choice.
There are many faith groups among young students, many that use the word "God," which also assert that the deity is omnipotent, or share omnipotence.

In Genesis, humans lived in the Garden of Eden, and lived outside it. The human made the choice to know more about good&evil, and they ended up experiencing it. God still loved them and communicated in both locations.

Not to get off track, but I didn't want the earlier post on God'sChosen to sound like consensus. People continually change their minds and grow, so the concept of isolating permanent followers needs to be loosened up. God is continually working in the hearts and minds of humans all over, whether followers or not.

Many Christians have stories of conversion that began with God approaching them first. They were not born Christian. Many lived non-religious, unethical, destructive lives before making a decision to accept His forgiveness.

"He is not willing that any should perish."

 

[Cearbhall]

The AP Philosophy question? (Sometimes people at CF ask for answers to their own homework, or unethically make money writing term papers for others.)

It is disturbing that a course intended to broaden one's world view and critical analysis skills, would target faith so harshly, as though intended to destroy diversity and free choice.

What course are you talking about? The kids asked these questions. There's no AP Philosophy course. The College Board presents religion in a sufficiently neutral and objective light, based on my experiences in two AP history courses.

 

[Chesterton]

Why would anyone need a "god" for that?

You've been reading too much Descartes. We're in the 21st century. We know perfectly well that the human mind is capable of constructing these ideas. We don't have to wonder where they came from. They can indeed come from empathy that has developed through natural selection.

Because without God, you're only saying "like" and "dislike", which are different from saying "right" and "wrong".

 

[terryjohn]

The fails, the deficiencies, the sufferings and the evil are only defined as such by looking at the devine, other wise they are nothing.