Not the problem of evil

[SoldierOfTheKing]

So God could have done this but withheld it from earlier generations?

He can't take credit now without taking the blame for not doing it earlier.

It was His perogative not to do it earlier.

Perhaps they should ideally live as long as they want to.

Perhaps rainwater should be beer.

 

[keith99]

It was His perogative not to do it earlier.

Yet when it occurs now and man is the proximate cause you and others want to credit God.

 

[Loudmouth]

It was His perogative not to do it earlier.

It would seem that the only reason that you claim God is involved is because you want to believe God is involved.

Perhaps rainwater should be beer.

Or perhaps it should be manna.

I find it interesting when christians mock their own beliefs. They mock the idea that God would cause food to fall from the sky, and yet that is exactly what they believe.

 

[Euler]

No, not at all. Why would you think that?

Because it becomes very obvious that, when it is impossible to present any evidence for the claims they are making and when the evidence actually points in another direction, they have to scramble to come up with some form of explanation that will still fit their claim.

When tragedy falls, it is God punishing the 'foolishness of man'. When man succeeds in his endeavors, it is 'God working through man'.

It's a 'heads I win, tails you lose' con game.

 

[Paradoxum]

This depends a lot on theological details. If accepting the claim that everything unfolds according to God´s plan, I can´t see any way around giving him credit for creating a plan that contains solutions to problems he created, in the first place.

Well then you'd blame God for not healing people earlier. For not having a more moral plan.

God would still be doing alot less God than humans try to do.

Well, even if God died or withdrew immediately after creation, I would still have to give him credit for everything that unfolds according to his plan.

Including the bad.

No human being can do more good than God. Human beings combined together cannot do more good than God. God works through us, thus, He is doing the good.

In what sense is God involved? When you inject someone with a cure, that is physics and biology... so where is God involved?

We try to heal people when we can, but God doesn't try to heal people when he can. Does that make us more moral than him?

God didn't tell us things would be bad, He told us about our role of responsibility. Shirking that does not make us moral.

I didn't say we shouldn't try to be moral.

Blaming others for our own screw ups does not make us moral.

I know. This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Trying to compare our own morality, a strictly human idea, to Divinity, certainly doesn't help us in any way. It'd be like saying your ladder is more apple. Apples and ladders can both be good, but there aren't a lot of situations where they combine well.

I see no reason to think you can't apply morality to God. You merely claim it can't be. Even if that were true, that means you couldn't say God is morally perfect, whose morals we should listen to.

So you agree that God isn't moral, if you're avoiding applying that concept to him? So we shouldn't listen to him?

It was His perogative not to do it earlier.

Why?

God would be obligated to stop suffering and not wait. God gets no special rights not to do that.

Humans would have healed more people earlier if they could have. But God didn't. So does that make us better than him?

Perhaps rainwater should be beer.

What's your point? That we shouldn't try to make the world better?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Why?

God would be obligated to stop suffering and not wait. God gets no special rights not to do that.

God obligated? By who or what? In that case God wouldn't be God. Who or whatever obligated God would be God.

Here's how it works: God is the basis for the existence of the entire universe including us, and it is His prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong. In other words, God is sovereign. We would not exist without Him and He is self-sufficient. He is the creator and we are His creatures. We owe Him, at the very least, our gratitude; He owes us nothing. What He does provide us is not out of obligation. It is grace, that is to say, unmerited favor.

The proper response to a favor that you did nothing to deserve is "thank you" not "why didn't you do it sooner?"

What's your point? That we shouldn't try to make the world better?

My point is that our bodies are not designed to endure indefinitely.

The years of our life are seventy,
or even by reason of strength eighty;
yet their spanc is but toil and trouble;
they are soon gone, and we fly away.

Psalm 90:10

Our lifespans haven't even all that much in the past three thousand years.

Death often comes and takes us before we're ready. It can't always be stopped, because medicine is only as good as the minds behind it.
Death doesn't have get ready for us; we have to get ready for it.

Sure, it would be nice if we could live as long as we wanted.
Just as it would be nice if rainwater were beer.
Life isn't easy. The advances in medicine you laud aren't easy either.

 

[quatona]

Well then you'd blame God for not healing people earlier.

At this point I am not yet making value statements. I am not praising or blaming. I am trying to analyse the situation.
And yes, certainly, I´d attribute the entire plan to the authorship of God.

For not having a more moral plan.

You do see how "What is it with this plan?" is an entirely different question than "Why doesn´t God interfere when things unfold according to his plan?", don´t you?
I think the first question is the better one.

God would still be doing alot less God than humans try to do.

If you consider humans to be God´s tools, this distinction is obsolete.

Including the bad.

Most definitely.
But in the end it all comes down to the question: What´s the reason for God to create drama (entities going through the motions of suffering and joy)?
I have no answer to that question, but I am not yet entirely convinced that there can´t be an answer.
Particularly when taking into account that these entities seek and enjoy drama, to the point of creating drama purposefully when they are bored.

 

[appleofhiseye]

I think the presumption that people do more good than God is wrong. Highly unknowable, what if this small planet is the only place that is suffering from rebellion in the whole of cosmos?
Considering the vastness of the universe, what little good man has done is more than likely very small compared to what God has done to other worlds. Ones that have not rebelled against His laws.
We are incapable of ever knowing the vast and glorious goodness of God when we are so blinded in our pride and rebellion.

 

[Paradoxum]

God obligated? By who or what? In that case God wouldn't be God. Who or whatever obligated God would be God.

Obligated by morality. I wouldn't say that makes morality 'God', since morality isn't a being... it's only a concept.

Here's how it works: God is the basis for the existence of the entire universe including us, and it is His prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong.

Why does God determine what is right and wrong? Or in other words, why should I listen to God's opinion on what should and shouldn't be done?

In other words, God is sovereign. We would not exist without Him and He is self-sufficient. He is the creator and we are His creatures. We owe Him, at the very least, our gratitude; He owes us nothing. What He does provide us is not out of obligation. It is grace, that is to say, unmerited favor.

I suppose it could be considered similar to having an absent father. You are glad you exist, but that doesn't mean he is a great guy, or created you for your benefit.

Of course you wouldn't say God is absent, but I would, so can you see why it wouldn't give God much more credit than that?

The proper response to a favor that you did nothing to deserve is "thank you" not "why didn't you do it sooner?"

I think there are moral obligations, so it does make sense to ask why something wasn't done sooner.

If a number of people are suffering greatly, and you can click your fingers and make them better... but only save 2 of them, it totally makes sense to ask why you only saved 2.

It also makes sense to ask whether someone who would only save 2 is better than someone who would save all of them.

Don't you think that saving people from immense suffering is moral? I would save them all... wouldn't you?

My point is that our bodies are not designed to endure indefinitely.

And they aren't designed to move at 70mph, but we invented cars to make it possible.

Our lifespans haven't even all that much in the past three thousand years.

Well most of that time we didn't have alot of people using the scientific method. It's only more recently that science has progressed alot faster, and since about then that life expectancy has increased alot.

Death often comes and takes us before we're ready. It can't always be stopped, because medicine is only as good as the minds behind it.
Death doesn't have get ready for us; we have to get ready for it.

Sure, it would be nice if we could live as long as we wanted.
Just as it would be nice if rainwater were beer.
Life isn't easy. The advances in medicine you laud aren't easy either.

It would be nice if we could fly. So we invent aeroplanes. Saying that rainwater isn't beer isn't an argument against trying to improve things.

 

[Paradoxum]

At this point I am not yet making value statements. I am not praising or blaming. I am trying to analyse the situation.

I know.

And yes, certainly, I´d attribute the entire plan to the authorship of God.

You do see how "What is it with this plan?" is an entirely different question than "Why doesn´t God interfere when things unfold according to his plan?", don´t you?
I think the first question is the better one.

Yes, but I didn't ask the second question. You might say that it might sound like that to someone with a 'God pre-destined everything' theology, but it's up to them to give that reply (because not everyone would say that).

If you consider humans to be God´s tools, this distinction is obsolete.

I don't see why that would be true. If humans are willing to heal 99% of people, but in God's plan (including humans) he only plans to heal 5%, then humans are willing (and trying) to do more good, even if they are tools.

So you could say that humans are more moral than God.

Most definitely.
But in the end it all comes down to the question: What´s the reason for God to create drama (entities going through the motions of suffering and joy)?
I have no answer to that question, but I am not yet entirely convinced that there can´t be an answer.
Particularly when taking into account that these entities seek and enjoy drama, to the point of creating drama purposefully when they are bored.

I can see why you might consider that question interesting, but I'm not sure how it's relevant. For example, creating children to 'suffer for entertainment' wouldn't make it okay.

 

[quatona]

Yes, but I didn't ask the second question. You might say that it might sound like that to someone with a 'God pre-destined everything' theology, but it's up to them to give that reply (because not everyone would say that).

I´m not sure I understand the question, then.
What would be an instance of God "doing good", when you aren´t thinking of God interfering?

I don't see why that would be true. If humans are willing to heal 99% of people, but in God's plan (including humans) he only plans to heal 5%, then humans are willing (and trying) to do more good, even if they are tools.

If you invent a device that does good - how can I even start comparing the "goodness" of the device to the goodness of its inventor (or comparing the goodness of the device to the goodness of its user)?
That appears to be logically impossible.

So you could say that humans are more moral than God.

With God being the creator of humans, such a comparison appears to be impossible.

I can see why you might consider that question interesting, but I'm not sure how it's relevant. For example, creating children to 'suffer for entertainment' wouldn't make it okay.

Creating a system with 100% of the beings in it eventually dieing - would that already be a moral problem, and can its immorality be derived from the fact that within this system intentional killing is immoral?
I think this borders on a category error. A system cannot be measured by the rules/conditions/criteria within the system.

 

[quatona]

Let´s assume for the sake of the argument that God (existing in perfect dramaless harmony) was painfully aware of the fact that conscious existence without drama is endlessly boring, empty and intolerably static. IOW: God knew that conscious life without drama was not *good*. So, in creating a dramatic world, he created something *good*.

Now, drama necessarily means that we experience certain things within the drama-system as *good* and others as not so *good*.

Do you see how the *good*(1) in the first paragraph is a completely different *good*(2) than in the latter paragraph? When creating the universe, God didn´t even have the opportunity to do *good*(1).

 

[Paradoxum]

I´m not sure I understand the question, then.
What would be an instance of God "doing good", when you aren´t thinking of God interfering?

I'm not sure I understand your question. God healing people would be God doing good.

If you invent a device that does good - how can I even start comparing the "goodness" of the device to the goodness of its inventor (or comparing the goodness of the device to the goodness of its user)?
That appears to be logically impossible.

Why does it appear to be logical impossible?

'How do you start comparing them'? Well if humans want to heal 99% of people, and God only wants to heal 2% of people, then you could start by considering that. Why wouldn't that make humans more moral than God?

God may have made us want that, but I'd say there's nothing inconsistent about God making beings with better morals than himself.

You also have to remember that humans are conscious, and normal devices aren't, so you can't really compare humans to human tools.

I don't see why it's such a crazy idea to say that a creator could create something better than himself. I'd think it would be easy to imagine such a thing.

With God being the creator of humans, such a comparison appears to be impossible.

What difference does that make? Parents make children, but children can be more moral than their parents.

Creating a system with 100% of the beings in it eventually dieing - would that already be a moral problem, and can its immorality be derived from the fact that within this system intentional killing is immoral?
I think this borders on a category error. A system cannot be measured by the rules/conditions/criteria within the system.

I don't understand your point, and how it relates to what I've said. What do you mean?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Obligated by morality. I wouldn't say that makes morality 'God', since morality isn't a being... it's only a concept.

Obligation implies a superior and an inferior, an excercise of authority. What is the basis of authority for this concept?

I think there are moral obligations, so it does make sense to ask why something wasn't done sooner.

I'd consider that to be shocking display of ingratitude; to suggest that a favor was something I owed you would belittle the generousity that I showed you. Personally, it would make me pause to think before I did anything like that for you again.

If a number of people are suffering greatly, and you can click your fingers and make them better... but only save 2 of them, it totally makes sense to ask why you only saved 2.

It also makes sense to ask whether someone who would only save 2 is better than someone who would save all of them.

Don't you think that saving people from immense suffering is moral? I would save them all... wouldn't you?

Unless I had a very good reason not too, yes. I make decisions base on the limited knowledge and wisdom that I have. God makes decisions based on the infinite knowledge and wisdom that He has. I don't expect to always, or even usually be able to understand why He allows suffering... only that He has His reasons.

I know that He usually works through people. He wants people to be active participants in His redemptive work. That means allowing his work to be subjecting to the limitations of time and space that we are subject to.

And they aren't designed to move at 70mph, but we invented cars to make it possible.

It works as well as the machines do, and it makes our fate dependent on those machines. When they don't operate properly, bloody of fiery death can occur. Driving is the most dangerous part of our everyday lives. Very convenient to be sure, but there's always a trade off.

Well most of that time we didn't have alot of people using the scientific method. It's only more recently that science has progressed alot faster, and since about then that life expectancy has increased alot.

Sorry, typo. I meant to say "Our lifespans haven't even changed all that much in the past three thousand years" citing that Bronze Age verse as a source. There is a difference between life span and life expecantcy. The big differences in life expectancy that you see between today and before the Industrial Revolution, or between industrialized countries and countries that haven't industrialized, they're usually talking about life expectancy at birth. By far the biggest reason for the difference is childhood mortality rate. When 40% of people born don't live to be five, that brings down life expectancy at birth quite a bit. If you were to compare life expectancy at age five and age ten, you'd already see the difference get much smaller. Modern medicine allows us to recover from illnesses or injuries that may have been fatal in earlier times. People in pre-industrial societies aged at the same rate we do today though. Just to put into perspective what modern medicine has and hasn't done. It has mainly reduced the danger that something will strike us down before the aging process has the chance to finish us off.

It would be nice if we could fly. So we invent aeroplanes. Saying that rainwater isn't beer isn't an argument against trying to improve things.

I wasn't arguing against trying to do things so much as arguing for a realistic assessment of what technology is or is not likely to do.

 

[Paradoxum]

Obligation implies a superior and an inferior, an excercise of authority. What is the basis of authority for this concept?

I don't think obligation has anything to do with authority, nor do I think it implies a superior and inferior.

I'd consider that to be shocking display of ingratitude; to suggest that a favor was something I owed you would belittle the generousity that I showed you. Personally, it would make me pause to think before I did anything like that for you again.

I wouldn't say it was a favor... and if you think being minimally decent is a favor, I question your moral character. Being minimally decent isn't something you should get great praise for... it's what should be expected of you.

I don't know about you, but I would click my fingers and heal pretty much everyone if I could. I don't need their gratitude or praise... I'd still do it if no one ever knew I did it, because you don't need that if you're a decent person... if you have a heart.

Unless I had a very good reason not too, yes. I make decisions base on the limited knowledge and wisdom that I have. God makes decisions based on the infinite knowledge and wisdom that He has. I don't expect to always, or even usually be able to understand why He allows suffering... only that He has His reasons.

Unless there is no good God... then he might have no good moral reasons (or not be there).

I know that He usually works through people. He wants people to be active participants in His redemptive work. That means allowing his work to be subjecting to the limitations of time and space that we are subject to.

Could they not be active participates, and also not allow immense suffering too?

It works as well as the machines do, and it makes our fate dependent on those machines. When they don't operate properly, bloody of fiery death can occur. Driving is the most dangerous part of our everyday lives. Very convenient to be sure, but there's always a trade off.

I agree.

Sorry, typo. I meant to say "Our lifespans haven't even changed all that much in the past three thousand years" citing that Bronze Age verse as a source. There is a difference between life span and life expecantcy. The big differences in life expectancy that you see between today and before the Industrial Revolution, or between industrialized countries and countries that haven't industrialized, they're usually talking about life expectancy at birth. By far the biggest reason for the difference is childhood mortality rate. When 40% of people born don't live to be five, that brings down life expectancy at birth quite a bit. If you were to compare life expectancy at age five and age ten, you'd already see the difference get much smaller. Modern medicine allows us to recover from illnesses or injuries that may have been fatal in earlier times. People in pre-industrial societies aged at the same rate we do today though. Just to put into perspective what modern medicine has and hasn't done. It has mainly reduced the danger that something will strike us down before the aging process has the chance to finish us off.

I agree, though I'd think that that could change in the next hundred years or so, as scientists understand the causes of ageing, and develop nanotech that can perhaps fight against that.

I wasn't arguing against trying to do things so much as arguing for a realistic assessment of what technology is or is not likely to do.

And I think that significantly extending life, perhaps eliminating old age, is entirely possible.

 

[terryjohn]

Sorry, does "Pretty much everyone", mean that there are some that you would not heal?

 

[brotherChristian]

Sorry, does "Pretty much everyone", mean that there are some that you would not heal?

If you are going where it looks like you are going with this, just don't.

The god of Abraham has decided not to heal billions and billions of people. Paradoxum implied that there may be a comparatively small part of the population she would not heal; and for all we know she could mean people who don't WANT to be healed (you know there's gotta be some out there). Even if she means some she wouldn't heal just because she doesn't like them, she's still willing to heal more than any deity I've ever heard of.

Assuming of course there are any gods and that they are capable of healing people.

 

[brotherChristian]

...
Do you think this is a comparable flip side to the problem of evil.

If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving... why do limited, fallible, and imperfect humans do more good than God?

Thank you for this thread.

I don't think this is merely a flip-side to the problem of evil, I think it is one of myriad sides that form a multi-faceted gem of reason, logic, and compassion.

Your observation is one among many that any person with a shred of intellectual integrity must take into account when deciding to follow a moral code which has been "divinely decreed".

Though as one who gets off playing devil's advocate I would have to ask what makes anyone think an omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving god has to subscribe to limited, fallible, and imperfect human notions of "good"?

 

[FireDragon76]

More people are healed by modern medicine than God. Do you agree?

My theology of God makes that comparison nonsensical. So no, I don't agree.

That makes humans better than God. No? God didn't save them did he.

Really, you have bought into the paradigm of liberal progress. I don't buy into it. The world is not necessarily "day by day getting better and better". That mentality died in the trenches of World War I. Some people just haven't gotten the memo.

2) Humans would be in favour of creating a good universe, AND healing people. God only does one... so humans are better than God.

How do you know what all humans would want to do in this matter? Your perspective seems arrogant in how much knowledge you claim to have.

Jeffrey Dahmer didn't seem very interested in healing people, neither did Ted Bundy. So why talk in broad generalizations about humanity?

If God cared, he would work beyond humans. If I could click my fingers and heal millions, I would. God has that power, but doesn't use it. This makes me better than God, doesn't it?

Maybe God has good reasons for not healing them, reasons you would not understand.

 

[Paradoxum]

Sorry, does "Pretty much everyone", mean that there are some that you would not heal?

Maybe, maybe not. I'd consider whether people really need to be healed of very minor problems.

Thank you for this thread.

I don't think this is merely a flip-side to the problem of evil, I think it is one of myriad sides that form a multi-faceted gem of reason, logic, and compassion.

Your observation is one among many that any person with a shred of intellectual integrity must take into account when deciding to follow a moral code which has been "divinely decreed".

Though as one who gets off playing devil's advocate I would have to ask what makes anyone think an omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving god has to subscribe to limited, fallible, and imperfect human notions of "good"?

If God isn't what we would call 'good' or 'loving' then why call God good or loving? If God isn't what we would call good or loving, why do what it says?

Or to put it another way... if healing people isn't good, then what are we talking about? What is this thing called good?