Not the problem of evil

[Paradoxum]

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

I'll phrase it another way:

I want to heal 99% of people in great suffering or danger, and I would if I could.

God could heal 99% of people in great suffering or danger, but doesn't.

Does this make me more moral than God on this issue?

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.

Well obviously that mentality didn't die in WW1, because people still believe in progress. I think things have improved massively from 2000 years ago. Things have improved since 100 years ago. Greater liberties, rights, equality, healthcare, rule of law, science and tech, etc.

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?

The point still stands if even one person is more moral than God.

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

Maybe, and maybe Islamic terrorists are right. But I'm not going to stop condemning them just because it's possible I could be wrong. I don't think there's a good reason for God not to heal people, just like I don't think there's a good reason for Islamic terrorism. A 'maybe' isn't good enough.

 

[Loudmouth]

I want to heal 99% of people in great suffering or danger, and I would if I could.

I could never understand why people believed in faith healers. If they could really really cure person after person of cancer by waiving their hands about, why weren't they doing that full time? Why only on Sundays? Why weren't they opening up hospitals and curing as many people as they could for as long as they could?

 

[terryjohn]

If you healed everyone, would that not impact on our sense of justice, and the law of cause and effect? Are ideas of goodness and justice in compatable?

 

[brotherChristian]

...
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?

"Good" as I see it is a purely human construct which is subjective, malleable and ultimately unreliable as a descriptive adjective. But I'm a high school drop-out, what do I know?

I think you are exactly right, though, about ascribing these words like loving, good, etc. to a god that is supposed to be "above" all these things. And yes, why indeed do what it says if it doesn't fit our definition of good?

I think healing people is good, obviously most gods out there don't think it's good because they have the power to heal but refuse to do it. If their idea of good doesn't jibe with mine, I certainly wouldn't want to go around following their notion of morality.

 

[Paradoxum]

"Good" as I see it is a purely human construct which is subjective, malleable and ultimately unreliable as a descriptive adjective. But I'm a high school drop-out, what do I know?

Well I see why you think that.

I think you are exactly right, though, about ascribing these words like loving, good, etc. to a god that is supposed to be "above" all these things. And yes, why indeed do what it says if it doesn't fit our definition of good?

I think healing people is good, obviously most gods out there don't think it's good because they have the power to heal but refuse to do it. If their idea of good doesn't jibe with mine, I certainly wouldn't want to go around following their notion of morality.

I agree.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'll phrase it another way:

I want to heal 99% of people in great suffering or danger, and I would if I could.

God could heal 99% of people in great suffering or danger, but doesn't.

Does this make me more moral than God on this issue?

So, may we assume that with your level of commitment to healing people you'll be entering the medical profession?

 

[Euler]

Big Red Fish

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Big Red Fish

Would you like some Tartar Sauce with that?

 

[Euler]

Whatever you do, don't address her point.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Whatever you do, don't address her point.

When she makes a point with integrity, then I'll address it.

Everyone wants to be an expert on God and the Good...she's just one more in a long line.

 

[Euler]

When she makes a point with integrity, then I'll address it.

Everyone wants to be an expert on God and the Good...she's just one more in a long line.

I think she makes a perfectly valid point. In fact, this problem of theodicy has vexed the minds of many theologians down through the ages.

Had she the power to end suffering for as many people as possible, she would do it.

Your God, if it exists, has such a power, yet it doesn't.

Her morality is superior.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think she makes a perfectly valid point. In fact, this problem of theodicy has vexed the minds of many theologians down through the ages.

Had she the power to end suffering for as many people as possible, she would do it.

Your God, if it exists, has such a power, yet it doesn't.

Her morality is superior.

It doesn't vex me. If we're going to play the theodicy game, then we should take into account all of the characteristics of God that are expressed in the Bible and not just the one's we want to refute or tear down or subject to the non-synthetic confines of deductive logic. (I'm not saying this to be mean, but I've noticed over the years that Atheists tend to point the finger at Christians for supposedly 'picking and choosing.' However, in this case, I think the Critics should point the finger back at themselves.)

 

[Euler]

It doesn't vex me. If we're going to play the theodicy game, then we should take into account all of the characteristics of God that are expressed in the Bible and not just the one's we want to refute or tear down or subject to the non-synthetic confines of deductive logic. (I'm not saying this to be mean, but I've noticed over the years that Atheists tend to point the finger at Christians for supposedly 'picking and choosing.' However, in this case, I think the Critics should point the finger back at themselves.)

Your God is touted as being 'perfect'. Wholly good, without blemish, faultless. I think it's entirely legitimate to challenge that claim. And, in order to disprove that claim, all that needs to be done is to find ONE characteristic that doesn't fit the description of 'perfect'.

There are several. The theodicy issue is one of them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Your God is touted as being 'perfect'. Wholly good, without blemish, faultless. I think it's entirely legitimate to challenge that claim. And, in order to disprove that claim, all that needs to be done is to find ONE characteristic that doesn't fit the description of 'perfect'.

There are several. The theodicy issue is one of them.

The first mistake is to think that the general 'idea' we have of 'perfection' somehow ACTUALLY reflects the possibility of our being able to identify something truly perfect. I find that presumption to be analytically preposterous. It's like blowing up a balloon and then confusing the whole phenomenon by then calling it a "solid object." BAH! Perfection as a measure doesn't exist at a human level; it's just a word we've created.

 

[Euler]

The first mistake is to think that the general 'idea' we have of 'perfection' somehow ACTUALLY reflects the possibility of our being able to identify something truly perfect. I find that presumption to be analytically preposterous. It's like blowing up a balloon and then confusing the whole phenomenon by then calling it a "solid object." BAH!

Ah yes, when things get sticky, there's always Apologeticus Gymnastica to fall back on right?! The world in which 'perfect' doesn't have to mean 'perfect'!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ah yes, when things get sticky, there's always Apologeticus Gymnastica to fall back on right?! The world in which 'perfect' doesn't have to mean 'perfect'!

It's not Mental Gymnastics. I'm simply placing the onus of the burden on those who claim that we ACTUALLY have a fully analytical, and synthetic, understanding of the concept of 'perfection'---by which we could then hope to ACTUALLY 'measure' some other concept, like 'god.' I think those who do so are not doing anything much different than, say, Don Quixote.

Show me a perfect ruler, and I'll show you a Perfect Ruler.

 

[Euler]

It's not Mental Gymnastics. I'm simply placing the onus of the burden on those who claim that we ACTUALLY have a fully analytical, and synthetic, understanding of the concept of 'perfection'---by which we could then hope to ACTUALLY 'measure' some other concept, like 'god.' I think those who do so are not doing anything much different than, say, Don Quixote.

Show me a perfect ruler, and I'll show you a Perfect Ruler.

I am not the one who claims that he worships a "perfect" being and then is unable to justify that claim.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am not the one who claims that he worships a "perfect" being and then is unable to justify that claim.

That's great, neither do I! Why? Because just engaging, let alone understanding, the Biblical concept of the Divine is more than stuffing several OMNI concepts into a bag and calling it "God."

 

[Euler]

That's great, neither do I! Why? Because just engaging, let alone understanding, the Biblical concept of the Divine is more than stuffing several OMNI concepts into a bag and calling it "God."

Fine. Then you should similarly have no problem in accepting Paradoxum's claim that her morality could be shown to be superior to that questionably 'perfect' being.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Fine. Then you should similarly have no problem in accepting Paradoxum's claim that her morality could be shown to be superior to that questionably 'perfect' being.

Euler.

Look...I know you're a smart guy, but Paradoxum has to establish that not only that she can clearly identify what is morally 'perfect,' but also what would be understandably as 'perfect' as well, by whatever form of measurement it might entail, whether ontological or ethical, etc.

She can't establish what would be perfect, although she might be able to claim (assert) that some way of thinking morally is better, or good, or intuitively compelling. Needless to say, none of these kinds of attempt at playing with moral concepts can, or will, clearly and 'perfectly' demonstrate (show) that her sense of morality is indeed "superior" to that of a Divine Being. All she can do is evince a preference for a moral form. Even the 'founders' of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights knew they couldn't 'establish' an irrefutably solid foundation for their work. So, where's the perfect moral measuring rod? Not to be found anywhere on a human level.