One Died For All

[Fervent]

This is the sort of statement that Mark Quayle is continually making - claiming that God is not like us, that He is incomprehensible. That kind of claim spells the end of theology, as I've demonstrated in numerous posts on this thread.

Not quite, because I am not saying God is not subject to human definitions like justice, honesty, etc. It's simply that we cannot apply terms that are defined based on our restrictions to an unrestricted being. Desire to us is a matter of lack, but since God lacks nothing His desires cannot be attributed to lack.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Wow. I thought I was clear about this at the outset. Here's what I said at post 34:
"JAL said:
Look, God had a couple of options - the following is Theology 101 (duh). Either:
(1) Allow some degree of human freedom.
(2) OR, exercise absolute sovereignty, preengineering man's every thought, move and intent.

You can't have both. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't make 2 + 2 = 5. That's simple logic, it is NOT a sign of weakness. Again, duh."


In other words, option 2 is where God exercises 100% sovereignty, as the quintessential control-freak. Option 1, therefore, is where He relinquishes just enough of His sovereignty to facilitate a modicum of human freedom.

Are we still stuck on Theology 101 here? Really?

I can't help but wonder in what school you studied Theology. How does, concerning God, "absolute sovereignty" imply "quintessential control-freak"? I would like to hear your logical sequence as to how "relinquishing just enough of his sovereignty" is not self-contradictory rhetoric.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Always assuming what is to be proven:

You might ask how I myself prove that each of us is a sort of First Cause in virtue of free will. Simple. If we forego the assumption of free will, divine retribution becomes unwarranted, arbitrary, and unjust. I don't need any more proof than that.

Show your logic. You make mere assertions. It seems to me so far that you come up with absurdities to maintain the dignity of self-determination, instead of happy submission to the Sovereign Lord.

 

[JAL]

Except "sadism" is need-fulfillment in humans, it's merely that the need is satisfied by the suffering of another. You're defining God in terms of creation, rather than the other way around. Suffering isn't necessary for God, nor does He directly gain pleasure from suffering, but WE need suffering in order to achieve our highest good and so God would not be good to deny us the suffering.

Uncreated beings were standing around in need of suffering? Hardly a satisfying response. But I think what you mean to say is that God did us all a favor, in the long term, by creating a world of suffering. Thus the act of creating this kind of world was an act of generosity on His part. In your view, then, suffering IS inherently good, wherefore you should want it perpetuated for all eternity. Oh that's right, I forgot - the perpetuity of suffering is called "hell". That's basically what you want for yourself, then, right? Suffering for all eternity? Hell? No?

Anyway let's go back to your fundamental conclusion. You believe that:
(1) God did us a favor by enacting suffering.
(2) Therefore it was an act of generosity on His part.

Fine. Let's assume that's true. How much generosity does an infinite God possess? An infinite amount, right? Therefore after this world is finished, His intent MUST be to create another planet Earth (this time starting out with, say, Vincent, Bob, and Sally instead of Lucifer, Adam, and Eve), and then another, and another - and so on ad infinitum. Clearly this is NOT what He is going to do because suffering is NOT an act of generosity. Suffering is useful only, temporarily, as a necessary evil to a necessary end, and thus cannot be reconciled with an infinitely self-sufficient God devoid of needs.

Think of a parent who refuses to discipline their child, would you consider them a good parent for allowing their child to be a spoiled brat?

If I were an infinitely powerful and self-sufficient Parent, my child wouldn't be suffering the agony of temptation. I would have no reason to give him enough rope to hang himself on. I would create him holy, or not at all, to spare us both unnecessary misery.

 

[JAL]

I can't help but wonder in what school you studied Theology. How does, concerning God, "absolute sovereignty" imply "quintessential control-freak"? I would like to hear your logical sequence as to how "relinquishing just enough of his sovereignty" is not self-contradictory rhetoric.

Puppets are fully controlled by their string. Free beings are not so manipulated.

This is another debating tactic often seen on this forum. People feign inability to comprehend even the simplest of my assertions as a way of insinuating that those assertions don't make sense. Prove to me that you don't know what a puppet is, and then MAYBE I'll take you seriously.

 

[Fervent]

Uncreated beings were standing around in need of suffering? Hardly a satisfying response. But I think what you mean to say is that God did us all a favor, in the long term, by creating a world of suffering. Thus the act of creating this kind of world was an act of generosity on His part. In your view, then, suffering IS inherently good, wherefore you should want it perpetuated for all eternity. Oh that's right, I forgot - the perpetuity of suffering is called "hell". That's basically what you want for yourself, then, right? Suffering for all eternity? Hell? No?

Anyway let's go back to your fundamental conclusion. You believe that:
(1) God did us a favor by enacting suffering.
(2) Therefore it was an act of generosity on His part.

Fine. Let's assume that's true. How much generosity does an infinite God possess? An infinite amount, right? Therefore after this world is finished, His intent MUST be to create another planet Earth (this time starting out with, say, Vincent, Bob, and Sally instead of Lucifer, Adam, and Eve), and then another, and another - an so on ad infinitum. Clearly this is NOT what He is going to do because suffering is NOT an act of generosity. Suffering is useful only, temporarily, as a necessary evil to a necessary end, and thus cannot be reconciled with an infinitely self-sufficient God devoid of needs.

If I were an infinitely powerful and self-sufficient Parent, my child wouldn't be suffering the agony of temptation. I would have no reason to give him enough rope to hang himself on. I would create him holy, or not at all, to spare us both unnecessary misery.

That's one heck of a straw man along with a massive assumption about my theology. Yes, suffering has an inherent goodness to it. Surgeons inflict suffering and cut patients, does that mean they desire the patient be eternally inflicted with suffering? Method and dose can turn medicine to poison. Chemotherapy is intentionally poisoning someone. The only way that suffering is a problem is if it does not serve some purpose that is inherently a good purpose.

 

[JAL]

Show your logic. You make mere assertions. It seems to me so far that you come up with absurdities to maintain the dignity of self-determination, instead of happy submission to the Sovereign Lord.

The logic of that post was clear enough. See my previous response to you (post 85).

 

[JAL]

That's one heck of a straw man along with a massive assumption about my theology. Yes, suffering has an inherent goodness to it. Surgeons inflict suffering and cut patients, does that mean they desire the patient be eternally inflicted with suffering? Method and dose can turn medicine to poison. Chemotherapy is intentionally poisoning someone. The only way that suffering is a problem is if it does not serve some purpose that is inherently a good purpose.

False analogy. Surgeons are not infinitely self-sufficient beings. You can't take MY solution (the finitude of surgeons) and pretend it is YOURS. It is MY solution to solve the problem by finitude.

 

[JAL]

Not quite, because I am not saying God is not subject to human definitions like justice, honesty, etc. It's simply that we cannot apply terms that are defined based on our restrictions to an unrestricted being. Desire to us is a matter of lack, but since God lacks nothing His desires cannot be attributed to lack.

God lacks nothing but suffers unfulfilled desires? Incomprehensible gibberish.

 

[Fervent]

False analogy. Surgeons are not infinitely self-sufficient beings. You can't take MY solution (the finitude of surgeons) and pretend it is YOURS. It is MY solution to solve the problem by finitude.

The trouble is you're assuming that suffering is eternal, and applying to me a position of eternal suffering in hell. I'm an annhilationist, suffering ends and in eternity when the purposes of the suffering we endured is revealed we will be glad for it. You state we could be created "Holy" and "good" and assume that would be a preferable solution, yet freedom requires that we be able engage in behaviors God does not approve of and "goodness" is our analogue for what God desires meaning such a being would not have its own will. Would that truly be a preferable existence, or do we attain more pleasure by defining our selves and discovering what it means to be good naturally?

 

[Mark Quayle]

If the choice is pre-determined, there is no choice merely the illusion of choice. If the choice is not pre-determined, free will exists.

There your argument falls apart, (if not before). The fact that one or more apparent options are only apparent doesn't mean that one doesn't choose from among them. (In fact, if you like, you may even philosophize that one's choice determines God's choice, since in the end they are both certainly "whatever happens", MacBeth style. (No, I'm not saying I think that way.)) No sir, that fact only makes mankind's choice a bit humbling. We don't have the wisdom of God to assess all possibilities-- (they are only "in him" anyway, as absolute creator) --nor, certainly, do we have his knowledge and control of his plan. We don't operate on God's level. (Is it really that hard for the non-Calvinist/Reformed to lower himself to non- self-determination?)

Just to play with you here a bit, what do you do to show this syllogism to be absurd: Nothing every happens except whatever happens. Therefore, we find historically, that only one thing CAN ever happen. (That is to say, we can extrapolate from the past to project into the future that this trend will continue.)

 

[Fervent]

God lacks nothing but suffers unfulfilled desires? Incomprehensible gibberish.

If you have an excess of food, and give some to a homeless person is that out of "unfulfilled desires?" To attribute all of God's action to "desire from unfulfilled needs" is to limit His freedom even beyond that of a human being. You're placing arbitrary constraints that require argumentation if you wish to apply them.

 

[Fervent]

There your argument falls apart, (if not before). The fact that one or more apparent options are only apparent doesn't mean that one doesn't choose from among them. (In fact, if you like, you may even philosophize that one's choice determines God's choice, since in the end they are both certainly "whatever happens", MacBeth style. (No, I'm not saying I think that way.)) No sir, that fact only makes mankind's choice a bit humbling. We don't have the wisdom of God to assess all possibilities-- (they are only "in him" anyway, as absolute creator) --nor, certainly, do we have his knowledge and control of his plan. We don't operate on God's level. (Is it really that hard for the non-Calvinist/Reformed to lower himself to non- self-determination?)

Just to play with you here a bit, what do you do to show this syllogism to be absurd: Nothing every happens except whatever happens. Therefore, we find historically, that only one thing CAN ever happen. (That is to say, we can extrapolate from the past to project into the future that this trend will continue.)

choice-an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities. If there is no freedom to act, there is no choice. If there is freedom to act, there is free will. Playing at definitions until you've eliminated the common usage doesn't make the word apply or in any way appropriate.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The logic of that post was clear enough. See my previous response to you (post 85).

Actually, no. You said, "Puppets are fully controlled by their string. Free beings are not so manipulated." That is not logic, but mere assertion.

But to deal with your claim:
In this you make an assumption that we are free beings, not slaves to sin or to Christ, and not controlled by Almighty God. Call it puppetry if you wish, you are unable to thwart what God has decreed from eternity, nor even to preserve self-determination. Nor can you defeat the Law of Causality. You also have yet to show how the claim of God giving up some of his sovereignty is not self-contradictory.

 

[JAL]

The trouble is you're assuming that suffering is eternal, and applying to me a position of eternal suffering in hell. I'm an annhilationist...

Actually I don't assume that at all. I'm an annhilationist as well.

...suffering ends and in eternity when the purposes of the suffering we endured is revealed we will be glad for it. You state we could be created "Holy" and "good" and assume that would be a preferable solution, yet freedom requires that we be able engage in behaviors God does not approve of and "goodness" is our analogue for what God desires meaning such a being would not have its own will. Would that truly be a preferable existence, or do we attain more pleasure by defining our selves and discovering what it means to be good naturally?

Freedom (suffering the agony of temptation) is NOT inherently good. Were suffering innately good, heaven and hell would strongly resemble each other, except "heaven" would last forever.

Again, if an infinitely generous God did us all a favor by creating a world of suffering/temptation, then His infinite generosity CANNOT halt at a single planet Earth. It must go on forever.

The solution is simple. Reject the assumption of infinitude.

You do realize, don't you, that an actualized infinity is incoherent nonsense? Infinity is not a specific/discrete number. Although it is CONCEPTUALLY used in integral calculus, it is only used to project a pattern for drawing reasonable conclusions. An ACTUALIZED infinity of any kind is a crock.

 

[Fervent]

Actually I don't assume that at all. I'm an annhilationist as well.


Freedom (suffering the agony of temptation) is NOT inherently good. Were suffering innately good, heaven and hell would strongly resemble each other, except "heaven" would last forever.

Again, if an infinitely generous God did us all a favor by creating a world of suffering/temptation, then His infinite generosity CANNOT halt at a single planet Earth. It must go on forever.

The solution is simple. Reject the assumption of infinitude.

You do realize, don't you, that an actualized infinity is incoherent nonsense? Infinity is not a specific/discrete number. Although it is CONCEPTUALLY used in integral calculus, it is only used to project a pattern for drawing reasonable conclusions. An ACTUALIZED infinity of any kind is a crock.

Neither is suffering inherently evil, at least not in a moral sense. Intentionally causing suffering in order to derive pleasure would be evil, but intentionally causing suffering is not evil. Deriving pleasure in spite of suffering is also not evil, nor is it sadism. As for the infinite progression, I see no reason for such a progression. Numeric increase is not necessarily superior to a single instance, in fact uniqueness is an inherently valuable quality. So why would more=better necessarily?

 

[JAL]

Actually, no. You said, "Puppets are fully controlled by their string. Free beings are not so manipulated." That is not logic, but mere assertion.

Um..er...No it is a definition. Determined beings (puppets) are fully controlled by the preceding dominos, whereas free beings transcend ordinary causalities.

But to deal with your claim:
In this you make an assumption that we are free beings, not slaves to sin or to Christ, and not controlled by Almighty God. Call it puppetry if you wish, you are unable to thwart what God has decreed from eternity, nor even to preserve self-determination. Nor can you defeat the Law of Causality.

Right. The law that you don't hold God to because you believe that God is free. Only you won't allow that man might be free. Too many fallacies here (special pleading, assuming what is to be proven, non-sequiturs, etc, etc, etc).

You also have yet to show how the claim of God giving up some of his sovereignty is not self-contradictory.

What is the charge of contradiction? How is control-freak inherent to the definition of personhood? It is YOU who has unjustifiably bought into a philosophical concept of infinitude, which assumes that God must be infinite in all respects including sovereignty. Your position is based on assumptions, not proof.

 

[JAL]

Neither is suffering inherently evil, at least not in a moral sense. Intentionally causing suffering in order to derive pleasure would be evil, but intentionally causing suffering is not evil.

Thanks for corroborating my arguments. You just proved my whole case. For an infinitely self-sufficient God, suffering is NEVER out of need, it is ONLY out of pleasure.

As for the infinite progression, I see no reason for such a progression. Numeric increase is not necessarily superior to a single instance, in fact uniqueness is an inherently valuable quality. So why would more=better necessarily?

Baloney. Infinite generosity is, well, infinite. Sorry you dislike the implications.

 

[Fervent]

Thanks for corroborating my arguments. You just proved my whole case. For an infinitely self-sufficient God, suffering is NEVER out of need, it is ONLY out of pleasure.



Baloney. Infinite generosity is, well, infinite. Sorry you dislike the implications.

Yes, it is God's pleasure to inflict suffering because through it we become more perfect beings. As for "infinite generosity is infinite," even if your supposed implications were true(which I still do not see a reason they would be, and you completely ignored my counter argument) there's no reason to assume that God isn't creating infinite worlds we do not know about so it's rather moot. Though you're confusing "infinite," for example a circularity is a form of infinite that does not involve increase. Creating a single world is in no way less "good" than if there were thousands, just as more lives are not necessarily more valuable.

 

[JAL]

Yes, it is God's pleasure to inflict suffering because through it we become more perfect beings.

As for "infinite generosity is infinite," even if your supposed implications were true(which I still do not see a reason they would be, and you completely ignored my counter argument) there's no reason to assume that God isn't creating infinite worlds we do not know about so it's rather moot. Though you're confusing "infinite," for example a circularity is a form of infinite that does not involve increase. Creating a single world is in no way less "good" than if there were thousands, just as more lives are not necessarily more valuable.

Too many unresolved issues.
(1) Why create us at all?
(2) Why not create us holy?
(3) We do have good reason to disbelieve in infinite worlds - God promised to put an end to suffering, confirming that suffering is not a good thing. And frankly I don't believe that YOU believe infinite worlds, so it is not a moot point.
(4) Love isn't warm fuzzies. It intervenes to reduce suffering. Infinite love spells infinite intervention and thus is incompatible with suffering. For example, it would spell infinite atonement wherefore even the sin of rejecting salvation would be forgiven, even the devil would be forgiven. No room for hell here.
(5) I didn't ignore your counterargument, I just don't think it addresses my argument. You're making a seemingly bogus claim that God did the uncreated a huge favor by birthing them into a world of suffering. (With friends like that, who needs enemies?). Picturing myself in God's shoes, I certainly wouldn't have done so. Cerainly the atheists concur -that's why they press the Problem of Evil. You claim this is for our benefit? Why then not benefit MORE people? Sorry but my infinite-progression argument stands unrefuted. If suffering is inherently good, you haven't shown that more isn't better.