- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
And you haven't refuted MY argument - rather your argument against yourself as I highlighted at post 98.
Upvote
0
1)Why does God need a reason to act? 2) We get the joy of accomplishment through development 3)I don't believe infinite worlds are necessary for infinite goodness, and raised the counterpoint of the inherent value of uniqueness. The hypothetical infinte worlds are simply to point out that if such were a requirement for infinite goodness theres no reason to think its not happening 4) Love doesn't always interfere, though. Sometimes it allows suffering, such as in teaching. Constantly feeding someone and infantalizing them isn't better than teaching them to fend for themselves 5) Your contention is that in order for goodness to be infinite it must increase, but since uniqueness is an inherently good quality multiple creations could actually decrease rather than increase the degree to which goodness exists.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.
That amounts to the same thing! Distinction without a difference. You're implying that He CAN deviate from our definitions in terms of transgressing our restrictions/boundaries for those definitions.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.
Love intervenes to REDUCE suffering. Why would an omnibenevolent being intervene to INCREASE suffering? Newsflash: The whole point of the discipline of theodicy is to explain this apparent contradiction. Leaping over it nonchalantly hopscotch, as you are trying to do, is not a convincing response.1)Why does God need a reason to act?
Ah, so surgeons must hate their patients. Why are you re-treading ground that's been discussed?Love intervenes to REDUCE suffering. Why would an omnibenevolent being intervene to INCREASE suffering? Newsflash: The whole point of the discipline of theodicy is to explain this apparent contradiction. Leaping over it nonchalantly hopscotch, as you are trying to do, is not a convincing response.
Not at all, it's just you've got the order backwards. "Goodness" is a meaningless concept, other than as an analogue of God's nature. "Honesty," is also analogous, in that "objective reality" is what God creates, not a thing He is subject to. "Justice," again flows from God and what we know of it is an analogue. We can trust the words not because of an objective value to them, but because they are grounded in God.That amounts to the same thing! Distinction without a difference. You're implying that He CAN deviate from our definitions in terms of transgressing our restrictions/boundaries for those definitions.
This is your justification for suffering? Jesus said pray that you NOT be led into temptation. Unlike you, apparently He realized that suffering/temptation is not inherently good. Suppose you just got married, wanted to have ten kids, and God gave you a choice.2) We get the joy of accomplishment through development.
Makes no sense. You're implying that an infinite God can't give us the same degree of joy/pleasure without suffering. That's a contradiction.2) We get the joy of accomplishment through development.
That's exactly the sort of relativism espoused by Mark Quayle. Goodness is whatever God decides to define it as, even if that includes sending innocent people (i.e. puppets) to hell. This whole thread is full of my rebuttals to that nonsense, as it reduces the Bible to nonsense and self-contradictory promises and injustice and undermines hope.Not at all, it's just you've got the order backwards. "Goodness" is a meaningless concept, other than as an analogue of God's nature. "Honesty," is also analogous, in that "objective reality" is what God creates, not a thing He is subject to. "Justice," again flows from God and what we know of it is an analogue. We can trust the words not because of an objective value to them, but because they are grounded in God.
Newsflash: Uncreated beings are not injured patients.Ah, so surgeons must hate their patients. Why are you re-treading ground that's been discussed?
Now you're conflating all sorts of things. Suffering is not temptation, though temptation may lead to suffering. Some relevant words of Jesus on "the problem of evil" are found in Matthew 15 where He tells us what creates evil. You've already admitted that not all suffering is morally evil, which is the entire basis of the objection of suffering. If there is a good purpose to suffering, it is moral to inflict suffering.This is your justification for suffering? Jesus said pray that you NOT be led into temptation. Unlike you, apparently He realized that suffering/temptation is not inherently good. Suppose you just got married, wanted to have ten kids, and God gave you a choice.
(1) "Just pray to me, briefly, and I will shield them from all temptation."
(2) You will have your ten kids, but they will all suffer great temptation, in fact at least half of them will wind up in hell.
Curious to which choice you'd opt for.
Makes no sense. You're implying that an infinite God can't give us the same degree of joy/pleasure without suffering. That's a contradiction.
As opposed to goodness being defined by you or I? There's no relativism, we can hold God to His nature as revealed and expect Him to behave in a certain manner. But it is His nature that defines the issue, not what we want it to mean.That's exactly the sort of relativism espoused by Mark Quayle. Goodness is whatever God decides to define it as, even if that includes sending innocent people (i.e. puppets) to hell. This whole thread is full of my rebuttals to that nonsense, as it reduces the Bible to nonsense and self-contradictory promises and injustice and undermines hope.
Baloney. You've never heard of the agony of temptation? You don't understand that the recovering alcoholic or drug addict faces agony? There is no temptation without suffering.Now you're conflating all sorts of things. Suffering is not temptation, though temptation may lead to suffering.
Great. Than I have no assurance of salvation, because I have no assurance that God is not a liar. After all, He is the one who gets to establish the definition of "lies", "honesty", "integerity", and so forth. My opinion doesn't matter.As opposed to goodness being defined by you or I? There's no relativism, we can hold God to His nature as revealed and expect Him to behave in a certain manner. But it is His nature that defines the issue, not what we want it to mean.
So those who lust do so out of suffering? Just because A follows B does not mean that B follows A. Temptation can be suffering, and suffering can lead to temptation. But not all suffering is temptation, nor is all temptation suffering. Adam was not tempted to defy God's words because of any suffering.Baloney. You've never heard of the agony of temptation? You don't understand that the recovering alcoholic or drug addict faces agony? There is no temptation without suffering.
Replace that word "good" with "necessary" and we've finally found a point of agreement. But more than that - the Problem of Evil isn't merely about what God is ALLOWED to do in terms of upright behavior, it is about whether His actions reflect the HIGHEST POSSIBLE level of love/kindness (infinite love). And bear in mind that love is defined as intervening to REDUCE suffering.If there is a good purpose to suffering, it is moral to inflict suffering.
Absolutely. Duh. You really don't get that?So those who lust do so out of suffering?
Nice straw man, you seem to be fond of building them. Assurance of salvation comes from God's nature, because God does not change. God IS truth, He does not simply tell the truth. A lie is a statement that is contrary to God's person, meaning He can in no way be a liar. It's simply not possible, when He speaks He creates reality so what He says is the truth.Great. Than I have no assurance of salvation, because I have no assurance that God is not a liar. After all, He is the one who gets to establish the definition of "lies", "honesty", "integerity", and so forth. My opinion doesn't matter.
Why are you re-treading ground that's been discussed?
Only if "not getting everything I want" is conflated with suffering, in which case the very idea of good goes entirely out the window because then not being allowed to murder is suffering, which you seem to be insisting is evil.Absolutely. Duh. You really don't get that?