The Problem of a Missing Motive

[FireDragon76]

What's the point of struggling to tie your shoes as a child, when as an adult you wouldn't need to struggle with that?

I don't really defend religion here, but the question implies that there may not be some valid point in that case.

I agree, the objection is a weak one. Esp. because Christians don't traditionally believe that the future life will be disconnected from the present one, so the shoe-laces comparison is valid.

The only problem that I see: "soul building" theodicy has only a minor impact in most Christians' theology. I actually see it played out more in progressive Christian theologies, esp. liberation-influenced theologies.

 

[Colter]

What's the point of struggling to tie your shoes as a child, when as an adult you wouldn't need to struggle with that?

I don't really defend religion here, but the question implies that there may not be some valid point in that case.

Wait until you get a little older, you will again struggle with tying your shoes.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Wait until you get a little older, you will again struggle with tying your shoes.

Not if you choose Zubits. They save a lot of hassle

 

[Colter]

Not if you choose Zubits. They save a lot of hassle

LoL! I will have to try remember those when I get to that place when I can't remember anything anymore.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What's the point of struggling to tie your shoes as a child, when as an adult you wouldn't need to struggle with that?

I don't really defend religion here, but the question implies that there may not be some valid point in that case.

What are you? The king of faulty analogies?

Are you saying that the "lust" man struggles with on earth doesn't exist in heaven because there is no sex? Is it because you won't have a body? Or will you just no longer be a sexual being?

Mastering control of something and not ever having to deal with its existence are two very different things.

 

[Dre Khipov]

Mastering control of something and not ever having to deal with its existence are two very different things.

I've already addressed it. Much of our human experience deals with learning thungs that we don't use later. It doesn't mean that experience was useless.

Our experience adds to combined understanding of our reality. That combined network of experience and understanding then drives our subsequent actions in any given situatiin.

 

[Colter]

- (agg on don' ters). Ascending will creatures from planets spiritually isolated by rebellion, and who, therefore; have gained valuable experience in the exercise of faith and the development of confidence in cosmic reliability, for they must learn to believe without seeing. ~ The Urantia Book, Paper 50, Section 7

 

[Ana the Ist]

I've already addressed it. Much of our human experience deals with learning thungs that we don't use later. It doesn't mean that experience was useless.

Actually, that's exactly what it means.

Our experience adds to combined understanding of our reality. That combined network of experience and understanding then drives our subsequent actions in any given situatiin.

In some ways, in others...not so much.

 

[Colter]

For the decided Atheist it is true that the experience of life is ultimately a complete waste of time, they wont draw from any experience after death. But nothing good is ever lost, should a person reject survival, anything good in their life transmits to the eventuation of the Supreme.

 

[Locutus]

So there will only be satisfying work in heaven? I am asking because the physical world comes with a lot of necessary but uninspiring, unsatisfactory work. (See Ana´s example of scrubbing toilets).

dancing and scrubbing toilets starts to look very similar to life on earth. if they're saying we'll be in physical bodies while doing the dancing/scrubbing, then the only difference will be geographical location. seems pointless.

 

[Locutus]

Good question! A simple answer is that God creates in order to prove His love to His creation.

.

That makes no sense. You're effectively suggesting that the god does it to please himself, rather than to 'parent' us. And by parent I mean unconditional love, support, and protection.

 

[quatona]

That makes no sense. You're effectively suggesting that the god does it to please himself, rather than to 'parent' us. And by parent I mean unconditional love, support, and protection.

Not to mention that "creating X to prove one´s love for X" is having it backwards, anyway.

 

[Chriliman]

That makes no sense. You're effectively suggesting that the god does it to please himself, rather than to 'parent' us. And by parent I mean unconditional love, support, and protection.

Actually not at all what I was suggesting.

 

[Chriliman]

Not to mention that "creating X to prove one´s love for X" is having it backwards, anyway.

In order to prove my love to my children, I'd have to create them so they can experience my love.

 

[Locutus]

Essentially, you are asking the same type of question as many high-schoolers do - why do I need to learn complex math if I'll never use it. Well, it teaches one how to think.

It would, if the time allocated to learning was reasonable. EG, kids are in school for approximately 12-14 years out of approximately 80. Some are in school for 20, if degrees are pursued. That's one quarter of a life - and that life is the same life, in the same place, for which the education prepared one for.

Now consider 80 years of 'school' against eternity. It's less than a picosecond. It's less than the smallest span of time ever conceived. By a factor of a zillion. And that infinitesimally tiny dot of time is 'training' for an utterly different life.

Arguments in favour of life as education look decidedly silly when scale is factored in.

 

[Locutus]

Actually not at all what I was suggesting.

Go ahead then ... what did you mean?

 

[Locutus]

In order to prove my love to my children, I'd have to create them so they can experience my love.

But that isn't WHY we have kids. We have kids because the drive to survive compels us to procreate. We live short lives, so must breed.

Once the kids are born, we then parent them for THEIR sake, more than we do our own.

 

[Ana the Ist]

For the decided Atheist it is true that the experience of life is ultimately a complete waste of time,

False.

they wont draw from any experience after death. But nothing good is ever lost, should a person reject survival, anything good in their life transmits to the eventuation of the Supreme.

Nonsense.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In order to prove my love to my children, I'd have to create them so they can experience my love.

As Locutus pointed out, this is backwards. How can you love something before it exists? You don't even know it yet.

Also, this runs into problems of cause and effect which make no sense when applied to a god who knows the future. If god already knew that he would create mankind before he created mankind....then asking "Why did god create mankind?" is pointless...he had to, he has no choice in the matter.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But that isn't WHY we have kids. We have kids because the drive to survive compels us to procreate. We live short lives, so must breed.

Once the kids are born, we then parent them for THEIR sake, more than we do our own.

Frankly, I think any parent who would have children so that they could teach the children to worship them....isn't fit to be a parent.