Theodicy argument failure?

[Montalban]

Well, actually I agree. I dont find the "problem of evil" to be a problem. The "free-will" defense sits fine with me.
.

 

[durangodawood]

None of the arguments for or against God(s) sway me at all. I dont understand how people can reason at all about a putative being who's properties are simply beyond human imagining.
.

 

[Montalban]

None of the arguments for or against God(s) sway me at all. I dont understand how people can reason at all about a putative being who's properties are simply beyond human imagining.
.

It's a paradox. God is, ultimately unknowable - because if we fully knew God, we'd be God.

However God is knowable, and has made himself known to us. The problem is we're like running on backward software

 

[hikersong]

The problem is we're like running on backward software

That explains a lot.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

montalban, the post you quoted does not contain the position you put in my mouth, namely ""God should intervene to stop us (SERIOUSLY) harming ourselves or others."

I'd accept it as an overly simplistic version of my POV if it weren't for the "harming ourselves"-part, which was never included in my argument.

My argument always revolved around the fact that if you consider free will to be of utmost importance, you need to protect people from having it taken away from them by being murdered, for example - which is always involuntary, and seriously interferes with our freedom to choose our own path.

My second angle, which compliments the first but does not rely on it, concerns the moral duty that comes with enormous power.
A personal, supernatural interventionist God as imagined by Christians has the knowledge and the means to help, at no risk to himself, without any serious effort on his part. Neglecting to do so makes him complicit in every atrocity that happens out there.

Sorry. No cookie for you.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

However God is knowable, and has made himself known to us.

Seeing how you probably refer to the Bible and Church tradition with this one, I think it's safe to say that you are aware that we pretty much disagree on this fundamental point.

Transcendence can be experienced directly, probably even be communicated to a certain degree using poetic imagery and metaphors. But KNOWING God based on a collection of culture-specific myths of the ancient middle east, some of which turn out to be naively superstitious in their understanding of the natural world and human society? Nah, sorry.

No cookie for you, again.

 

[Montalban]

Seeing how you probably refer to the Bible and Church tradition with this one, I think it's safe to say that you are aware that we pretty much disagree on this fundamental point.

Transcendence can be experienced directly, probably even be communicated to a certain degree using poetic imagery and metaphors. But KNOWING God based on a collection of culture-specific myths of the ancient middle east, some of which turn out to be naively superstitious in their understanding of the natural world and human society? Nah, sorry.

Huh? Are you saying that you can know God completely?

 

[Rationalt]

You must be quite brave coming forward with this idea.

Because both exist

You can't have one without the other.

Not necessarily.One can meet with an accident(Where there are no perpetrators) and lead a life of pain and misery.

In order to protect one the other's 'free will' would have to be curtailed.

Wow.Let us take this further.A criminal badly injures a person which makes the victim lead the rest of his life in pain and misery.The criminal(Perpetrator) realizes his mistake and repents(Sincerely ) for it.The perpetrator excercised his free will, commits a crime(For his own amusement) and then realizes his mistake.The perpetartor gets his account wiped clean and on his way to heaven(To do spiritual sacrifices to Yahweh).

Something stinks..right.

 

[Montalban]

You must be quite brave coming forward with this idea.

I do impressions

Not necessarily.One can meet with an accident(Where there are no perpetrators) and lead a life of pain and misery.

Well that's not the premise we were discussing. Here's what this train of thought started with....

Innocent people getting murdered, raped disproves Theodicy
argument ;That is the issue,I gather.

Are you saying that nature rapes people?

It seems you've moved goalposts when we were talking about people acting upon other people. Which is why I said you can't have one without the other; victim, perp. Now you've switched that.

Wow.Let us take this further.A criminal badly injures a person which makes the victim lead the rest of his life in pain and misery.The criminal(Perpetrator) realizes his mistake and repents(Sincerely ) for it.The perpetrator excercised his free will, commits a crime(For his own amusement) and then realizes his mistake.The perpetartor gets his account wiped clean and on his way to heaven(To do spiritual sacrifices to Yahweh).
Something stinks..right.

Forgiveness stinks? Wow!

You must be quite brave coming forward with this idea.

 

[Robban]

You must be quite brave coming forward with this idea.



Not necessarily.One can meet with an accident(Where there are no perpetrators) and lead a life of pain and misery.



Wow.Let us take this further.A criminal badly injures a person which makes the victim lead the rest of his life in pain and misery.The criminal(Perpetrator) realizes his mistake and repents(Sincerely ) for it.The perpetrator excercised his free will, commits a crime(For his own amusement) and then realizes his mistake.The perpetartor gets his account wiped clean and on his way to heaven(To do spiritual sacrifices to Yahweh).

Something stinks..right.

The victim alone owns the copyright to forgive the criminals who commited crimes against him. Anyone who speaks on his behalf, without permission, is no different than a common thief.
Only he who has suffered, against whom a crime has been committed, is entitled to forgive, if he so desires. He alone can exercise that right.

 

[Robban]

Re post #155,
On this issue, Judaism departs radically from other world religions, offering a unique viewpoint and a most necessary contribution to ethical thought.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Transcendence can be experienced directly

Can you explain how this can be possible? How would a person know what they saw is actually the divine as opposed to something created by their mind?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Can you explain how this can be possible? How would a person know what they saw is actually the divine as opposed to something created by their mind?

Has it ever occurred to you that BOTH of these options might be true simultaneously? After all, our whole perception of reality (which does exist independently from our minds, don't you agree?) is in fact a creation of our minds, a unique interpretation and filtration of sensory input.

But I suppose your question was more along the lines of: "How do I know that I'm not crazy, like that one schizophrenic guy who thought that his neighbour's dog ordered him to kill people?"

Well, chances are that as long as you retain this level of rational reflection and skepticism, you're very much NOT insane.

Another answer might be: "By their fruits shall you know them", though I find that to be insufficient: if you believed your neighbour's dog ordered you to give pretty flowers to people, you might be doing them a favour, but you'd still be insane.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to the fact that mystic experiences/panpsychic or transpersonal states of consciousness are not pathological or malignant, but clearly qualify as healthy experiences that strengthen a person's psyche rather than damaging it.

By the way, I avoid the term "God" exactly because it tries to put Transcendence into a knowable category of personhood that is "out there": an invisible guy in the sky passing laws and growing angry at people. I cannot relate to such childish imagery.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Huh? Are you saying that you can know God completely?

No?

 

[Rationalt]

I do impressions

Yes you did; not what i expected.

Well that's not the premise we were discussing. Here's what this train of thought started with....

The question was why Innocent people suffer for no fault of theirs.

Are you saying that nature rapes people?

Not exactly.People born with defects leading miserable lives is one of the examples of Innocents suffering for no fault of theirs.

It seems you've moved goalposts when we were talking about people acting upon other people. Which is why I said you can't have one without the other; victim, perp. Now you've switched that.

I have started with Innocent people suffering; and gave some examples.It is you who moved the goal to perpetrators.

Forgiveness stinks? Wow!

No, i tell you what stinks.

Your Notion that criminals were given "free will" to commit crimes while victims denied the free will NOT to suffer.That stinks big.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Jane the Bane, what I meant is how do you know it's something created by your mind but doesn't reflect the divine, but is just something created by your mind and is a delusion? How do you know it reflects the Divine as opposed to simply a perception not based on any reality?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Jane the Bane, what I meant is how do you know it's something created by your mind but doesn't reflect the divine, but is just something created by your mind and is a delusion? How do you know it reflects the Divine as opposed to simply a perception not based on any reality?

I know. I addressed that - although I feel that your fundamental conception of reality and the points you take for granted differ so drastically from my own that you do not quite grasp what I mean - no more so than I grasp your obsession with an "eternal basis" that you consider necessary for morality, purpose, and a couple of other concepts that - to me - are clearly socially based, and not metaphysical at all.

 

[AskTheFamily]

OK I re-read the post, and all I can find that can possibly be answering this is:

At the end of the day, it all boils down to the fact that mystic experiences/panpsychic or transpersonal states of consciousness are not pathological or malignant, but clearly qualify as healthy experiences that strengthen a person's psyche rather than damaging it.

But I don't see how it being a healthy experience creating positive feelings proves the person is witnessing the Divine reality.

 

[Montalban]

Yes you did; not what i expected.


The question was why Innocent people suffer for no fault of theirs.

Except that I was replying to YOUR comments

Not exactly.People born with defects leading miserable lives is one of the examples of Innocents suffering for no fault of theirs.

Everyone suffers

I don't ask to have been born in a certain era, in certain circumstances.

By your logic we should all be born in a mansion

I have started with Innocent people suffering; and gave some examples.It is you who moved the goal to perpetrators.

I cited what YOU said, you go back to it again here...

Your Notion that criminals were given "free will" to commit crimes while victims denied the free will NOT to suffer.That stinks big.

Which is what we were talking about Victims and perps.

Both have free will.

Though this is different from you talking about people being forgiven.
Would you like to pick a particular thing to discuss?

 

[suzybeezy]

MOD HAT ON​

​

This thread has been cleaned up to remove a few flaming posts.
Please remember to address the post not the poster.

MOD HAT OFF​