Theodicy argument failure?

[dlamberth]

Love is a human attribute, is it wrong to give God that attribute?

Love is an attribute through which we can "experience" God directly. Because of that reality for the Lover's of God, Love than IS an attribute of God. What follows for them then is that all other attributes of the Divine spring forth from that one attribute of Love.

.

 

[Rationalt]

It's not my argument - it's theodicy arguments - that sufferring creates nobleness - the fact that we don't need to suffer to be noble is also a problem with the argument.

I was mentioning the argument in beginning and then criticizing it - although I should have been clear "theodicy asserts"...

My bad .. i didn't make past the first few sentences.

 

[Montalban]

I think if a revelation would be revealed by God, he would go into a very detailed explanation of why he made a world with so much suffering.

1. He didn't make the world with suffering - it actually says in the bible that he looked at it, and it was good

And God saw that it was good.
2. the premise is based on a relative measure of 'very detailed' - what is detailed for me, isn't for you.

 

[Montalban]

Love is a human attribute, is it wrong to give God that attribute?

God is love

 

[Arthra]

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/c/BWF/bwf-2.html.utf8?query=love&action=highlight#gr5

The more love is expressed among mankind and the stronger the power of unity, the greater will be this reflection and revelation, for the greatest bestowal of God is love. Love is the source of all the bestowals of God. Until love takes possession of the heart no other divine bounty can be revealed in it. ...

- Abdul-Baha

 

[Montalban]

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/c/BWF/bwf-2.html.utf8?query=love&action=highlight#gr5

The more love is expressed among mankind and the stronger the power of unity, the greater will be this reflection and revelation, for the greatest bestowal of God is love. Love is the source of all the bestowals of God. Until love takes possession of the heart no other divine bounty can be revealed in it. ...

- Abdul-Baha

The way that's termed seems like a truism

 

[Eudaimonist]

As I said the problem of evil is the best argument against God. I don't blame people whom are not convinced by theodicy.

That's an interesting opinion. I regard the problem of evil as the very weakest of the arguments against the existence of God, and your argument is a good example of how anyone can come up with "creative" ways to wriggle out of concluding that a good God doesn't exist. (And, of course, it leaves maltheism, the possibility of an evil God, wide open.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I'd say that "Love", as applied to Transcendence, is not (just) the human emotion of caring for others, but a more fundamental, underlying principle of reality. Love as an emotion, as experienced by humans, is just one expression of this principle, but what mystics talk about when they use that term is something far more overarching.

(As such, the poetic usage can be quite misleading, especially when people take it literally and start to argue that we wrongly ascribe mammalian feelings to the cosmos.)

What we mean here is a benevolent principle underlying existence itself, holding it all together. It comes with the realization that apart-ness is an illusion, that we all belong to a huge, organic whole, and that nothing is ever lost in this vast universe of Being.

 

[Montalban]

If it's not written on a poster, I won't believe it

 

[AskTheFamily]

That's an interesting opinion. I regard the problem of evil as the very weakest of the arguments against the existence of God,

What would be a stronger argument?

and your argument is a good example of how anyone can come up with "creative" ways to wriggle out of concluding that a good God doesn't exist.

What people say is one thing, but how convincing it is another. The most common thing Muslims say is that he will repay your suferring in the next world....that makes sense to them, but won't make sense to a lot of people as an excuse...

(And, of course, it leaves maltheism, the possibility of an evil God, wide open.)

Maltheism will fall to the way world is also, because their is too much good in the world to believe in a possibility of an evil God. Why create all this nobility in humans, why give them food, why give them opportunity to develop goodness if he was evil? Also "evil God" is oxymoron, if the Creator was Evil, he would not be Worthy of Worship, and hence not a God.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What would be a stronger argument?

Just about any of them. One example is theological noncognitivism.

Maltheism will fall to the way world is also, because their is too much good in the world to believe in a possibility of an evil God. Why create all this nobility in humans, why give them food, why give them opportunity to develop goodness if he was evil?

That's easy. To make good beings suffer!

Or a maltheistic entity may be like Cthulhu, and simply be coldly uncaring about the plight of humanity.

Or the Calvinist Big Brother God, who makes some human beings with the predestined purpose to destroy them in Hell.

Also "evil God" is oxymoron, if the Creator was Evil, he would not be Worthy of Worship, and hence not a God.

But such a being would be Creator and Orderer of the Universe, and Creator of mankind, and would certainly be Godlike enough.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[AskTheFamily]

That's easy. To make good beings suffer!

If he wanted that, he could have just created everyone in hell and torture them.

Or a maltheistic entity may be like Cthulhu, and simply be coldly uncaring about the plight of humanity.

Then why create all these good things for them if he didn't care? Why make a world with so much good?

Also how would an evil God create goodness in the first place? How would he create morality in the first plac? I don't think it's possible. An evil being creating moral standards doesn't make sense to me, and if he eternally had moral standards, then he would not be evil.
I think evil God is an impossible thing.

 

[AskTheFamily]

J[Just about any of them. One example is theological noncognitivism.

I think this is a weak argument.

 

[dlamberth]

I'd say that "Love", as applied to Transcendence, is not (just) the human emotion of caring for others, but a more fundamental, underlying principle of reality. Love as an emotion, as experienced by humans, is just one expression of this principle, but what mystics talk about when they use that term is something far more overarching.

.

 

[razeontherock]

Somebody once painted a parable of non-interfering policemen to gather all the diverse attempts at answering the theodicy dilemma. Let's see whether I can remember most of it.

Hopefully somebody already pointed this out, and while I do appreciate what you attempted to do with this, it starts with the horribly flawed premise that either the policemen were not there to prevent crime, or that G-d is there to prevent crime.

Flawed premises do not produce sound conclusions.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think this is a weak argument.

Your reason?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[AskTheFamily]

Your reason?

eudaimonia,

Mark

Well their is many things we don't have a full understanding of but we have some idea of it. You understand the word Creator. Although you don't perceive the Creator, you understand it. You understand Creator being Good, but you don't perceive that goodness. You understand Ultimate Infinity even though you don't perceive ultimate infinity. All these are understandable terms. You can't say their is no idea being presented. Sure no one can conceive of what transcends their concsiousness, but the fact it transcends their concsiousness is part it's definition. It being Ultimate Powerful which would mean Infinitely Power to the greatest possibile Infinity is understood as a concept, it's just we don't see that. Ofcourse we don't see other humans souls, but we have a concept of some people. Not fully perceiving doesn't mean their is no concept.

God attributes like being One, is understood. For example you understand that concept people call God is One. God being immaterial is undestood that is not formed of material existence/matter....

God being loving is understood that he loves. Everything said about God makes sense.

I don't see how we have to fully perceive what he is, to say we can have him as an idea...

It doesn't make sense to me. Even if we take all attributes away, and just left with super powerful Creator, that is not illogical concept... Creator all powerful is understood.

And we only understand things that began to exist. Even you don't understand the universe how it was before time began, at the point zero, you can't conceive of it, but you believe it as an idea. You don't what it means to be without time in the first place - then stream in change by being the cause of it and causing effect.

Just because you can't fully conceive of it, doesn't mean the idea of it can't be accepted or rejected.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You understand the word Creator.

Yes, but only by analogy. We create by rearranging raw materials, not ex nihilo. The idea of a Creator (ex nihilo) is not really intelligible. Sure, I understand that it means "creating out of nothing", but this isn't truly intelligible, since it isn't clear just how nothing can be caused to be something. The phrase just pretends to say something.

You understand Creator being Good

No, I don't. I understand persons being good, but not a God being "Good". I understand the intended meaning, but it's not really an intelligible concept.

You understand Ultimate Infinity even though you don't perceive ultimate infinity.

Do I? This is one of your buzz phrases. I'm not certain that I understand it. I have some idea of what "Infinity" means, although I don't believe that infinities exist, or even can exist, in reality.

Such terms have meaning -- I have some idea of what you are trying to say -- but they aren't comprehensible. They don't actually say anything specific.

And that's a problem.

If you don't understand what you are trying to say, you aren't saying very much. And that means that theistic claims don't carry much weight either.

You can't say their is no idea being presented.

The theological noncognitivists don't claim this. It's not really the point for them.

Sure no one can conceive of what transcends their concsiousness, but the fact it transcends their concsiousness is part it's definition.

This is especially meaningless.

Just because you can't fully conceive of it, doesn't mean the idea of it can't be accepted or rejected.

Oh, indeed the claim of the existence of this poorly conceived entity can easily be rejected. What can't be accepted or rejected is any precise claim.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[AskTheFamily]

Well then you don't understand but a lot of people do understand or at least believe they do. I understand all that is stated about God and I understand God as a concept...I just don't fully conceive of God just I don't know fully conceive of how my body is but only have have partial understanding of it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well then you don't understand but a lot of people do understand or at least believe they do.

So? Believe what you like. You simply asked me for an example of an argument that's stronger than the Argument from Evil.

The reason I think that it's stronger is that it isn't as prone to the wriggling that goes on with the Argument from Evil. There are much clearer and sharper standards of success for theologians.


eudaimonia,

Mark