Theodicy argument failure?

[AskTheFamily]

Immaterial means to not be formed of matter or small existences or space form existence.
Not in space/size, means not to be in space and size.
Create out of nothing, means to have caused existence.

All this is to be is understandable.

Ultimately Great, assumes greatness is true and that God is the Ultimate Great being.

Loving - means he loves.

Compassionate - means he has compassion.

Forbearing - means he forbears.

Forgiving - means he forgives.

Tolerant - means he tolerate.

Infinite - means not finite

All this to me is clear, so this to me honestly is a weak argument.

To me rather how everyone knows what is meant by God shows he is real, because we all have a concept of him...

No one thinks as Ultimate being as limited in power, strength, or anything like that.

In fact I would say I have better understanding of the concept of God then most things in this world.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm not too fond of the non-cognitivist argument.
.
I know what a creator is: a being who invents something. I dont need to know exactly how he does it. Similar reasoning applies to the other objections.
.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'm not too fond of the non-cognitivist argument.

Neither am I, actually. I simply think it is better than the Argument from Evil.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Immaterial means to not be formed of matter or small existences or space form existence.
Not in space/size, means not to be in space and size.
Create out of nothing, means to have caused existence.

All this is to be is understandable.

No, it really isn't understandable.

It suffers from being negatively defined. Immaterial is "not formed of matter", but not defined in terms of what it is.

And it is not at all clear how existence can be caused, when causes are not about this at all, but about the change of something.

Ultimately Great, assumes greatness is true and that God is the Ultimate Great being.

And what does "Ultimate Great" mean?

Loving - means he loves.

Compassionate - means he has compassion.

Forbearing - means he forbears.

Forgiving - means he forgives.

Tolerant - means he tolerate.

All these are fine, since they are human virtues.

Infinite - means not finite

And there is that negative definition again. God is not this and not that. It's not terribly clear.

All this to me is clear, so this to me honestly is a weak argument.

You might not be perturbed by any of this, but that doesn't mean that it is clear to you.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[durangodawood]

Neither am I, actually. I simply think it is better than the Argument from Evil.

For me, all the best arguments are anthropological: what humans typically do.
.
Are we the kind of beings that are prone to inventing supernatural explanations and deities in our own image? Yes, of course we are. There's no proof to be found there, but it contributes to a coherent picture.
.

 

[bling]

This question comes up all the time and everyone will ask it sometime in their life several different ways but all the same question: “If God really Loves us why does God not put us all in a Garden of Eden type situation without satan and the tree?” God had to address that question very early on (chp. 3 of Genesis).

It all goes back to the objective of man in this world. Our objective is not to not sin. Our objective is not to pass some “test” that God already knows the result of. It is not that we have some “purpose” for existing like a tree has a purpose, but we have an objective that we meet or fail to meet.

Yes, some will never mature enough to fulfill mature man’s objective, so they will inter heaven fulfilling the lesser objective; of helping those that are just will to accept God’s help to fulfill their objective. Those not ever having the opportunity to accept God’s help would enter heaven with only a wonderful child for wonderful parent type of Love, to be served by those that had obtained Godly type Love.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The concept of a "Creator" is irreconcilable with Noncognitivism or the Via Negativa (negative theology):

Why?

Because it already interprets reality in a distinctly human fashion, conceiving of the formation of the universe in terms of a structure that's been shaped by a (more or less) human-like intelligence the way we'd plan a building or construct a machine.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

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.

With great power comes great responsibility.
With ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility.

If you don't happen to be a policeman, it may not be your explicit job to help a person in distress. But morally speaking, you'd be at least partially responsible for the harm that comes to them if you had the means to prevent it, were present and had knowledge of the danger.

You believe in a personal deity that makes rabid dogs go placid, tweaks the laws of physics to make people survive a fall unharmed and whatnot. Such a supernatural interventionist God would indeed be accountable for any harm that befalls people - for clearly, he has the means to intervene, yet simply neglects to use them, capriciously reserving such displays for a few situations.

To exaggerate a bit: the deity you've constructed for yourself may use his supernatural powers to keep a born-again skier from breaking an ankle, but cannot possibly be bothered to save a woman from being raped, mutilated and murdered in some back-alley - all because "He's not there to prevent crime".

 

[Montalban]

With great power comes great responsibility.
With ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility.

If you don't happen to be a policeman, it may not be your explicit job to help a person in distress. But morally speaking, you'd be at least partially responsible for the harm that comes to them if you had the means to prevent it, were present and had knowledge of the danger.

You believe in a personal deity that makes rabid dogs go placid, tweaks the laws of physics to make people survive a fall unharmed and whatnot. Such a supernatural interventionist God would indeed be accountable for any harm that befalls people - for clearly, he has the means to intervene, yet simply neglects to use them, capriciously reserving such displays for a few situations.

To exaggerate a bit: the deity you've constructed for yourself may use his supernatural powers to keep a born-again skier from breaking an ankle, but cannot possibly be bothered to save a woman from being raped, mutilated and murdered in some back-alley - all because "He's not there to prevent crime".

If God were a puppet master and controlled everyone of our actions (so as to keep us from harm, evil, etc.) we'd be nothing but puppets. Maybe self-aware, but that wouldn't be any better

 

[Montalban]

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.

Why do people type G-d?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

If God were a puppet master and controlled everyone of our actions (so as to keep us from harm, evil, etc.) we'd be nothing but puppets. Maybe self-aware, but that wouldn't be any better

That argument is a straw man, and you know it.

Just as a policeman who keeps an armed thug from killing another person is not turning the thug into a mere puppet, divine intercession would not touch upon our essential freedoms - unless you want to argue that being a puppet is the essence of existence as we know it right now, of course.

A criminal infringes upon and potentially takes away the freedom of its victim. We restrict the freedom of criminals. Laws and conventions, in turn, restrict the range of every citizen's available courses of actions and so on and so forth.

If I were to walk down the local pedestrian's precinct in the nude, I'd have about five minutes tops before a uniformed servant of the people would approach me, restrain me and eventually fine me. Repeat offenses might even culminate in incarceration, even though my actions have in no way caused harm to any other person - all because of conventions.

Now, that's a profound infringement upon my personal freedom - yet it doesn't turn me into a puppet.

 

[AskTheFamily]

You know the part of letting people do evil, that's not that hard to see as ok, but the issue about all the illness and natural suffering like natural disasters, famine, all that is not needed for us to choose what we want to be.

 

[Arthra]

You know the part of letting people do evil, that's not that hard to see as ok, but the issue about all the illness and natural suffering like natural disasters, famine, all that is not needed for us to choose what we want to be.

But knowing about them (natural disasters, etc.) we can choose to try to prevent them and respond to them... or not.

 

[AskTheFamily]

But knowing about them (natural disasters, etc.) we can choose to try to prevent them and respond to them... or not.

It's only in recent times medicine has advanced, and still we can't solve all the diseases in the world nor the problems. Through out human history, what were they able to do against famines, natural disasters, sicknesses, diseases..

But so what if we can respond to them? So what, it's not necessary for soul development. If you take away that factor, it doesn't mean your soul cannot develop. On the other hand, those dying in natural disasters, etc, they can no longer develop their souls and advance, can they now?

It's all unnecessary. Also so many children have died in the world, and if the purpose was for soul development, then isn't children dying before that is possible against that goal. Or is the goal only for some people but not everyone?

If Children dying doesn't make them loose their purpose as humans, then all this sufferring to create character was never necessary for our purpose as humans.

The system allows some people to advance and others not to.

Aside from that, is how our mind functions. We have confirmation bias - that we aren't intellectually as free as we like to believe. You notice most people born Muslim stay Muslim. Most people born Jewish stay Jewish. Most people born Christian stay Christian.

Do you notice are hardwired to root for their own people. If you live in a city and it has sport's team, you naturally support the team over others.

People are inclined to care about their own family foremost, and then care little about their own people, and hardly care about other people. We are hardwired like that. We see a disaster, and think "oh that's bad but o well" - it's not like how it feels when it happens to your family.

With our minds like this, with little control we have as to what how we act, it makes you question how much choice we really have?

People can choose to believe in a religion, but if it was so much free-choice, would you expect religion to be geographical, majority areas of people of religion or would it be all mixed and randomly fluctuate time to time.

This whole thing that you think people have that much choice to accept your Messengers and making world better place is not true.

Perhaps their is Marxist way of bringing world prosperity but almost no one would know, and hence can't support a thing they don't even know will work. So do they really have choice to make the world better in this sense?

If people can live a meaningful life without suffering, then why can't all people live a meaningful life without suffering?

Take a way one thing for example, take away mental ilness. Is a world with mental illness better then a world without mental illness? Would it mean their is less potential for nobleness and honor if their was no mental illness?

 

[bling]

You know the part of letting people do evil, that's not that hard to see as ok, but the issue about all the illness and natural suffering like natural disasters, famine, all that is not needed for us to choose what we want to be.

Unfortunately, those tragedies provide needed opportunities for will humans to see, experience, give, get and grow Godly type Love. Our choice on this earth is to accept or reject God’s Love in the form of accepting or rejecting God’s Charity.

 

[Montalban]

That argument is a straw man, and you know it.

I don't use straw-men

Just as a policeman who keeps an armed thug from killing another person is not turning the thug into a mere puppet, divine intercession would not touch upon our essential freedoms - unless you want to argue that being a puppet is the essence of existence as we know it right now, of course.

That's missing some details from the analogy. Firstly is that a policeman to a thug is no where near like God to us, in terms of power.

A policeman however CAN curb a person's freedom - in a limited way - but the differences in his power to compel compared to God's towards us make your analogy false

A criminal infringes upon and potentially takes away the freedom of its victim. We restrict the freedom of criminals. Laws and conventions, in turn, restrict the range of every citizen's available courses of actions and so on and so forth.

Absolutely. And a criminals actions are there-by limited.

If God were to restrict us to his full capability then we'd be fully restricted.

God DOESN'T do this, because he doesn't want us to be like a puppet.

If I were to walk down the local pedestrian's precinct in the nude,

Can you put it on YouTube?

I think your rebuttal is missing the very important point that God could limit our choices fully, in order to 'protect' us.

But even a person (like a cop) can infringe to a more limited extent, and by doing so controls the actions of another to a limited extent

Therefore I've no idea why this helps

Are you suggesting that God could both direct us and control us in a limited fashion and still give us some rights to decide?

 

[Montalban]

It's only in recent times medicine has advanced, and still we can't solve all the diseases in the world nor the problems. Through out human history, what were they able to do against famines, natural disasters, sicknesses, diseases..

That's missing a fact.

People, even before modern medicines still had the opportunity to respond. They were just less sucessful.

People have always been responding, whether it was to sacrifice a goat, or to bleed a victim.

 

[Arthra]

Ask the Family:

People can choose to believe in a religion, but if it was so much free-choice, would you expect religion to be geographical, majority areas of people of religion or would it be all mixed and randomly fluctuate time to time.

My reply:

Today it's more likely people have more choice than previously.. Even though the principle of freedom of religion may not be accepted everywhere it's a part of the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 18.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Ask the Family:

This whole thing that you think people have that much choice to accept your Messengers and making world better place is not true.

My reply:

People always have a choice of one kind or another...The Messengers are not "my" Messengers...and we all have the potential to make the world a better place..

Ask the Family:

Perhaps their is Marxist way of bringing world prosperity but almost no one would know, and hence can't support a thing they don't even know will work. So do they really have choice to make the world better in this sense?

My reply:

They tried Marxist Leninism in the last century and found out how it didn't work..

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

That's missing some details from the analogy. Firstly is that a policeman to a thug is no where near like God to us, in terms of power.

A policeman however CAN curb a person's freedom - in a limited way - but the differences in his power to compel compared to God's towards us make your analogy false

What's to stop God from using less than his full power? You make it sound as if He's incapable of finesse.

If God were to restrict us to his full capability then we'd be fully restricted.

Ah, but why would he HAVE to "restrict us to his full capability", rather than using what's appropriate to each situation?

Are you suggesting that God could both direct us and control us in a limited fashion and still give us some rights to decide?

Exactly. Or more precisely: the right to decide is kept fully intact, yet not to the detriment of potential victims.

 

[Montalban]

What's to stop God from using less than his full power? You make it sound as if He's incapable of finesse.

Nothing, except his love for us, and his gift for us

Ah, but why would he HAVE to "restrict us to his full capability", rather than using what's appropriate to each situation?

so we'd have no free choice. Choices have consequences.

Exactly. Or more precisely: the right to decide is kept fully intact, yet not to the detriment of potential victims.

That makes no sense, except to deny free choice.

If I jump off a cliff that has consequences.

If God then intervened so as to stop anything bad happening then my choice to jump off a cliff based on freedom of choice is lessened... because consequences of my actions are taken away.