Theodicy argument failure?

[hikersong]

Are people here incapable of understanding that preventing someone from taking action to harm others does not involve micromanaging their behavior and turning them into automatons? Aggressive acts against others amount to only a tiny range of personal choice. There is a great deal of personal freedom left over.

And why are people talking about preventing people from engaging in behavior potentially risky to themselves?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Good questions. The answers appear to be:

1. Yes.

2. Because it means they can avoid listening to the argument being presented, but convince themselves that they are listening.

It doesn't make any more sense to me than it does to you. It is very sad though.

 

[hikersong]

You're welcome to discuss where you think her version of 'limited' interaction of God still gives us free will

I won't be able to put it any clearer than Jane did, and you haven't managed to grasp what she is saying.

 

[Montalban]

I refer to you to Mark's post #73 above.

You're able to answer for Jane, why not yourself????

 

[Montalban]

I won't be able to put it any clearer than Jane did, and you haven't managed to grasp what she is saying.

I take it that's a 'no' then. Fair enough. I can understand people want to champion some notion that's easily refuted

I wonder who else might like to step forward and champion an idea of a god that only intervenes on some notion of alleviating harm that they can't discuss.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I can understand people want to champion some notion that's easily refuted.

As you are doing with your strawman version of Jane the Bane's argument.

I wonder who else might like to step forward and champion an idea of a god that only intervenes on some notion of alleviating harm that they can't discuss.

If you mean: using a fraction of divine omnipotence to enforce some form of individual rights (e.g., the right not to be murdered, raped, robbed), then sure.

This means, basically, that the right to swing your fist ends at someone else's face, and if you try to swing your fist to hurt someone, you will find yourself unable to cause the other person injury. It does not mean that your own fist won't hurt as if it had struck a brick wall.

Do you get the idea yet? There's nothing to prevent you from hurting yourself and learning lessons from that. You may not attempt to murder, rape, rob, or similar acts of aggression and ever succeed. This would be just like a free society with a greatly efficient and honest police force.

One's range of personal freedom would be extensive. There would be many activities one could engage in, but not all are guaranteed to be successful or safe. How, precisely, would this create puppets?

Let's review Jane the Bane's statement:

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.


* Consider "person in distress" to mean someone who is about to be a victim of a crime.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[UnafraidOne]

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".

Can I play ‘devil’s advocate’ and take a shot at this?

People have children and this is not considered to be an immoral act. Yet it is a certainty that at least some of the people having children will leave (eventual) descendants that suffer horribly during their lives. In fact, for all any given couple know they may well be a most recent common ancestor at a point in the future.

It is true then that the decision to have children is an act which will likely result in terrible pain for others. In the case of a most recent common ancestor, at a time far enough in the future all existing human suffering will be the direct preventable result of the choice of a couple who decides to have children.

Would each and every perfectly nice couple in question choose to obliterate all future pain in their descendants given the chance, yes, that is how our primate sense of empathy evolved. Nonetheless, knowing the pain their action will likely cause for real individuals, many will leave descendants anyway. That is also how our primate sense of empathy evolved.

So, assuming you do not consider their act immoral, why is God?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Can I play ‘devil’s advocate’ and take a shot at this?

People have children and this is not considered to be an immoral act. Yet it is a certainty that at least some of the people having children will leave (eventual) descendants that suffer horribly during their lives. In fact, for all any given couple know they may well be a most recent common ancestor at a point in the future.

It is true then that the decision to have children is an act which will likely result in terrible pain for others. In the case of a most recent common ancestor, at a time far enough in the future all existing human suffering will be the direct preventable result of the choice of a couple who decides to have children.

Would each and every perfectly nice couple in question choose to obliterate all future pain in their descendants given the chance, yes, that is how our primate sense of empathy evolved. Nonetheless, knowing the pain their action will likely cause for real individuals, many will leave descendants anyway. That is also how our primate sense of empathy evolved.

So, assuming you do not consider their act immoral, why is God?

Please. I'm pretty sure you realize this is a reductio ad absurdum.

 

[hikersong]

You're able to answer for Jane, why not yourself????

 

[Montalban]

Please. I'm pretty sure you realize this is a reductio ad absurdum.

"Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence."
Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you think it was a fallacious argument?

 

[Montalban]

Aside from people repeating statements about God reducing 'harm' by some there's been no addressing of things such as should God prevent us taking illegal drugs?

Let me explain.

Some argue that weed is not harmful of itself (I'll leave that part for another debate), however as it's illegal then taking it can harm me insofar as there's negative consequences (gaol term, fines, criminal record, etc.).

Do these people then suggest having a God that 'obeys human laws'? That is, God prevents me from having it because it's illegal, and therefore 'harmful'?

Or, do they suggest that as it can be argued that it has no harm in and of itself God allows it (thus ignoring any other form of 'harm')?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Aside from people repeating statements about God reducing 'harm' by some there's been no addressing of things such as should God prevent us taking illegal drugs?

Still going for the strawman, I see.
Why not ask: "Should God prevent us from running a red light?"
Or even: "Should God prevent us from having naughty thoughts about our married neighbour?"

All of that takes the point to ridiculous and unnecessary extremes, yet in no way excuses the non-action of an all-powerful entity in preventing people from murdering others. Especially considering that said deity is supposedly interfering with our world on a regular basis by means of miracles.

razeontherock, for example, references something about God preventing rabid dogs from attacking, keeping a skier's bones intact after a spectacular fall and many other things. Other Christians have suggested that God has helped them to find lost contact lenses, parking space or even more frivolous nonsense.

Now, your whole defense of God's inaction relies on "free will" being tantamount, dwarfing all other considerations.
However - and that's been pointed out before - being kept from murdering others would in no way turn us into robots, and in fact PRESERVE the free will of the potential victim.

Hey, your own Bible states that your God supposedly took some drastic measures in the past, even in proving some rather minor points. What we're talking about here is considerably less invasive than the Flood, the plagues of Egypt or the Canaanite genocide.

 

[hikersong]

So, assuming you do not consider their act immoral, why is God?

The parent who knows that a child is going to suffer in a particular and enduring way if they are born, would be more like the hypothetical God we are discussing. It almost happens sometimes when a doctor will tell a parent that a foetus has a condition which will cause lifelong pain. They will probably be given the option, or possibly be advised, to abort the foetus.

Many, if not most, parents would take this course of action. Some won't because they believe that abortion is murder. And that God is the arbiter of how much pain a person should suffer. Or they believe that doctors can be mistaken (which they can) and that nature should be allowed to take it's course.

In general people who believe in one God, generally see Him as being totally omniscient and omnipotent, so even then it's not quite the same thing as the parental/doctor scenario. I would say, none-the-less, that the parent who goes on to have the baby for which 2 or more independent doctors are predicting a life time of pain, are more comparable to the God we are discussing than are the vast majority of parents. The vast majority are subjecting their children to a lifetime of possibilities not a lifetime of suffering. They (we) cannot be held culpable (though we do have a moral duty to protect our children, and nurture them to know how to competently protect themselves).

But God (allegedly) knows the details. And the Devil is in the details. Not only does he know, but he can theoretically intervene. Either at the Creation stage or afterwards, as Jane has said, by acting as a Divine Policeman.

 

[hikersong]

Most people will see touching a nettle and being stung as a consequence, not as a divine abuse of our freedom.

God could quite easily (given his alleged capabilities) have put an electric charge around each person which gave a shock to anybody who tried to hurt them (against their will). This too would simply be a consequence (of immorality), not an abuse of anybody's freedom.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Some argue that weed is not harmful of itself (I'll leave that part for another debate), however as it's illegal then taking it can harm me insofar as there's negative consequences (gaol term, fines, criminal record, etc.).

Forget about victimless crimes. Just don't even bother with your drug example.

We're talking about crimes with clear victims, such as with murder, rape, and theft. The negative consequences we are considering are not legal penalties, but the death, injury, or misuse of another. It is only in anticipation of such direct consequences that God would intervene.

You believe God did that with Abraham and his son Isaac, right? Now just extend that to all of society.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[AskTheFamily]

You know I was watching bleach the other day, and I find Ichigo inspirational. But I realized such a character is impossible in a perfect world. There has to be chance of evil consequences without his heroic actions.

When he reached a very high state of power, he was able to do an attack, but it would result that he eventually would loose his powers. Now if this creates another great potential, which is sacrifice.

Once he looses his powers, he has another beauty and honor, how he reacts. If he feels super sad about it, or regrets his sacrifice, or doesn't sob about it, and thinks positive, and is sastisfied with out occured.

It's even more beautiful when he doesn't think he is better then others for being able to see ghosts or have had powers to start with.

Also if all the time, he was more powerful then his enemies, then there would be not test of will, where he has to exert himself and with his will create power.

Now this is for anime, but honestly, this world creates potential for a very high honor.

The thing is in a perfect world without problems, then all sorts of honor is not possible.

There is a test of will, and if he was not possible to be dishonorable, then the honor in honor would be diminished.

The potential how to react with a world of problems, the serenity, the nobleness, is not going to be there with a world without problems.

I would find no beauty in Ichigo character if he didn't face adversity, didn't face REAL possibility of evil winning, didn't have to conquer a feeling of giving up, etc... his determination is all noble...with a world with no adversity, where does the will of determination come from?

It's also possible then this world is not the only test we are going to have, it's possible it's the first test, where we develop some character, and then we have other worlds that are different in nature that will continously test us. There maybe a never a world where our will and potential of honor doesn't increase.

I look at the world of bleach, and you see problems, but the honor of the good guys would not be possible.

This tells me we should want worlds with more potential problems in the future, instead of a perfect world in the sense everyone is happy and destined to be good.

The more there is a test of will, the more potential we have for greatness.

Therefore God has to go against his want for us to not suffer, to be good, etc, to great this potential for honor and dignity.

We don't know how much more worlds we will live in. Perhaps there is infinite worlds and they are very different from one another.

Perhaps God won't intervene, and people get to choose whom they will be, and will always be able to change, even though it get's harder to change to good the more evil you get, and harder to change to evil the more good you get.

 

[hikersong]

We all try and find ways to see the benefits of the world as it actually is. So, yes, there is something that we have come to call honour in facing up to some of the tests that this world face us with. It is an inspiration to see people "fighting through" despite the obstacles in their way. Because we all live in that same world, and we too have to face obstacles.

However, as far as I understand it, this conversation is about whether a hypothetical God who had ultimate control over the direction this world went, needed to make the world in such way. Because, though some people overcome the tests they are faced, some are themselves overcome. To the cause of much suffering and anguish.

We should make the most of the world we live in. Who knows, as AskTheFamily infers, what, or if there is a purpose. That is all conjecture. But it doesn't help anybody to say that some people were, in effect, destined to suffer, and that we should be grateful to God for his mercy on those who aren't. That is a very cruel and patronising form of conjecture.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Who knows, as AskTheFamily infers, what, or if there is a purpose.

The thing is the problem of evil presents it as there can't be a good benevolent Creator whom would do this. But I think if you take the factor of potential honor, and infinite worlds were our wills will be tested (and it can be that we remember our lives in the past), then this perspective, we have a purpose, and it's out of good will we are created. It's possible all conscious beings are not destined to be what they originally are, for example, pigs are not destined to be pigs forever, and in the same way, the issue of children dying doesn't mean they will never have potential to develop their character like rest of us. The problem of evil is a very pessimistic view of the universe, and I think it's not healthy for anyone to think like this.

 

[hikersong]

It's possible all conscious beings are not destined to be what they originally are, for example, pigs are not destined to be pigs forever

Conjecture. Not a healthy way in which to make's decisions about life. Better to assume, without any proof to the contrary, that a pig is a pig. We can dream and imagine...nothing wrong with that...but unless we are in a position to make our dreams a reality, we better leave it at that.

and in the same way, the issue of children dying doesn't mean they will never have potential to develop their character like rest of us.

Well, we don't know. If we don't know we would be wise to try and stop people dying prematurely, and making sure that every life has the opportunity to be lived to the full.

The problem of evil is a very pessimistic view of the universe, and I think it's not healthy for anyone to think like this.

Bad things happen. That isn't pessimistic or optimistic. It's simply a fact. You seem to want people to share pipe dreams about possible optimistic outcomes based on what may or may not happen after we die. I'm just saying we do more good by assuming, in the definite absence of evidence to the contrary, that this life is all we have. This life is actually quite a fantastic thing, if only potentially so. Why swap it for a world of maybes?

 

[AskTheFamily]

Conjecture. Not a healthy way in which to make's decisions about life.

Your not understanding the issue. The problem of evil presents that a Good creator is not possible due the problem of evil. You just have to show another perspective that shows there is possibly good will behind these problems. You don't have to show there is, all you have to show is that it's possible. Once you see that it is possible, that there is a higher purpose, and benevolent purpose, then it doesn't prove God, but it proves God is not impossible with a world of evil. That it's not necessarily maltheism or atheism as the options.

Better to assume, without any proof to the contrary, that a pig is a pig.

Why is better to assume when there is no proof a pig will remain a pig forever either? If you believe in benovolent Creator, why not believe everything will be given opportunity for highest potential but all have a purpose? That each creature has highest purpose in mind? Why not. Do you value human beings over animals? Then wouldn't you hope for the souls of animals to be given opportunity of us humans? Why is the view of assuming they will be recreated as the same thing more logical then they wouldn't and would eventually be created as being with high potential?

We can dream and imagine...nothing wrong with that...but unless we are in a position to make our dreams a reality, we better leave it at that.

Imagining a world with no purpose, one life without potential of another, is all imagination too. There is nothing wrong with imagining worlds, nope, but I think it is wrong when you say "only this imagination is logical while we shouldn't be concerned about other imaginary worlds".

Well, we don't know. If we don't know we would be wise to try and stop people dying prematurely, and making sure that every life has the opportunity to be lived to the full.

If we don't know, then the problem of evil argument fails.

Bad things happen. That isn't pessimistic or optimistic. It's simply a fact. You seem to want people to share pipe dreams about possible optimistic outcomes based on what may or may not happen after we die.

I think it's better to hope this is the case, then to submit to a very low view of life.

I'm just saying we do more good by assuming, in the definite absence of evidence to the contrary, that this life is all we have.

Can you explain why this is the case? One potential more good I would see, is that with a view of life after death, we are concerned more about the morality of people and want to change them for the better. With view of no purpose, people are satisfied in acting in a very vain matter. They give themselves up to their desires, and their will has no dignified resolve. If you put on western TV, you see so much undignified behaviour, and lying is made something funny and cool. I think a view of having purpose is better then a view of not having purpose.

This life is actually quite a fantastic thing, if only potentially so. Why swap it for a world of maybes

But a world with a benevolent Creator and after world is better, and has higher potential. In fact, there is potential much more higher then this one time test thing with heaven and hell as reward where we will not be tested for our will anymore.

Most theodicy is argued with this view, that this world is the one time test. I think if you let go of this view, and argue with infinite worlds where our will are tested, it gives more justification. Because the problem with perfect paradise is that it goes against everything argued for this world. Children enter paradise with no test of character and will never have test of character for example.

But the world I imagined doesn't have this perspective. When everything is created for the purpose of honor, then ifninite worlds with suffering and adversity is better then a perfect world of heaven, and even better then one time test with a world of heaven in the next.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Going back to the opening post, it doesn't make sense to make a person suffer to be honorable, but when you make a world full of adversity and problems for potential honor, and you create other worlds that follow that up, for potential honor, then it's not really the same thing because there is a greater over all purpose. The fact the world has potential for change, and not only that, there can exist other worlds that are different, means this world is not really exactly the perfect world in itself but part of perfect overall design. Part of that design is that we should strive to make the world more better, and it gives opportunities. In other words part of perfection of design, is that each would has potential of being more perfect. It also has potential to have more adversity and problems. We have to face each world with grace and nobility but perhaps a lot people will just face it being self-centered and vain each time. Anyways, I'm just throwing the idea out there.