So, so much for that “Principle of Charity” that was supposed to be so important some couple of posts ago… Looks like you ended up unable to read the rest of the post, because of what I think concerning a mostly irrelevant matter…
Um, where…?
I see you have gone to great lengths to avoid explaining what, in your view, is that “common courtesy” which you claim to expect from me.
Sure.
Passive aggressive smiley faces aside… yeah. Mostly.Followed by “a certain subsequent level of hubris decides it doesn’t need it and thus claims it doesn’t exist.”
I wasn’t aware I was making an argument. I don’t think I was. The fellow just wanted to rap a bit about the populations of our faith groups. No need to get defensive. I wasn’t attacking your religion.So… the argumentum ad baculum is fallacious, but the argumentum ad populum isn’t?
Good point. Some can indeed presume insult - where it did not exist
“Passive aggressive”? I’m winking. As in “yeah, whatever, man”…
Why would a purely spiritual being be expected to be “part of observable reality”? And, when not, why is it logical to “safely assume” he does not exist?
OK. It seemed like you were justifying you position based on the number of non-believers.
However, that doesn’t imply that the spiritual being, Himself, would necessarily be observable in the physical universe. However, you make a good point (perhaps unintentionally): the physical universe, with which we interact, itself bears witness to the existence of God!
This doesn’t follow. The state of the universe doesn’t bear witness to desire of God – unless, of course, you assert that God micro-manages the universe and forces it into certain states which He directly controls. That’s not what Christians assert, and I don’t think you have any evidence for that assertion, so it fails on its face (perhaps you mistakenly think that this is what Christians believe?).
No, it doesn’t follow. Unless, of course, you presume that God micro-manages the state of the universe. If you want to argue for that assertion, be my guest… but Christians don’t make that assertion.
Apparently, you’re not a parent.
I don’t need to refer to free will until you substantiate your assertion of a ‘discrepancy.’ Have at it, then!
You haven’t demonstrated what you think you have. You asserted that God will force his will… and then you ‘prove’ it with a statement that only says “if He so desired”? You realize that you ‘proved’ your assertion with a counterfactual to that assertion, right?
That isn’t what you were asserting, however. (Nor does it hold up to scrutiny. If I could force you to take an action, but do not, I’m not responsible for the action you chose.)
That doesn’t mean that all must act in the way you do. Project much, do you?
I see nonbelievers attempt to make this claim around here all the time. It’s a clever claim… but it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. If you’re my neighbor, and you’re getting ready to climb up on the roof and twerk, and I can foresee that you’re gonna fall off, and I can prevent it (“hey! get down off that roof, you silly person!”)… I’m nevertheless not responsible for your actions. You are.
That’s a different situation entirely. Here, you’re arguing for the responsibility of the parent for his misdeed, not his child’s. I agree, by the way: if you take an act which places a person (who is unable to be held responsible for his actions) at risk, then you have some responsibility for your actions. However… that’s not the case in the context of God and human persons.
Dang. Remind me to support you when you go to India and continue Mother Teresa’s ministry. And when you go to Chicago to prevent the gun violence there. Etc, etc. And when you don’t … well, you might want to explain why you aren’t preventing atrocities that you are able to prevent.
Nope. I’m just waiting for you to prove your assertions, before we even get to the dynamics you mention.
Nice try to wriggle out of it.
OK – so, what you’re really saying is that you don’t mean what you wrote (“decent, kind, loving people feel compelled to prevent atrocities they can prevent”), since no one can “truly foresee” events. What you really mean is “there’s no one who can ‘truly foresee’ other than God, and therefore, He’s a bum because He doesn’t do what I think He – and no one else – should do.”
A human adult isn’t a child. In fact, he’s responsible for the choices he makes. That’s what makes the two cases distinct (and what makes your assertion an invalid extrapolation).
Right. So… are you omniscient, such that you can make objective determinations about every instance of “seemingly unnecessary pain and suffering”?
If you – as a human – are unable to assert that it’s not unnecessary, I am likewise unable to assert that it’s only ‘seemingly unnecessary’. Same set of abilities, right? So… how do we proceed? I would reply that this is part of what God has revealed, namely, Romans 8:28.
Two thoughts:
safely?
safely draw? …
Fair enough. So then, what we would say – from a Catholic perspective – is that we humans aren’t omniscient, so we cannot assert what the greater perspective is. God, though, is, and so we trust that this is precisely what He is doing. (And, we have the Scripture citation to back it up, from the perspective of our belief.)
That’s the usual response. It still doesn’t help because, in fact, it’s just a red herring. The question isn’t “what difference is there between God and a human adult?” or even “is the difference between God and a human adult greater than the difference between a human adult and a human child?”. Rather, the question is merely “is a human adult able to be responsible for the choices he makes?” If the answer is ‘yes’ (and, generally speaking, it is), then responsibility belongs to the adult, rather than being off-loaded to God.
We are? Just a reminder: “Catholic Answers Forum”. So, I don’t think you can just throw up your arms and claim “not talking about the Christian God!”
That, too, is a nice attempt… but there’s nothing in what you’ve been claiming that suggests you were going with the “well, that’s what it appears to be” approach. Is that where you’re really coming from? If so, then you can’t really claim “here’s what’s really going on”, so much as you’re now suggesting that your claim is only “well… that’s how it appears to the casual observer.” In other words, you can assert or you can quack… but not both at the same time.
Ahh… but you said that you’re unable to determine “unnecessary pain and suffering”! So… not quite.
Wow. Just… wow. You’ve seriously misunderstood the (not-very-helpful) “duck principle”; worse yet, you’ve used it to assert a logical fallacy (literally, you’ve just demonstrated the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy – congratulations! good job!).