M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Nobody ever says happy new year to me.
- Status
P
Poof
Guest
Happy 2012!Nobody ever says happy new year to me.
I can barely understand what’s going on in this thread but it was all a great read. Tony, Al, In Spiration and others, you make me proud to be Catholic. When I get older to the point wherein I can understand these incredibly deep debates, I will reread these again! God bless
T
tonyrey
Guest
MOM, that’s because we don’t want to distract you, disturb your train of thought and disrupt your valuable contributions to this forum! But while you’re on the subject:
We wish you a Very Happy New Year and Merry Christmas in 2012.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
MOM, that’s because we don’t want to distract you, disturb your train of thought and disrupt your valuable contributions to this forum! But while you’re on the subject:
We wish you a Very Happy New Year and Merry Christmas in 2012.
- The world did not end.
- Its 2012 and I am still alive
- The 2012 Mayan Prophecy is false.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Thank you! And a happy new year to you to…ah…hmm…to you to “Poof”Happy 2012!
I can barely understand what’s going on in this thread but it was all a great read. Tony, Al, In Spiration and others, you make me proud to be Catholic. When I get older to the point wherein I can understand these incredibly deep debates, I will reread these again! God bless
God bless.
I
In_Spiration
Guest
Just found this.So, I’ve been thinking…this argument may not be dead after all. If you recall, the problem was with material conditionals. I tried to justify the argument on their basis, and it turned out the theist could use them against me just as easily.
But, why use material conditionals?
I propose we examine the argument as it is but without reference to material conditionals.
This means I’ll have to do some work for motivating my premises (which I feel I can do), but, it also means the theist has to as well.
Can anyone think of an argument that would show that the probability of inscrutable suffering given theism is 1.0, not involving material conditionals?
I think Atheous might be resurrected
I want to say that only He Whom is ultimately responsible for justifying all suffering would/could know the exhaustive explanation of it. I wonder whether you’re implicitly appealing to the dubious assertion that any justification demands, or somehow calls out for, actual/possible subjective scrutability/knowledge for the sufferer himself.
We definitely need to better distinguish between subjective and objective justifiability/justification, as well as between subjective and objective scrutability (and knowledge, maybe). I do think objective justification entails objective scrutability, but arguably only from a perspective of divine omniscience.
I don’t exactly know what subjective inscrutability is even supposed to suggest, if anything important; but perhaps I’m just forgetting the thrust of the original argument. Does your point require a perceived, or required, tension between subjective inscrutability and the alleged omni-awesomeness of classical theism? Do you mind giving us an outline of your revised argument, along with a pretty thorough elaboration on its key concepts?
Also, while it may not be the most effective or compelling option, I am inclined to see whether I can find a way to reach deductive 1.0 probability based on the bit of reasoning I made previously re: Man’s inevitable/practically guaranteed ignorance (sin?). (Doesn’t the God of traditional Christianity assure us of the mystery behind evil? And if this is at all objectionable, couldn’t your argument extend to ignorance per se?) Anyway, I’ll just see what you think about this broad response for now.
I
In_Spiration
Guest
Quite flattered and glad to hear that. Thanks.I can barely understand what’s going on in this thread but it was all a great read. Tony, Al, In Spiration and others, you make me proud to be Catholic. When I get older to the point wherein I can understand these incredibly deep debates, I will reread these again! God bless
I think anyone arguing publicly in defense, or “representation”, of Catholicism is obligated to know he’s not naively going to let the Church lose a potential member on account of his personal failure/incompetence in front of an audience which has varying degrees of philosophical comprehension/aptitude among it. That’s obviously a straightforwardly applicable rule when it comes to conventional debating, but the sort of principles governing one’s approach for a more open dialogue, a dialectical discussion aiming purely at the truth (instead of merely winning a confrontation) via an established, impartial system, becomes less clear-cut.
I’d say I owe Perplexity (and arguably myself, and arguably God) a focus almost entirely on correct logic and getting things right, even if that risks ever having to submit that I’m unable to refute a point and thus potentially lending credence, for some observers, to sentiments/thoughts opposed to Christianity (however rationally justified any such interpretation would be in fact). On the other hand, I do have to be sure I’m not ever doing a disservice to the Church by imprudently supposing myself its heroic defender, say, by arrogantly over-estimating myself or God’s intention for me; so I’ll inevitably always be driven by conscious concerns beyond the truth alone.
It’s often a delicate, unpredictable balance, so I certainly appreciate the kind reassurance.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Don’t hesitate to ask if you want a particular point clarified.Happy 2012!
I can barely understand what’s going on in this thread but it was all a great read. Tony, Al, In Spiration and others, you make me proud to be Catholic. When I get older to the point wherein I can understand these incredibly deep debates, I will reread these again! God bless
Happy 2012!
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
OkayDon’t hesitate to ask if you want a particular point clarified.
Happy 2012!
; Why do you support a not very intelligent design over evolution?I cried blood yesterday because I have lost tonyrey to Behe’s black box. I hope its cosy in there.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Don’t cry! I’m outside the box.Okay
I cried blood yesterday because I have lost tonyrey to Behe’s black box. I hope its cosy in there.
I support fully designed development which covers every contingency, does not exclude the element of chance within the framework of order and ensures that the final outcome is successful by not leaving significant events to chance!
P
Perplexity
Guest
Hey In Spiration, I hope to be posting the new Atheous soon in a different thread. I figured folks would be more apt to read a thread with smaller posts than this one with hundreds or whatever 
However, I can answer these questions using material from the new argument:
Q1: “I wonder whether you’re implicitly appealing to the dubious assertion that any justification demands, or somehow calls out for, actual/possible subjective scrutability/knowledge for the sufferer himself.”
A1: My definition of inscrutable suffering is as follows:
Q2: Clarify the difference between subjective and objective justifiability/justification?
A2: The concept of ‘justification’ occurs twice in the new Atheous. First, in the definition of inscrutable suffering provided above and second in the definition of morally gratuitous suffering:
Q3: Clarify the difference between subjective and objective scrutability?
A3: I’m not sure I’d want to analyze objective scrutability; but, my argument employs a subjective understanding: subjective scrutability apropos the new Atheous occurs when S does not meet D1’s conditions.
An important point I need to make here is that my argument is not that if there exists some S who meets D1’s conditions, then theism has a problem. You shouldn’t lose any sleep at all if I’m certain there is inscrutable suffering and you honestly disagree. The problem this argument attempts to cause for theism only really arises if the theist is the S in D1. Likewise, an atheist who is the S in D1 shouldn’t be bothered if his theist opponents sincerely disagree.
God can never meet D1’s conditions because his omniscience precludes ignorance and false belief.
As to your point about Christianity, I think you’ll see why I find that line of reasoning problematic in the New Atheous; but, for now I’d like to note that even if Christian theism probabilifies inscrutable suffering, it may still be the case that theism does not. If that is so, Christian theism is in trouble because Christian theism is just a theological elaboration of theism: it tells us more about God, his nature, desires and activities etc. Theism is to Christian theism as a foundation is to a building.
Should have the new argument up soon. I hope what I said was relevant to your points, thanks for the response.
However, I can answer these questions using material from the new argument:Q1: “I wonder whether you’re implicitly appealing to the dubious assertion that any justification demands, or somehow calls out for, actual/possible subjective scrutability/knowledge for the sufferer himself.”
A1: My definition of inscrutable suffering is as follows:
So, I make no appeal to the dubious assertion you mentioned.
Q2: Clarify the difference between subjective and objective justifiability/justification?
A2: The concept of ‘justification’ occurs twice in the new Atheous. First, in the definition of inscrutable suffering provided above and second in the definition of morally gratuitous suffering:
The moral justification referred to in both definitions is to be understood as objective. That is, whether there actually is some moral good in virtue of which E’s moral status is ‘good’ or ‘right’ as opposed to ‘evil’ or ‘wrong.’ I’m not sure how to construe a subjective understanding of this notion; but, I’m not sure I need to be able to. What do you think?
Q3: Clarify the difference between subjective and objective scrutability?
A3: I’m not sure I’d want to analyze objective scrutability; but, my argument employs a subjective understanding: subjective scrutability apropos the new Atheous occurs when S does not meet D1’s conditions.
An important point I need to make here is that my argument is not that if there exists some S who meets D1’s conditions, then theism has a problem. You shouldn’t lose any sleep at all if I’m certain there is inscrutable suffering and you honestly disagree. The problem this argument attempts to cause for theism only really arises if the theist is the S in D1. Likewise, an atheist who is the S in D1 shouldn’t be bothered if his theist opponents sincerely disagree.
God can never meet D1’s conditions because his omniscience precludes ignorance and false belief.
As to your point about Christianity, I think you’ll see why I find that line of reasoning problematic in the New Atheous; but, for now I’d like to note that even if Christian theism probabilifies inscrutable suffering, it may still be the case that theism does not. If that is so, Christian theism is in trouble because Christian theism is just a theological elaboration of theism: it tells us more about God, his nature, desires and activities etc. Theism is to Christian theism as a foundation is to a building.
Should have the new argument up soon. I hope what I said was relevant to your points, thanks for the response.
C
CTuck
Guest
Perplexity,
I don’t know if someone has already made this point, but wouldn’t it be just as logically valid to say:
I don’t know if someone has already made this point, but wouldn’t it be just as logically valid to say:
- If theism is true, then suffering is justified
- If suffering is justified, then it is scrutable
- If theism is true, all suffering is scrutable.
- Status