Yes, it’s inadequate, but in the way that you don’t realize.
Correct.
Sorry to be a bear about this, but this too goes to the original thesis… The way of analogy, which was botched by the Scotists, plugs into this, which flows from radical primacy.Yes, it’s inadequate, but in the way that you don’t realize.
Try to do the math here, Sol.
Picture this in your mind:
Imagine a ruler that measures the difference between the suffering of a 5 yr old and rape and torture…
and a ruler that measures the difference between a human father and the infinite God.
The first ruler, when one compares it to the second, has an infinitesimally small gap. They are soooooo close together as to be almost identical.
See?
Still trying to make this poor analogy work?Correct.
And I think, especially because of Sol’s such great protestations to this analogy, he does understand: it’s possible to see how a good father would permit suffering for his child.
QED.
**Oh, and it’s especially ludicrous for the child to conclude, because the father didn’t intervene, “You don’t exist!”
That’s not a very logical inference is it?
“You’re mean therefore you don’t exist!”**
You all ready know the Christian’s response… He is here, in our suffering: you just can’t and won’t see Him.
You have chosen this. You have decided that suffering is meaningless, becuase the facts don’t speak for themselves, and multiple interpretations regarding the nature of things is permitted: is the heart of the world good and alive, or evil and dead? The evidence doesn’t determine which interpretation is correct. But, we can’t not believe one or the other, so we must choose.
But I’d guess that millions of people actually believe it all. Do you see how many people can be convinced that something is true on the flimsiest of evidence?
Sure.
You are saying this, I suppose, based on evidence, yeah?
I dunno.
I am an agnostic about this.
Well, that’s just begging the question, John.
We speak analogically about God. Not directly, really ever.
I thought I’d try to provide a visual to help you see the math, Sol.Yes, it’s inadequate, but in the way that you don’t realize.
Try to do the math here, Sol.
Picture this in your mind:
Imagine a ruler that measures the difference between the suffering of a 5 yr old and rape and torture…
and a ruler that measures the difference between a human father and the infinite God.
The first ruler, when one compares it to the second, has an infinitesimally small gap. They are soooooo close together as to be almost identical.
See?
The human father will most definitely allow “suffering” in the hopes of improving the situation. A supernatural father with the omnis has the ability to stop the suffering of the children. The human father must hope that the suffering will lead to better health for his child. The supernatural father could end the suffering and does not in millions of cases a year, many resulting in the death of a child that he supposedly created. The human father mourns deeply at the loss of his child. The supernatural father stands by and allows it to happen. I could go on.
But what if there were some goods that require evil, like how the good of martyrdom necessarily needs the evils of hatred and death?
Those are also under the control of a supernatural father with the omnis. That father does not have to necessitate evil to then use suffering to heal what never should have been created.
The very nature of martyrdom requires a kind of evil. God can’t change these things. God can’t, for example, know the square root of yellow…just as he can’t have martyrdom without some evil.
For me, all these questions are moot. However, your last question is confusing…should’t it be, why does he want good that requires evil?