God is not a...

[oldcelt]

Lucretius…I mis-read your question…my apologies. That will teach me to try to read without my glasses.

To answer, I have no idea why an interventionist deity would want something that requires evil to obtain good.

John

 

[e_c]

Lucretius…I mis-read your question…my apologies. That will teach me to try to read without my glasses.

To answer, I have no idea why an interventionist deity would want something that requires evil to obtain good.

John

Glory!!! This is it!!!

 

[Lucretius]

Lucretius…I mis-read your question…my apologies. That will teach me to try to read without my glasses.

To answer, I have no idea why an interventionist deity would want something that requires evil to obtain good.

John

And this is where the theist is taking a leap of faith, because we don’t know why God would want these sort of evils. We can speculate at best, but we can’t know in this life.

The Christian can argue though that evil came into the world through Adam and Eve, and that God is simply working and correcting human mistakes, but this is controversial even with the Church Fathers, let alone with some popular interpretations of modern scientific theories. St. Thomas, for example, argues that animal suffering existed before the Fall.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Solmyr]

And that makes, as you correctly and astutely asserted, the analogy inadequate.

But not in the way that favors your position.

Your attempt made your analogy even worse. An infinitely powerful God could get rid of the problems - WITHOUT ANY SIDE EFFECTS - if he so chose. Case closed.

 

[Solmyr]

But what if there were some goods that require evil, like how the good of martyrdom necessarily needs the evils of hatred and death?

That is called “rationalization”. Who says that martyrdom is “good”? But we can translate it into terms which are reasonable.

1. To be healthy is good.
2. To become healthy after some illness is also good.
3. But to say that illness is “good”, because without it we would not experience the good of “recovery” is madness.

Or another example:

1. To be without pain is good.
2. The cessation of pain is also good.
3. But to say that we should “value” pain, because it is good when pain stops is crazy. But if you disagree, grab a hammer and start pounding your thumb, just to enjoy when you stop doing it.

Also, Catholicism teaches that one should not do evil so that good can come out of it.
Of course Catholicism also teaches that God can bring something good out of evil.

So lucky for you that Catholicism teaches both ends of the stick. As Dogbert said: “instead of calling it a contradiction, I prefer to say that there are no loose ends”.

 

[PRmerger]

Your attempt made your analogy even worse.

I don’t think you understand math and proportionality very well.

An infinitely powerful God could get rid of the problems - WITHOUT ANY SIDE EFFECTS - if he so chose. Case closed.

The point remains, that is incontrovertible, and that you have thankfully acknowledged: we can see how it’s possible for a father to permit suffering for his children and still love them.

QED.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

John

But you do acknowledge that a loving father could permit suffering for his child.

Can you at least see that this is true?

I would like to know that I am in dialogue with a reasonable person…and if you can acknowledge that in bold then it will be affirmation to me of this.

 

[PRmerger]

Also, Catholicism teaches that one should not do evil so that good can come out of it.

Indeed. You are correct.

Of course Catholicism also teaches that God can bring something good out of evil.

Yes, Glory be to God!

So lucky for you that Catholicism teaches both ends of the stick.

But they are not the same stick at all.

I’m pretty sure that even my 13 yr old daughter can see that one stick is:

1. don’t do evil

And a completely different stick is:

1. if evil is done, then God can make good out of it.

 

[e_c]

The glory of the New Rome stands opposed to the glory of the New Jerusalem.

Souls choked by the weeds, blown away by the wind, or snatched up by the birds are left only with a heart for Caesar. They will have nothing to do with the Christ who is so disappointing to them, since his kingdom is not of this world.

Arguments can multiply to infinity, we will be left in the same spot.

 

[oldcelt]

But you do acknowledge that a loving father could permit suffering for his child.

Can you at least see that this is true?

I would like to know that I am in dialogue with a reasonable person…and if you can acknowledge that in bold then it will be affirmation to me of this.

I can acknowledge that in human terms. If we are speaking about an interventionist god with all those omnis…no.
Two completely separate situations.

 

[PRmerger]

I can acknowledge that in human terms.

Excellent. Thank you.

Then I know that I am dealing with a man of reason.

So we can see that a father *can *love his children yet permit suffering.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

You do realize that the human father also has the ability to stop the suffering of his 5 year old?

So the omni objection is really invalid, isn’t it?

A human father is loving his child in permitting the suffering…and while he could stop it, is powerful to stop it, could punch the medical assistants in the face and punish the evil doers, has the ability to put an end to it…

doesn’t.

Why?

Because he has a very, very good reason to permit the suffering.

And his 5 yr old child couldn’t understand the reasoning.

She just has to trust in her daddy.

QED

 

[Solmyr]

You do realize that the human father also has the ability to stop the suffering of his 5 year old?

No, he does NOT. Not the same way as God can do it. You keep on trying to compare the finite abilities of the father with the infinite abilities of God… and try to make them somehow commensurate. In other words, you try to have your cake and eat it, too. And that is something that even God cannot do.

 

[oldcelt]

You do realize that the human father also has the ability to stop the suffering of his 5 year old?

So the omni objection is really invalid, isn’t it?

A human father is loving his child in permitting the suffering…and while he could stop it, is powerful to stop it, could punch the medical assistants in the face and punish the evil doers, has the ability to put an end to it…

doesn’t.

Why?

Because he has a very, very good reason to permit the suffering.

And his 5 yr old child couldn’t understand the reasoning.

She just has to trust in her daddy.

QED

The human father could stop it in that one instance…but what about the underlying illness that the treatment seeks to cure? So, the human father cannot stop suffering in any meaningful way,
Only an omnipotent force could do that, and I see no evidence of this occurring. In fact, as creator, that force bears some responsibility for the suffering in the first place.

 

[PRmerger]

The human father could stop it in that one instance…

Yep. Actually, in all instances, right?

but what about the underlying illness that the treatment seeks to cure? So, the human father cannot stop suffering in any meaningful way,
Only an omnipotent force could do that, and I see no evidence of this occurring. In fact, as creator, that force bears some responsibility for the suffering in the first place.

Sure. And that’s why he makes it up to them, every time, according to his justice and mercy.

So, I think we can see that it’s a logical possibility for a loving father to permit suffering.

When one rejects the Christian God, one is only doing it–NOT OUT OF LOGIC–but out of emotion.

There is no logical contradiction between a loving (F)ather and a suffering world.

 

[Solmyr]

Yep. Actually, in all instances, right?

Sure… A healthy (or lethal) dose of morphine would do the trick. Is that the best an omnipotent God can do?

 

[PRmerger]

Sure… A healthy (or lethal) dose of morphine would do the trick. Is that the best an omnipotent God can do?

If you were a father who demanded Morphine for your 5 yr old’s immunizations, you would be viewed as a ding dong.

And rightly so.

 

[PRmerger]

The doctors could give her an anesthesia and she would experience no pain.

Sure… A healthy (or lethal) dose of morphine would do the trick. Is that the best an omnipotent God can do?

I’m sensing a theme here, Sol.

You think that a father should never, ever, not even once, allow his child to suffer.



Let’s think about that…

Imagine the kind of father you’re proposing:

-“My child should not suffer in having to do this science project he didn’t want to do! I demand that you not penalize him for this. He should NEVER have to suffer! He found that science project painful!”

-“Dearest wife, how dare you tell our son he has to go to bed now! He does not wish to go to bed. Making him to go bed at a time when he does not wish to is painful to him. See the temper tantrum he is having right now? DO NOT MAKE HIM GO TO BED NOW!”

-“Doctor, how dare you make my child get this IV. He is crying, in between his vomiting and diarrhea, because you hurt him! DO NOT MAKE MY CHILD SUFFER!”

-“Officer, my son does not like to wait at red lights. It makes him angry. DO NOT MAKE HIM WAIT at traffic lights because he should NEVER, EVER, not even once, HAVE TO EXPERIENCE PAIN, SUFFERING, OR ANYTHING NOXIOUS WHATSOEVER!”

Why? Because, I AM THE GREATEST FATHER IN THE WORLD!!

Oh, wait, my child is the biggest brat in the world because he has never, not even once, had to experience pain.

Hmmm…

 

[Solmyr]

If you were a father who demanded Morphine for your 5 yr old’s immunizations, you would be viewed as a ding dong.

You must be an awfully good dancer.

Never stay put and follow up, but constantly change the subject. The point was that humans have no ways and means to deal with ALL the problem of suffering - except by quickly and painlessly killing the patient. God is supposed to be more advanced than that. Your simplistic little “immunization” analogy shows that you just view God as a somewhat more capable human doctor.

You think that a father should never, ever, not even once, allow his child to suffer.

As usual you are wrong. See the paragraph above.

 

[PRmerger]

As usual you are wrong. See the paragraph above.

Excellent. I accept being wrong when it brings you closer to the truth, Sol.

So we can see that you have advanced a bit.

You, as a parent, would permit your child to suffer, if there was a good reason for it.

QED