God is not a...

[Solmyr]

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

I remember when you pointed out that it is “good for me to talk to knowledgeable Catholics”… and I wonder if you considered yourself to be one of them. I am afraid I have to disagree if that was your insinuation.

When you talk about God, you compare him to a somewhat souped-up jalopy, and not a turbo-charged, custom designed Formula 1 race car… and even that comparison would be woefully incorrect and degrading to the unsurpassable omnipotence of the Supreme Being.

No human father can be compared - even as an analogy to the abilities of God to deal with the problems of suffering. So, as a knowledgeable heathen, let me advise you to stop this kind of “analogy”, because it does not help your case.

Best wishes.

 

[oldcelt]

Yep. Actually, in all instances, right?

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.

Sorry, but I cannot argue against a proposal that has been beaten down so many times. Human father vs. supernatural all this and that.

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry, but I cannot argue against a proposal that has been beaten down so many times. Human father vs. supernatural all this and that.

Well, now, this is a shame.

You have already acknowledged that it’s possible for a loving father to permit suffering.

That’s HUGE, oldcelt. Huge.

But now you’ve regressed to the head in the sand thinking again.

It’s as if the conversation went like this:

You: cows are NOT mammals!

Me: Yes, they are. Do you believe that only mammals make milk?

You: Yes, of course!

Me: Do cows make milk?

You: Of course!

Me: Therefore, cows are mammals.

You: Nope. All I have said is that cows make milk. And mammals make milk.

Me: sigh!

 

[e_c]

I think it was exactly this whole justice/suffering thing that brought C.S. Lewis out of his unbelief. He could not understand his own desire for justice apart from some final measure… which he would later realize could only be God.

I can’t find the clip right now, but it’s from the same channel as this (also relevant) clip is from:

youtu.be/LqsAzlFS91A

 

[PRmerger]

I think a summary here is in order:

In this thread we have reached a consensus:

• sometimes a loving father can indeed permit his child to suffer…
• and this father *could *intervene, but he doesn’t…
• and this father could explain the reasons why to the child, but we all know that no reason really makes sense to her…no reason justifies, in her mind…this torture…
• but the father is right and good and loving to do this…
• in fact, only good and loving fathers permit their children to suffer. Rather it is bad fathers will attempt to make it so their child never endures a single hardship

All other discordant points…like:

“but the human father has to eat breakfast and God the Father doesn’t!”

“the child may wet the bed but we don’t do that typically as adults!”

“the human father has to drive to get to the pediatrician’s office and God doesn’t!”

are simply otiose, irrelevant, nonsensical diversions.

We have agreed on what’s important.

Now apply it to God and human suffering.

QED

 

[e_c]

PR - Their point, I think, is that God ought to have made a world where suffering was not necessary at all.

However, this means that the good of glory is impossible. It also raises the question of why God “ought” to such and such… As if there were something prior to what is… Radically first!

 

[PRmerger]

PR - Their point, I think, is that God ought to have made a world where suffering was not necessary at all.

I get that.

Their point is that a loving Father doesn’t let his children suffer.

Except we can see that it’s entirely possible for a loving father to…

let his children suffer.

 

[Solmyr]

PR - Their point, I think, is that God ought to have made a world where suffering was not necessary at all.

And with omnipotence there can be no NECESSARY suffering. You keep on denying the consequence of that omnipotence.

However, this means that the good of glory is impossible.

You mean God desires to bask in some unspecified “glory” and we must pay the price with our suffering? And you call that “love”? How incredibly selfish it would be expose others to some suffering to bring “glory” to God. As a matter of fact there would be much more “glory” in a world where there is no unnecessary, gratuitous suffering.

It also raises the question of why God “ought” to such and such…

Real love, maybe?

 

[oldcelt]

Well, now, this is a shame.

You have already acknowledged that it’s possible for a loving father to permit suffering.

That’s HUGE, oldcelt. Huge.

But now you’ve regressed to the head in the sand thinking again.

It’s as if the conversation went like this:

You: cows are NOT mammals!

Me: Yes, they are. Do you believe that only mammals make milk?

You: Yes, of course!

Me: Do cows make milk?

You: Of course!

Me: Therefore, cows are mammals.

You: Nope. All I have said is that cows make milk. And mammals make milk.

Me: sigh!

From my side…the problem exists in comparing the very limited human to the omnipotent. Talk about apples and oranges. The human father occasionally allows his child to suffer because it seems to be the only reasonable course of action. An omnipotent force could eliminate the need entirely.
Two completely different situations.
A friend of mine was in a car accident last week that has left her in a coma. She is a faithful Catholic with 3 children of her own and one adopted. Her suffering, and the suffering of her family could have been avoided entirely…but not by her earthly father.

John

 

[PRmerger]

From my side…the problem exists in comparing the very limited human to the omnipotent. Talk about apples and oranges. The human father occasionally allows his child to suffer because it seems to be the only reasonable course of action. An omnipotent force could eliminate the need entirely.
Two completely different situations.
A friend of mine was in a car accident last week that has left her in a coma. She is a faithful Catholic with 3 children of her own and one adopted. Her suffering, and the suffering of her family could have been avoided entirely…but not by her earthly father.

John

I am saddened to hear of your friend’s tragic accident. Be assured of my prayers, although I understand how you feel about that.

However, let’s take the emotion out of this and look at the concept logically.

Please indulge me here a bit. You have shown me to be a reasonable, articulate and thoughtful man, and I thank you for what you have acknowledged in our previous dialogues.

Could you please just answer this question: is it possible for a omnipotent, omniscient, Father to permit suffering, yet still be loving?

I am simply asking you to consider whether it’s logically possible for this to occur.

That is, could there ever be a reason, unknown to you and me, for God to permit suffering in the world while remaining good and loving?

Logically? Possibly?

Yes? Or no?

 

[oldcelt]

I am saddened to hear of your friend’s tragic accident. Be assured of my prayers, although I understand how you feel about that.

However, let’s take the emotion out of this and look at the concept logically.

Please indulge me here a bit. You have shown me to be a reasonable, articulate and thoughtful man, and I thank you for what you have acknowledged in our previous dialogues.

Could you please just answer this question: is it possible for a omnipotent, omniscient, Father to permit suffering, yet still be loving?

I am simply asking you to consider whether it’s logically possible for this to occur.

That is, could there ever be a reason, unknown to you and me, for God to permit suffering in the world while remaining good and loving?

Logically? Possibly?

Yes? Or no?

Logically…no. BTW, Rosalyn’s family will certainly appreciate the prayers as I appreciate the sincerity of the intention.

 

[PRmerger]

Logically…no.

Logically no?

I think you are being unreasonable here.

You have the exact mentality of the 5 year old child in the analogy who says, “There is NO REASON, at all, that my daddy could ever love me and let this happen to me.”

We know how wrong she is though, eh?

And please remember, as per the image I showed with the ruler, the gulf between the 5 year old and you is finite, compared to the gulf between the human father and God, so the intellectual chasm between you and this 5 year old is infinitesimal.

I am not sure what event in your life has caused you to pre-empt the logical and reasonable aspect of this argument with emotion.

But it’s not a very smart way to live one’s life.

I understand that emotion is a very real and valuable thing.

But it has no place in evaluating this argument here.

You are not being reasonable and I must, sadly, bow out of this.

I ask that you consider this*: your 5 year old daughter may reject you some day because you permitted her to experience some noxious things…and it would be a very sad thing indeed for her to be ruled by this emotional response.

*NB: this is hypothetical only. Used for advancement of the argument. Not meant to be a personal wish for rejection of you by this rhetorical, hypothetical 5 yr old daughter.

 

[PRmerger]

Logically no?

I think you are being unreasonable here.

You have the exact mentality of the 5 year old child in the analogy who says, “There is NO REASON, at all, that my daddy could ever love me and let this happen to me.”

We know how wrong she is though, eh?

And please remember, as per the image I showed with the ruler, the gulf between the 5 year old and you is finite, compared to the gulf between the human father and God, so the intellectual chasm between you and this 5 year old is infinitesimal.

I am not sure what event in your life has caused you to pre-empt the logical and reasonable aspect of this argument with emotion.

But it’s not a very smart way to live one’s life.

I understand that emotion is a very real and valuable thing.

But it has no place in evaluating this argument here.

You are not being reasonable and I must, sadly, bow out of this.

I ask that you consider this*: your 5 year old daughter may reject you some day because you permitted her to experience some noxious things…and it would be a very sad thing indeed for her to be ruled by this emotional response.

*NB: this is hypothetical only. Used for advancement of the argument. Not meant to be a personal wish for rejection of you by this rhetorical, hypothetical 5 yr old daughter.

One more caveat regarding the comment about the rhetorical daughter’s rejection.

Just as it is only meant in the hypothetical–and if oldcelt has a daughter who actually does reject him, it’s not meant as any personal indictment. I have no idea about the person life of most posters here…

it also needs to be understood with the corollary: it is indeed only meant to promote a larger concept and there should be no need to take the other route and announce, “I am a gay man and have no intention of having children!” or “I have a son, not a daughter” or “I am a 20 year old man so I am not yet a father”.

It is a concept that is meant to promote the larger concept. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

[oldcelt]

Logically no?

I think you are being unreasonable here.

You have the exact mentality of the 5 year old child in the analogy who says, “There is NO REASON, at all, that my daddy could ever love me and let this happen to me.”

We know how wrong she is though, eh?

And please remember, as per the image I showed with the ruler, the gulf between the 5 year old and you is finite, compared to the gulf between the human father and God, so the intellectual chasm between you and this 5 year old is infinitesimal.

I am not sure what event in your life has caused you to pre-empt the logical and reasonable aspect of this argument with emotion.

But it’s not a very smart way to live one’s life.

I understand that emotion is a very real and valuable thing.

But it has no place in evaluating this argument here.

You are not being reasonable and I must, sadly, bow out of this.

I ask that you consider this*: your 5 year old daughter may reject you some day because you permitted her to experience some noxious things…and it would be a very sad thing indeed for her to be ruled by this emotional response.

*NB: this is hypothetical only. Used for advancement of the argument. Not meant to be a personal wish for rejection of you by this rhetorical, hypothetical 5 yr old daughter.

I can assure you that my reasoning does not fall into the emotional range. Let me see if I can explain:

Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that I am a creator of a universe. Into this universe I individually create sentient beings.Since I am omniscient and omnipotent, I not only know what will happen to each of my creations, I also have the power to completely alter the conditions of their existence. So, I create a girl and send her to a loving family…already knowing that she will be the victim of leukemia at the age of five.
When her parents become aware of the condition, they make the difficult decision to seek treatment that they know will be painful for their child. They do so because it is the only hope that is available to them.
Meanwhile, I, the omniscient, omnipotent, creator of this child…already knowing all this…do nothing. The girl endures many months of painful treatments and is eventually cured (not a particularly common outcome. All those months of suffering could have been avoided purely by my will, but I did NOTHING.
Allowing that type of suffering is not loving in anyway. In fact, I (John) find it to be malicious. It is akin to a human father standing idly by as his child wanders toward a cliff. Maybe the child will survive the fall and learn a valuable lesson from their horrific injuries…maybe the child will die. In any case, I do nothing. The difference is…as a human, I could not know the outcome…as an omniscient deity…I would.
My switch to the non-interventionist deity of Deism came because I refuse to believe in a God that creates an individual with all knowledge of their future and chose a god that initiated creation and let it run its course.

John

 

[e_c]

I can assure you that my reasoning does not fall into the emotional range. Let me see if I can explain:

Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that I am a creator of a universe. Into this universe I individually create sentient beings.Since I am omniscient and omnipotent, I not only know what will happen to each of my creations, I also have the power to completely alter the conditions of their existence. So, I create a girl and send her to a loving family…already knowing that she will be the victim of leukemia at the age of five.
When her parents become aware of the condition, they make the difficult decision to seek treatment that they know will be painful for their child. They do so because it is the only hope that is available to them.
Meanwhile, I, the omniscient, omnipotent, creator of this child…already knowing all this…do nothing. The girl endures many months of painful treatments and is eventually cured (not a particularly common outcome. All those months of suffering could have been avoided purely by my will, but I did NOTHING.
Allowing that type of suffering is not loving in anyway. In fact, I (John) find it to be malicious. It is akin to a human father standing idly by as his child wanders toward a cliff. Maybe the child will survive the fall and learn a valuable lesson from their horrific injuries…maybe the child will die. In any case, I do nothing. The difference is…as a human, I could not know the outcome…as an omniscient deity…I would.
My switch to the non-interventionist deity of Deism came because I refuse to believe in a God that creates an individual with all knowledge of their future and chose a god that initiated creation and let it run its course.

John

A God that must have been ignorant of what He was doing, you mean. Or else He is malicious.

And a God that can create but not intervene.

Also a God so limited in power He could not effect glory in His creatures.

 

[oldcelt]

A God that must have been ignorant of what He was doing, you mean. Or else He is malicious.

And a God that can create but not intervene.

Also a God so limited in power He could not effect glory in His creatures.

!. Yes 2. Yes…just be the first cause essentially 3. Deists do not involve themselves with notions of glory.

John

 

[e_c]

!. Yes 2. Yes…just be the first cause essentially 3. Deists do not involve themselves with notions of glory.

John

Well at least you are not afraid to bite the bullet.

How those things are reconciled with… you guessed it, radical primacy… I do not know. Seems rather odd to make such claims. Creation is perfect power.

But I will address it all in my synthesis post, when I get around to it.

 

[Bradski]

Creation is perfect power.

If I create a small fire and it spreads through the bush, killing wildlife, burning hundreds of acres, destroying towns, do I have any control over it?

Who did all this! Why, it was Bradski. Why didn’t he stop it? Well, he was powerless.

 

[PRmerger]

If I create a small fire and it spreads through the bush, killing wildlife, burning hundreds of acres, destroying towns, do I have any control over it?

Who did all this! Why, it was Bradski. Why didn’t he stop it? Well, he was powerless.

Sure.

But what if you’re creating a fire in order to burn the poison ivy? You try to explain this to your 3 year old and all he knows is, “Fire is bad! Why did daddy make the fire?”

A bratty 3 year old says, “You are a big meanie for making the fire!”
And a foolish one says, “Yeah, and that means you don’t exist, too!”

 

[Bradski]

Sure.

But what if you’re creating a fire in order to burn the poison ivy? You try to explain this to your 3 year old and all he knows is, “Fire is bad! Why did daddy make the fire?”

I don’t think there’s any need to read any more into what I posted. It’s just to indicate that creating something does not necessarily mean that you have control over it. Mary Shelley wrote a book about it.