Good design, mediocre design, lousy design

[Spock]

Ive been saying this for years!!. I mean how dare you bring kids in to a world that you believe will potentially scar them, ruin them, abuse them, use them, rape them, and kill them, a world in which they will face the horrors of life and the horrors of ceasing to exist, and then turn around a say that God is evil for bringing us into existence!!!

Its ridiculous hypocrisy.

Correction. Atheists do NOT believe in God’s existence, so we cannot “blame” him for anything. We are pointing out the irrationality of positing a “good” God while ignoring the contrast with the actual properties of the natural world. A good designer would have arranged the state of affairs according to his benevolence.

It is true that bringing children into the world is partly selfish, partly irrational. Unfortunately nature (not God) has imbued us with the natural urge to propagate our genes, and then coupled it with the highly pleasant activity of sex. Also, the chance of all those misfortunes is rather small, so we can rationally expect our children to have a pleasant existence. The risk-benefit analysis is in our favor. In the case when we can learn that the child will be born with a disease, we do not wish to force the woman to carry the pregnancy to term - unlike you.

So, please, if you wish to criticize, do it rationally, and do not posit some straw-man, in lieu of an actual argument.

 

[tonyrey]

It is true that bringing children into the world is partly selfish, partly irrational.

The fact that it is **partly **irrational is no excuse. You have to commit yourself one way or the other. Either your urge to procreate is controllable or it is not. In any court of law you would be held responsible if you pleaded an irresistible urge to procreate.

Unfortunately nature (not God) has imbued us with the natural urge to propagate our genes, and then coupled it with the highly pleasant activity of sex.

The fact that the urge to propagate is natural and pleasant is not a valid reason for choosing to initiate a chain of events that leads to immeasurable suffering and misery.

Also, the chance of all those misfortunes is rather small, so we can rationally expect our children to have a pleasant existence.

It is not a question of your children alone. If you are responsible for what happens to them you are also responsible for your grandchildren and their descendants. You have the power to prevent an immense amount of unnecessary suffering yet you freely choose not to do so. A “pleasant existence” for your children is hardly a justification for your decision.

The risk-benefit analysis is in our favor.

I have already pointed out the mathematical probability that you will you have many descendants who will be the perpetrators and victims of horrific crimes.

In the case when we can learn that the child will be born with a disease, we do not wish to force the woman to carry the pregnancy to term - unlike you.

You are forgetting that our ultimate authority is our conscience. No woman
is forced against her will to have a child with a malignant disease whereas you are responsible for bringing your female descendants into a world in which they will have no choice when faced with that dilemma and others which are far more harrowing.

So, please, if you wish to criticize, do it rationally, and do not posit some straw-man, in lieu of an actual argument.

The straw-man exists in your imagination.You are demonstrating by your inconsistency that you are the one who is being irrational. You choose to have descendants and at the same time claim to be exempt of all ultimate responsibility for their suffering - the very objection you make to the existence of God!

 

[Spock]

It is not a question of your children alone.

I have already pointed out that our responsibility ends when our children grow up. It is boring to see the same irrational extension you advocate. Case closed.

 

[MindOverMatter]

The straw-man exists in your imagination.You are demonstrating by your inconsistency that you are the one who is being irrational. You choose to have descendants and at the same time claim to be exempt of all ultimate responsibility for their suffering - the very objection you make to the existence of God!

Thanks for the defense. Its brilliant.

 

[tonyrey]

I have already pointed out that our responsibility ends when our children grow up. It is boring to see the same irrational extension you advocate. Case closed.

You would like your responsibility to end when your children grow up but your wish does not alter the fact that although you can foresee and **prevent **the immense suffering that many of your descendants will experience and inflict on innocent people you deliberately **choose **to allow them to do so. I leave others to judge whether you are justified - given that you find God guilty for precisely the same reason…

 

[MindOverMatter]

I have already pointed out that our responsibility ends when our children grow up.

This does not free you from the fact that you are responsible for their existence. It is true, in the sense of true morality, that a man or women becomes responsible for his or her own actions given a certain age. However, they are still your children; they are personal beings with feelings, and thus you have all the moral responsibility of subjecting them to the reality of existence. Otherwise the morality and responsibility of good parenting would not meaningfully apply if you were not partly responsible for their moral outcome in adulthood. If you think that the world is evil, and that there is no justification for bringing people in to it, then this arguement also applies to the human race, because they have sufficient free-will and could sterilize themselves if they truly wanted to. Its not partly selfish; its absolutely selfish. It cannot be said that a mother truly loves her child if she would bring her children in to a morally unacceptable world. But if you say that the potential goods out-weighs the potential evils to the extent as to render personal existence acceptable, then this fact also applies to God as well as people.

You could then argue that God could have created a better world, but according to your own principles God need only make a world that is good enough, that has enough potential goods as to outweigh all potential evils.

In any case, the ideal that God should have created a perfect world is according to your straw-man definition and childish understanding of God and morality. Many of the goods and virtues we find in human beings have only arisen because of the potential fret of suffering and death. So it seems that potential evil and natural suffering, in so far as bringing the human race to moral maturity, is absolutely necessary and cannot be removed until Gods plan is complete.

 

[Spock]

This does not free you from the fact that you are responsible for their existence.

Yes, this is true. I am responsible for thier existence, and to bring them up to become good and resonsible adults. But TonyRey asserted something completely different. I cannot be held responsible for the problems they may encounter as children or adults, since I have asbolutely no control over that. I cannot be held responsible if they happen to grow into criminals if I gave them a proper upbringing. And I most certainly cannot be held responsible for the fate of my progeny after my death.

If you think that the world is evil, and that there is no justification for bringing people in to it, then this arguement also applies to the human race, because they have sufficient free-will and could sterilize themselves if they truly wanted to.

But nowhere did I say that this world is “evil”, I only said that it is not the best of all possible worlds. Bringing children into the world is a value-neutral action.

But if you say that the potential goods out-weighs the potential evils to the extent as to render personal existence acceptable, then this fact also applies to God as well as people.

Why? We, people do not have the same information and do not have the same power as God allegedly does. With power comes responsibility. As I said before, the sign on God’s desk says: “The buck stops here”.

You could then argue that God could have created a better world, but according to your own principles God need only make a world that is good enough, that has enough potential goods as to outweigh all potential evils.

OK. You should show then that this world id the “best of all possible worlds”, that even one instance of suffering removed from this wolrd would somehow create a world which is inferior to this one.

In any case, the ideal that God should have created a perfect world is according to your straw-man definition and childish understanding of God and morality. Many of the goods and virtues we find in human beings have only arisen because of the potential fret of suffering and death. So it seems that potential evil and natural suffering, in so far as bringing the human race to moral maturity, is absolutely necessary and cannot be removed until Gods plan is complete.

You should not attempt to speak of “God’s plan” as if you knew what that is. Those “virtues” you speak of we could do very well without. The price is paid by others, who do not wish to pay that price. It is unacceptable to gain some advantage at someone else’s expense.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I most certainly cannot be held responsible for the fate of my progeny after my death.

You are responsible for their existence. You are ultimately responsible for their coming in to being, and thus responsible for their ultimate dying. What kind of human being would bring a child in to a world where they had to face the fear of ceasing to exist on top of having an objectively meaningless life full of potential terror and unhappiness? But i guess so long as its all good for you right?

But nowhere did I say that this world is “evil”,

If the world and its creation is not evil, then God cannot be held to be in any kind of fault. Thats why its called the problem of evil.

I only said that it is not the best of all possible worlds.

How do you know that? In terms of our coming to love God freely it may very well be the best of all possible worlds, even if its not the best.

Bringing children into the world is a value-neutral action.

Value neutral!? Then i guess Gods bringing people in to a world full of potential suffering cannot be held to be at fault.

Why? We, people do not have the same information

We know that the world is full of potential suffering. If you are ignorant of that, then you are hardly in any position to come on to a philosophy forum and make intellectual and moral judgments. You are only going to irritate those who can see through you, and at worst, bore them to death.

and do not have the same power as God allegedly does.

What do you know about Gods power? Have you ever asked what a Catholic Christian means by God being all powerful before you jumped down his or her throat. To say that God has all the power, does not mean to say that God can do the logically contradictory.

With power comes responsibility.

With being a human-being comes moral responsibility.

As I said before, the sign on God’s desk says: “The buck stops here”.

You have seen Gods desk?!!!

OK. You should show then that this world id the “best of all possible worlds”,

Neither of us have the relevant and necessary information in order to judge in terms of logical proof or disprove. The point is, if the highest potential of this reality is eternal heaven, then i have no problem with the potential suffering i might have to endure as a result of my existence. In which case it is enough for somebody to show that there is no necessary contradiction between an all powerful loving God and an imperfect world such as are own. So long as you understand what it means for God to be God, there doesn’t seem to an irreconcilable problem. Childish versions of God, that atheists seem to enjoy inventing when developing their straw-men, never seem to describe God like intelligent Christians understand God to be. If something is truly good in the objective sense, then any opinion against existence and God is necessarily irrational and selfish.

that even one instance of suffering removed from this world would somehow create a world which is inferior to this one.

Well i think its evident to anybody who takes time to think about. Stubborn and selfish people learn from pain; in fact pain is their only hope when it comes to willful ignorance. You seem to think that people are good by fiat, and that they have some kind of right that overrides Gods plans for our being. But this is not true reality

You should not attempt to speak of “God’s plan”

I think you have your own plans, and whats really bugging you is that God and his plan, for achieving the greatest good, is interfering with it.

as if you knew what that is.

I have a feeling that you’d rather i didn’t know. What do you know about it?

Those “virtues” you speak of we could do very well without.

Yep, just as i thought. You hate the greater good.

The price is paid by others, who do not wish to pay that price.

Anybody who hates the greater good is the enemy. I can’t say that i feel sorry for somebody who would sacrifice the greater good for some selfish agenda. I pity them and hope that they come to their senses.

It is unacceptable to gain some advantage at someone else’s expense.

God has given us existence, and with it he has offered us the eternity of Heaven. It is true that we must endure the imperfections of this life, but if that is what is necessary in order for us to have perfection, then i cannot really complain. All God asks of us in return is that we must strive to love perfectly. If you have a problem with that, then the problem is you. God has spared no expense. What have you done that is so great? Nothing.

 

[E_F_G]

http://www.deviantart.com/download/101838523/Awesome_face_by_Zy0n7.jpg

http://www.deviantart.com/download/101838523/Awesome_face_by_Zy0n7.jpg

http://www.deviantart.com/download/101838523/Awesome_face_by_Zy0n7.jpg

http://www.deviantart.com/download/101838523/Awesome_face_by_Zy0n7.jpg

http://www.deviantart.com/download/101838523/Awesome_face_by_Zy0n7.jpg

http://www.deviantart.com/download/101838523/Awesome_face_by_Zy0n7.jpg

http://www.deviantart.com/download/101838523/Awesome_face_by_Zy0n7.jpg
jlhkjlhkkkk

 

[tonyrey]

Or it can be that we have significant freedom of action, and we can do what God does not want us to do; that is the world was created according to Model 3. In that case God is not a good designer and/or creator. Why create something that the designer does not want?

When we decide to have children we know they will do many things we do not want. We know they may even harm and kill us. We go ahead nevertheless because we want to share with them the gift of life - which is worth having in spite of all its disadvantages and dangers. We have children because we know we shall love them. We know love is more important than anything else. We know it is selfish to keep all the good things of life to ourselves and not to use our power to procreate.

That is why God is fully justified in creating beings who frustrate His will and even kill His Son - Who came to show us that life is worth nothing if it is sterile, uncreative and devoid of love.

 

[Spock]

When we decide to have children we know they will do many things we do not want. We know they may even harm and kill us. We go ahead nevertheless because we want to share with them the gift of life - which is worth having in spite of all its disadvantages and dangers. We have children because we know we shall love them. We know love is more important than anything else. We know it is selfish to keep all the good things of life to ourselves and not to use our power to procreate.

That is why God is fully justified in creating beings who frustrate His will and even kill His Son - Who came to show us that life is worth nothing if it is sterile, uncreative and devoid of love.

Such a short post with so much questionable content.

Problem #1: if you knew, really knew that your child will be born with an uncurable disease, will live his whol life in pain, and therefore would curse God, and thus “earn” inifinte torture in hell, would you still create him?

Problem #2: you think that a good, painless life is “sterile, uncreative and devoid of love”. On what grounds can you say this? Give me some reason that pain and misery will lead to productive, fulfilled and loving existence, while painless life will lead to that “sterile” life… Because I think that you are dead wrong.

 

[buffalo]

Such a short post with so much questionable content.

Problem #1: if you knew, really knew that your child will be born with an uncurable disease, will live his whol life in pain, and therefore would curse God, and thus “earn” inifinte torture in hell, would you still create him?

Problem #2: you think that a good, painless life is “sterile, uncreative and devoid of love”. On what grounds can you say this? Give me some reason that pain and misery will lead to productive, fulfilled and loving existence, while painless life will lead to that “sterile” life… Because I think that you are dead wrong.

Catholics understand that life on earth is a “journey to the cross” where we die to ourselves and grow in love. We are called to grow in this love. By doing so we can better appreciate God who is ultimate love. Life events here on earth can purify us. Redemptive suffering is also important. We entrust the “soul” of those in pain to God.

One thing not talked about much here is the capacity to experience God. Heaven is not a discrete off or on state. Saints have a far greater ability to experience the beatific vision than do lukewarm people or non-believers. In heaven your cup will be filled to capacity. Life on earth determines the size of your cup.

 

[Spock]

Catholics understand that life on earth is a “journey to the cross” where we die to ourselves and grow in love. We are called to grow in this love. By doing so we can better appreciate God who is ultimate love. Life events here on earth can purify us. Redemptive suffering is also important. We entrust the “soul” of those in pain to God.

One thing not talked about much here is the capacity to experience God. Heaven is not a discrete off or on state. Saints have a far greater ability to experience the beatific vision than do lukewarm people or non-believers. In heaven your cup will be filled to capacity. Life on earth determines the size of your cup.

Nice witnessing, but it does not answer the questions I posted. I am genuinely interested in the replies.

And to respond to what you say: are all sufferings redemptive? Even the animals’ suffering? And just how do you know (as opposed to believe) what the precise nature of heaven might be? I would like to take a guided tour… would be useful, very much so.

 

[tonyrey]

Problem #1: if you knew, really knew that your child will be born with an uncurable disease, will live his whol life in pain, and therefore would curse God, and thus “earn” inifinte torture in hell, would you still create him?

You are implying that the vast majority of people in the world have children, are born with an incurable disease, live their whole life in pain and curse God. Absolute nonsense! You are also assuming that a person who curses God will be tortured for ever in hell. Absolute nonsense!

Problem #2: you think that a good, painless life is “sterile, uncreative and devoid of love”. On what grounds can you say this? Give me some reason that pain and misery will lead to productive, fulfilled and loving existence, while painless life will lead to that “sterile” life…

You are putting words into my mouth. I did not state that a good painless life is sterile, uncreative and devoid of love. My exact words were “Life is worth nothing if it is sterile, creative and devoid of love”. Would you agree with that statement?

Now let us get back to the point. Which of the following statements do you reject?

1. When we decide to have children we know they will do many things we do not want.
2. We know they may even harm and kill us.
3. We go ahead nevertheless because we want to share with them the gift of life - which is worth having in spite of all its disadvantages and dangers.
4. We have children because we know we shall love them.
5. We know love is more important than anything else.
6. We know it is selfish to keep all the good things of life to ourselves and not to use our power to procreate.

 

[tonyrey]

Problem #1: if you knew, really knew that your child will be born with an incurable disease, will live his whole life in pain, and therefore would curse God, and thus “earn” infiinite torture in hell, would you still create him?

There are so many questionable assumptions in this statement that it is difficult to know where to begin. Most people do not know that their child will be born with an incurable disease. Even if they do they know that there are drugs to control pain and that the disease may be cured. Many people also believe that God works miracles. They are prepared to take the risk that the child will not be cured because they know that life is a wonderful gift and even a short life is better than no life at all.

You are also assuming that there can be a world in which no children are born with incurable diseases. The onus is on you to explain how this is possible and to describe such a world. If you cannot show such a world is possible you must decide whether it is better to permit such tragedies or not to create any human beings at all. What is your decision?

 

[buffalo]

Nice witnessing, but it does not answer the questions I posted. I am genuinely interested in the replies.

And to respond to what you say: are all sufferings redemptive? Even the animals’ suffering? And just how do you know (as opposed to believe) what the precise nature of heaven might be? I would like to take a guided tour… would be useful, very much so.

Scripture and Tradition give us the certainty of heaven.

No, not all suffering is redemptive. It is redemptive when offered and united with Christ’s Passion.

 

[tonyrey]

1. We have children because we know we shall love them.
2. We know love is more important than anything else.
3. We know it is selfish to keep all the good things of life to ourselves and not to use our power to procreate.

Amendments:
4. We have children because we know we shall love them.
5. We know love is more important than anything else.
6. We know it is selfish to keep all the good things of life to ourselves and not to use our power to procreate - unless we have a good reason for not doing so, e.g. frailty or illness.

 

[Spock]

You are implying that the vast majority of people in the world have children, are born with an incurable disease, live their whole life in pain and curse God. Absolute nonsense! You are also assuming that a person who curses God will be tortured for ever in hell. Absolute nonsense!

No, I did not imply anything. However such cases occur. Also I don’t assume anything of hell, it is you, Catholics, who say those things. I am merely quoting your assertions. You said that existence is always preferable to non-existence. I asked you that would you procreate if you knew that your child will end up in hell?

You are putting words into my mouth. I did not state that a good painless life is sterile, uncreative and devoid of love. My exact words were “Life is worth nothing if it is sterile, creative and devoid of love”. Would you agree with that statement?

Sure, I agree. But where comes suffering into the picture? Do you want to suffer? Do you want your children to suffer?

Now let us get back to the point. Which of the following statements do you reject?

1. When we decide to have children we know they will do many things we do not want.
2. We know they may even harm and kill us.
3. We go ahead nevertheless because we want to share with them the gift of life - which is worth having in spite of all its disadvantages and dangers.
4. We have children because we know we shall love them.
5. We know love is more important than anything else.
6. We know it is selfish to keep all the good things of life to ourselves and not to use our power to procreate.

The answer to 1) and 2) is: we don’t know any of these. They are merely a possibility, and a small chance of them.

1. We **hope **that their life will be mostly good, and sometimes bad, where the good outweighs the bad. But what if the bad outweighs the good?
2. Probably true in many cases. But pregnancy sometimes happen despite our desires.
3. Nonsense. There are zillions of things which are **all **important, and love is certainly one of them. Health, happiness, understanding, knowledge… just to mention a few.
4. Why? We can share good things with others, too.

 

[Spock]

Most people do not know that their child will be born with an incurable disease. Even if they do they know that there are drugs to control pain and that the disease may be cured. Many people also believe that God works miracles. They are prepared to take the risk that the child will not be cured because they know that life is a wonderful gift and even a short life is better than no life at all.

What kind of proof are you going to offer for this? I most certainly do not wish that anything of this kind would happen to you, but you are not in the position to talk about other people’s judgment if they happen to have a life filled with pain, suffering and misery.

You are also assuming that there can be a world in which no children are born with incurable diseases. The onus is on you to explain how this is possible and to describe such a world. If you cannot show such a world is possible you must decide whether it is better to permit such tragedies or not to create any human beings at all. What is your decision?

Such world is possible, if advanced enough. And of course, God could have created such a world.

 

[Spock]

Scripture and Tradition give us the certainty of heaven.

This may be sufficient for you, but it is not enough for others.

No, not all suffering is redemptive. It is redemptive when offered and united with Christ’s Passion.

Thank you. So some sufferings are “redemptive”. What about the rest?