I am baffled, please explain

[tonyrey]

“appear” is the keyword. Can you explain how all atrocities can be prevented without turning us into zombies?

Obviously not!

 

[tonyrey]

“appear” is the keyword. Can you explain how all atrocities can be prevented without turning us into zombies?

I simply don’t think it’s possible.
You’re far from being the only one! In the absence of any evidence to the contrary it remains a fantasy…

 

[tonyrey]

I honestly wish I had a better or clearer answer than what I wrote, but I’m only 21 and I’m only an architecture student. I barely have answers to job interview questions.

If they obeyed of their own accord because they wanted to then Steve and Suzie had free will, and also aligned their will with God’s. But in this situation, they are not Adam and Eve. They exist in a universe in which God decided to create humans like ours, but there is also the condition in this universe that they do not and will not ever have the desire to go against God’s will.

This was not their desire. This was a criteria placed on their hypothetical universe. Adam and Eve could have never desired to go against God’s will. They could have never listened to a talking snake. They could have listened to a talking snake, realized he was speaking nonsense, and chosen to disregard his temptations. They could have done exactly what they did. Eve could have listened to the snake, eaten the fruit, tell Adam to eat some too so that she wasn’t the only one, and then have him refuse, and then tell God that Eve offered him the forbidden fruit.

They could have both eaten it, realized that they should not have eaten it at all, and then instead of running and hiding, gone up to God and told Him that they disobeyed and ate the fruit, but that they were sorry and would accept whatever punishment they were given.

Or, they could have listened to a talking snake, eat an expressly forbidden fruit, run away and hide, and then when confronted say that she made me do it, and then the snake made me do it, and then result in exactly what we have today. I don’t know why they chose this option, which is by far the worst out of all of them from our perspective. But God decided to let them go into the world and pick an option. This is the one they came up with.

You’re doing very well for a twenty-one year old! :clapping:
The reason people choose evil is because they think it is good! If we could see everything from God’s point of view we would know it is not in our interest to do what is wrong. In other words we are ignorant but it is culpable ignorance when we are aware we are being selfish and causing unnecessary suffering.

 

[mamlukman]

There is another thread with 30+ pages, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=957541&page=30 about this issue. Some good comments, some not so good.

It seems fairly simple to me.

God is outside of space and time, which are part of the created universe. So to talk about sequences (time!!!) like creation–foreknowledge–act of man–xxxx as if they occur in a sequence is nonsense. To God, all this is simultaneous.

OK, free will. Dangerous to anthropomorphize God, but sometimes illustrative.

Let’s say you could buy either of two dogs: Dog #1 has been bred to love its owner. It will unconditionally love you. Dog #2 has the capacity to love you, but you will have to work at it–feed it, play games with it, pet it, etc. etc. Which dog do you want? I know I would want Dog #2; and I think God would, too.

God created man with free will. That is Church doctrine and not up for debate unless you are not a Catholic. Could God have created man without free will? Of course. But then you’ve got Dog #1–no free will, no sin, no punishment…

So does God cause sin and/or punishment simply because he knows it will happen? Of course not, except in the sense that God could have chosen to populate the universe with Dog #1 beings without free will. So are your action pre-determined because God knows what you are going to do before you do it? No. That’s silly. Let’s say I’m in a helicopter and I see a road and a train track at right angles, with a train and a truck–if they keep going as they are, they will crash. Did I cause the crash just because I can predict what’s going to happen? Of course not. (Now some people will say that’s not a good example because I didn’t “create” the train and the truck, etc.–but that goes back to the issue of creating a universe filled with Dog #1s or Dog #2s.)

Next. Did God just turn man loose in the universe with no guidance? No. You have a conscience, you have natural law, you can infer rules from nature around you. And then of course you have revelation. God tells you the rules. You have to decide if you want to beak them or not. If you don’t know the rule and unintentionally break this secret rule, do you sin? Of course not. A sin takes full consent of the will.

So no problem, no inconsistencies, no issue. Next question?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

There are some great replies there, but probably all for nothing as far as the OP is concerned.

Many, many pages back I told her we cannot compare a deity who lives outside of time and space and knows all with a mortal who is confined to time and space and has limited knowledge. It’s the apple and orange comparison. It’s comparing a Creator with his creation. She doesn’t accept that. She says if God could have created Mary with no inclination to sin, he could have created all of us with no inclination to sin. And yes, he could have done so. So, sin was part of his plan from the beginning. To that, the OP replies that God, then, cannot be loving because no loving father puts candy on the table then forbids his child to eat it, knowing his child will disobey. True, no loving human father does that. God, however, is not human. We can’t compare what a human father does to what Our Heavenly Father does. That would be like comparing what I do to what my cat does. My cat now asks for cat treats all the time. He doesn’t understand that eating treats all day is bad for him. He only knows they taste good. I have a “sweet tooth” myself. I could probably survive on human “treats,” but I limit myself to very few of them because I understand they are not good for me except on an occasional basis. I eat more vegetables and fruit, which I like as well. I understand why I deny myself sweets. My cat does not understand why I deny him a surfeit of cat treats.

I trust that God’s plan is the best one for humanity. Could he have done it differently? Of course. He is omnipotent. He can do whatever he wants. One of the problems is that I am a believer in God. I love and trust him. The OP is an atheist, which she has the free will to be. I don’t deny her that.

I think we’ve reached a point where things are just an exercise in futility on this thread. However, that doesn’t mean people should stop conversing, or that posts aren’t valuable. It means I don’t think we can always convince an atheist to believe in God, just as an atheist can’t convince us to put aside our faith. And both of us have the right to believe as we do. No atheist is harming my faith.

 

[simpleas]

“appear” is the keyword. Can you explain how all atrocities can be prevented without turning us into zombies?

Why would we be zombies if all we desired was goodness?

Isn’t that the point of our Christian faith, to do good to others and the world

 

[PRmerger]

Why would we be zombies if all we desired was goodness?

Isn’t that the point of our Christian faith, to do good to others and the world

Well, most of us *do *desire goodness. What’s that got to do with anything?

But all we have to do is look at society, history, human nature and we can see that desiring goodness and actually being good are not the same thing.

Why is that?

And what’s the atheistic explanation for this?

 

[tonyrey]

There is another thread with 30+ pages, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=957541&page=30 about this issue. Some good comments, some not so good.

It seems fairly simple to me.

God is outside of space and time, which are part of the created universe. So to talk about sequences (time!!!) like creation–foreknowledge–act of man–xxxx as if they occur in a sequence is nonsense. To God, all this is simultaneous.

OK, free will. Dangerous to anthropomorphize God, but sometimes illustrative.

Let’s say you could buy either of two dogs: Dog #1 has been bred to love its owner. It will unconditionally love you. Dog #2 has the capacity to love you, but you will have to work at it–feed it, play games with it, pet it, etc. etc. Which dog do you want? I know I would want Dog #2; and I think God would, too.

God created man with free will. That is Church doctrine and not up for debate unless you are not a Catholic. Could God have created man without free will? Of course. But then you’ve got Dog #1–no free will, no sin, no punishment…

So does God cause sin and/or punishment simply because he knows it will happen? Of course not, except in the sense that God could have chosen to populate the universe with Dog #1 beings without free will. So are your action pre-determined because God knows what you are going to do before you do it? No. That’s silly. Let’s say I’m in a helicopter and I see a road and a train track at right angles, with a train and a truck–if they keep going as they are, they will crash. Did I cause the crash just because I can predict what’s going to happen? Of course not. (Now some people will say that’s not a good example because I didn’t “create” the train and the truck, etc.–but that goes back to the issue of creating a universe filled with Dog #1s or Dog #2s.)

Next. Did God just turn man loose in the universe with no guidance? No. You have a conscience, you have natural law, you can infer rules from nature around you. And then of course you have revelation. God tells you the rules. You have to decide if you want to beak them or not. If you don’t know the rule and unintentionally break this secret rule, do you sin? Of course not. A sin takes full consent of the will.

So no problem, no inconsistencies, no issue. Next question?

Very cute analogy!

 

[tonyrey]

There are some great replies there, but probably all for nothing as far as the OP is concerned.

Many, many pages back I told her we cannot compare a deity who lives outside of time and space and knows all with a mortal who is confined to time and space and has limited knowledge. It’s the apple and orange comparison. It’s comparing a Creator with his creation. She doesn’t accept that. She says if God could have created Mary with no inclination to sin, he could have created all of us with no inclination to sin. And yes, he could have done so. So, sin was part of his plan from the beginning. To that, the OP replies that God, then, cannot be loving because no loving father puts candy on the table then forbids his child to eat it, knowing his child will disobey. True, no loving human father does that. God, however, is not human. We can’t compare what a human father does to what Our Heavenly Father does. That would be like comparing what I do to what my cat does. My cat now asks for cat treats all the time. He doesn’t understand that eating treats all day is bad for him. He only knows they taste good. I have a “sweet tooth” myself. I could probably survive on human “treats,” but I limit myself to very few of them because I understand they are not good for me except on an occasional basis. I eat more vegetables and fruit, which I like as well. I understand why I deny myself sweets. My cat does not understand why I deny him a surfeit of cat treats.

I trust that God’s plan is the best one for humanity. Could he have done it differently? Of course. He is omnipotent. He can do whatever he wants. One of the problems is that I am a believer in God. I love and trust him. The OP is an atheist, which she has the free will to be. I don’t deny her that.

I think we’ve reached a point where things are just an exercise in futility on this thread. However, that doesn’t mean people should stop conversing, or that posts aren’t valuable. It means I don’t think we can always convince an atheist to believe in God, just as an atheist can’t convince us to put aside our faith. And both of us have the right to believe as we do. No atheist is harming my faith.

It’s a “he”, Lily! Otherwise your post is impeccable. :tiphat:

 

[Peter_Plato]

Why would we be zombies if all we desired was goodness?

Isn’t that the point of our Christian faith, to do good to others and the world

Because desire is not will. We can desire things we would not will and will things we do not desire. Desire does not actualize choices, but will does. Desire is only one aspect or consideration that the will acts on. It isn’t sufficient to guarantee that human beings will always choose the good merely because it is desired. (Refer to Paul in Romans 7)

Will requires something that desire does not - our free assent. We can be overcome by desire but that does not mean desire will always be acted upon or really agreed to by the will.

Considerations of the good involve much more than desire in order to be fulfilling to the ultimate good of human beings. Merely having all desires fulfilled would still not fulfill human beings – that requires, as Aristotle said, becoming all that we can be; the right ordering of desires according to the good which means desires are subordinated to the will with the will in control of desires.

Your solution requires that the will is subordinate to desires; if we ontologically are one with our will, that means we would no longer be free and rational agents but mere sentient beings - more like animals than human beings. So the question now becomes is it right of God to create rational agents with the capacity to decide their own existence or should God merely have made feeling, desiring or sentient beings.

This is basically your position, that of Pallas Athene, Bradski and anyone else who argues t hat God should have programmed human beings to always desire the good. That would involve, not making human beings but some other kind of animal.

In short, we don’t know enough about the will as active agency to make a claim that desire alone would be sufficient to guarantee human beings would always choose goodness.

 

[tonyrey]

simpleas

Thanks for replying on my behalf, PM. Once again no explanation is forthcoming.

Negation is the name of the game! A more “logical” conclusion would be to deny that goodness exists. Why stop half-way?

 

[JohnJFarren]

“I am Alpha and Omega … the Beginning and the End …
Who is … and Who was … and Who is to come.”
Hello Pallas Athene … and All Others – 28 Jun Sun 2015
Thanks, Athene, for responding intelligently. Your meaningful comment in a recent posting of yours expresses a powerful thought. You wrote, “ … the misconception that to have free will it is necessary to choose between something “good” and something “evil”. Not so. It is sufficient if one is free to choose between two good options.” This is quite true. Perfect freedom does not require the ability to choose what is evil. Yes, it is a defect in freedom that is not perfect that permits an evil choice. In Heaven – and we’re not talking here about clouds and harps and golden streets – in Heaven and enjoying the Beatific Vision we shall not be able to choose evil – we shall not be able any longer to be defective. We shall be able to choose among many truly good things … and with great share in God’s Wisdom.
Consider three kinds of freedom > 1)the freedom to choose or not to choose/ 2)the freedom to choose something good or something evil/ and 3)perfect freedom, the ability to choose among good things only.
Athene, there are other things I’m preparing to respond to you … but I want to keep them separate from this one.
Blessing to you and to all in the thread …
JohnJFarren

 

[tonyrey]

Because desire is not will. We can desire things we would not will and will things we do not desire. Desire does not actualize choices, but will does. Desire is only one aspect or consideration that the will acts on. It isn’t sufficient to guarantee that human beings will always choose the good merely because it is desired. (Refer to Paul in Romans 7)

Will requires something that desire does not - our free assent. We can be overcome by desire but that does not mean desire will always be acted upon or really agreed to by the will.

Considerations of the good involve much more than desire in order to be fulfilling to the ultimate good of human beings. Merely having all desires fulfilled would still not fulfill human beings – that requires, as Aristotle said, becoming all that we can be; the right ordering of desires according to the good which means desires are subordinated to the will with the will in control of desires.

Your solution requires that the will is subordinate to desires; if we ontologically are one with our will, that means we would no longer be free and rational agents but mere sentient beings - more like animals than human beings. So the question now becomes is it right of God to create rational agents with the capacity to decide their own existence or should God merely have made feeling, desiring or sentient beings.

This is basically your position, that of Pallas Athene, Bradski and anyone else who argues t hat God should have programmed human beings to always desire the good. That would involve, not making human beings but some other kind of animal.

In short, we don’t know enough about the will as active agency to make a claim that desire alone would be sufficient to guarantee human beings would always choose goodness.

That is in the final nail in the coffin of the perfect human being! I can’t recall such a barrage of blows in such a short space of time…

 

[tonyrey]

It’s a “he”, Lily! Otherwise your post is impeccable. :tiphat:

I apologise, Lily. Your post **is **impeccable. Mea culpa.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

There are some great replies there, but probably all for nothing as far as the OP is concerned.

Many, many pages back I told her we cannot compare a deity who lives outside of time and space and knows all with a mortal who is confined to time and space and has limited knowledge. It’s the apple and orange comparison. It’s comparing a Creator with his creation. She doesn’t accept that. She says if God could have created Mary with no inclination to sin, he could have created all of us with no inclination to sin. And yes, he could have done so. So, sin was part of his plan from the beginning.

Up until this point I agree with your analysis. No wonder, since you gave a good synopsis of my posts.

To that, the OP replies that God, then, cannot be loving because no loving father puts candy on the table then forbids his child to eat it, knowing his child will disobey. True, no loving human father does that. God, however, is not human.

Not just any “candy”, a poisoned candy, so “the very day you taste it, you will surely die”. Does that mean that God is “inhuman” and “inhumane”? (Only partially kidding)

We can’t compare what a human father does to what Our Heavenly Father does.

Only if you make love a meaningless utterance. If you say that God’s love is compatible with all horrors he personally imposed on us and/or passively allowed to happen to us, then the word love is simply meaningless when applied to God. I could understand that God’s love is superior when compared to human love… or that it is just like a human love, but greater (infinitely greater?). But to perform and allow acts and events which we routinely consider “evil”, and then trying to place a label: “this is LOVE, God’s style” makes you impossible to understand. To put it bluntly, what you say is incoherent.

That would be like comparing what I do to what my cat does.

Here your analogy becomes incorrect. A cat is not a rational, MORAL being. The cat has no mental capacity to understand. Humans (mostly) are able to understand explanations, but children are NOT rational beings, and NOT moral beings - because they do not know right from wrong, good from evil. And that is the gist of the story of Genesis. Not knowing good from evil makes the couple morally innocent. The usual rebuttal is that they were told not to do it, and they should have known that disobedience is “evil” is another logical nonsense. However, it is interesting that the main “theme” of Christianity is NOT “love”, it is “obedience”!

For a child we must make seemingly “cruel” decisions, and the child does not understand the reason. But adults are not children, they could understand a prohibition, if only some explanation would be forthcoming. But it never does.

Most of the answers you found “great” are simply nonsensical, loaded with logical fallacies. One cannot argue that “whatever God does we MUST accept as the best course of action, just because God is supposed to know better, and therefore we are not in the position to criticize”. This is blatant fallacy of “argumentum ad ignoratiam”. Just because there MIGHT be a good reason, there is no reason to assume that there IS a good reason. No one, ever was able to present a rational argument why a tsunami is better than nice weather. No one ever could present a rational argument why is rape and murder preferable to kindness.

The summary is that you wish to use the ancient Roman proverb: “Quod licet Iovi, not licet bovi”, and that we reject it as irrational. If you could present real arguments, that would be different. But to say: “Just because God is different, we must swallow mindlessly whatever he does to us” is not acceptable.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Erm… no. You misunderstand the point of ‘original sin’. It’s not that we sin because Adam and Eve did; it’s that Adam and Eve sinned and also so do we.

The “original sin” was the reason that God cursed the creation, which introduced death and other assorted bad things into the insofar “perfect” creation.

Whether or not there was a ‘loser’ couple, humans with free will choose to sin (for that matter, even if there could be a ‘winner couple’, we still would choose sin).

We WOULD? For sure? Or could? You are not in the position to make definitive judgment what would have happened in the absence of original sin. Sure, it is possible that someone down the line would have committed some disobedience, but that is not logically unavoidable.

In fact, you have no reason to suspect that there could be a ‘Steve and Susie’ – just a vague combinatorics notion that it’s mathematically possible.

Well, the usual understanding of God’s omnipotence that God can do anything and everything, except logically incoherent and/or contradictory actions. If you are about to deny that, then there is no more “omnipotence”.

That doesn’t equate to a proof that it’s necessarily possible.

According to the definition of omnipotence, yes, it is.

(Guanilo already disproved your thought: just because you can conceive of a created thing – the ‘island greater than any other’ – doesn’t mean that it possibly exists. (Guanilo just over-reached and presumed that since it held for created things, it also held for uncreated things.))

The concept of omnipotence does not extend to create logically impeccable, but otherwise meaningless and undefinable actions. God cannot create a “purple, sweet tasting chord of middle C”, because that is incoherent. God cannot create a “greatest conceivable island”, because the “greatest conceivable island” cannot even be defined. (Just like the greatest conceivable being.)

But humans, who are able to understand evil acts, who are able to perform evil acts, and who do not want to commit evil acts are logically coherent, and contain no contradiction, so - if one accepts the usual definition of omnipotence - then God is able to create such humans, and not just a few, but as many as he desires. And since God is not under any “pressure” to create people who would commit evil acts, he could have created a truly optimal world, no moral evils, not one.

In such a world everyone would be “eligible” to be promoted into heaven, and that is - allegedly - what God wants.

On the other hand, you’re not even providing logic that conquers faith that sees clearly.

You haven’t demonstrated your premise, so attempting to arrive at a conclusion based on it is illogical.

Interestingly you did not bring up any valid arguments either. You just bastardized the commonly accepted definition of omnipotence, without offering a better one. The premise was based upon the usually accepted definition of omnipotence. If you deny it…

 

[Aloysium]

. . . to say: “Just because God is different, we must swallow mindlessly whatever he does to us” is not acceptable.

That it is “all Greek to you” and that you are baffled has been clearly expressed.
Some unsolicited advice: That it appears confusing and irrational is consequent to your incapacity to grasp what is being said, and I would surmise, the lack of having formulated a coherent cosmology for yourself.
Once one connects with the truth it is easier to understand others.

A few thoughts in regards to the quote from your posting:

• To live in thankful acceptance of life is the key to happiness, whatever one’s beliefs.
• If “God” is a tea pot circling the planet, he cannot influence us and there is nothing to accept.
• If God is Truth, Life eternal, Beauty and Love, if we are where in this condition because of sin, if Jesus is our Saviour and Redeemer, why would we not accept our existence as it has been granted to us, in faith, hope and love for God.
• If Zeus rules, do what you will, but watch your back.
• If a dead-beat dad runs things, you can shout into the wind for all the good it will do.

 

[JohnJFarren]

“Ever since the creation of the world, His invisible
attributes of eternal power and divinity
have been able to be understood and
perceived in what He has made.” Rom 1:20.
Hi Athene … and any others interested – 28 Jun Sun 2015
Responding to your recent posting/sharing with me >
To let you know some of my basic beliefs and where I’m coming from > I DO believe in God the Creator … and in the Big Bang … and in Jesus Christ as the Second Person of the Trinity and our only Savior. I do believe in angels and in Satan. That being said, let me continue.
First, I’d like to share what I understand “The Fall” not to be. There never was a single first man or a single first woman, no Adam and no Eve. There never was a perfect state for mankind. There never was a Garden of Eden or the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Yes, I believe in evolution. I must try to stick to your comments, Athene.
What then means this “Fall”? What then means this so called “Original Sin”? Thanks to you St Augustine for tying this millstone around our necks!
Any architect has a plan. Before the first spade is dug into the ground, the architect has his plan. God created with a complete plan, with The Great Plan.
So many pieces I have to skip, Athene, if I’m to try to stick close to your comments and objections to me.
The form, that which gives order and completeness to this Great Plan, is the Second Person of the Trinity incarnated, Jesus Christ.
The beginning state of creation cannot be perfect because of The Goal God has intended for God’s creation. God demands that human beings be real, will be “in His own Image and Likeness” … and this means essentially truly free in this process of becoming. That Goal is for intelligent/responsible creatures, human beings, to share in God’s Own Life … human beings, who freely cooperate, with the possibility of failing, in meriting Divine Life.
Because of the condition of this entire set-up there is truly needed a Savior. Why? God sees all mankind becoming, including all time, and there are many failings, sins, along the way. God has permitted sins because humans must have a real share in their becoming. God demands that humans be real. AND God wants humans have a real share in meriting DIVINE LIFE. Not just some kind of perfect human life – God’s Life … a share in the Life that is the Trinity.
Two things then > 1) Sin must be destroyed, repented for … including some fixing of the dishonor given God … AND 2) mankind must MERIT a share in DIVINE LIFE. Gigantic steps that mankind absolutely cannot accomplish on its own. Only a human being … WHO IS GOD can accomplish … and that is Jesus Christ. Only Christ can accomplish this … and with a glory and magnificence for both God and creation beyond anything we might envisage.
I honestly have tried to stick only to the basic essentials of the Complete Picture – and this has been very difficult for me to do. Whatever seems mistaken or false is due to me.
Perhaps all this seems quite complicated. I am 84 years old and have lived with these truths for many, many years … and everything seems very simple, clear, and complete to me.
Athene Pallas and anyone who might, with patience, read what I have written, I Bless you and ask you to Bless me. JohnJFarren (Trinity5635@aol.com)

 

[simpleas]

Well, most of us *do *desire goodness. What’s that got to do with anything?

But all we have to do is look at society, history, human nature and we can see that desiring goodness and actually being good are not the same thing.

Why is that?

And what’s the atheistic explanation for this?

Ok I see desired was the wrong word. If we willed to do goodness and acted on it, that would not make us zombies, that would make us willing and able to do God’s will rather than our own.

 

[simpleas]

Thanks for replying on my behalf, PM. Once again no explanation is forthcoming.

Negation is the name of the game! A more “logical” conclusion would be to deny that goodness exists. Why stop half-way?

You’ll notice I wasn’t giving an explaination, I was asking you why would we be zombies, when you asked :

Can you explain how all atrocities can be prevented without turning us into zombies?

Atrocities can be prevented when we will to do what is good and act on that goodness. If we are following Christ’s teachings, then we are doing the good are we not? Are we zombies then?