I am baffled, please explain

[Pallas_Athene]

A** person**'s decision is justified if **that person **believes it is reasonable.

Really? Maybe it is justified in his own eyes, but why should that be accepted by others? The act of every criminal is justified in his own eyes, the usual phrase is: “he needed killing”.

Do you really think that the victim of a gang-rape should shrug it off by saying: “well, the creation of these independent thugs was a sufficient justification for allowing this rape to happen. Why should I complain about the minor inconvenience of being raped and tortured by these ten thugs? After all the existence of independent agents is more valuable than my measly little life and suffering.” Is this how the rape victim SHOULD react? Of does she have a legitimate complaint against the creator of those independent agents - when the creator KNEW what will happen?

The comparison of God with a human parent is unsound for three reasons. Only God determines the precise extent of our freedom, has insight into our minds and knows the ultimate outcome of our lives.

Nevertheless we routinely render judgments based upon our imperfect knowledge of what is really going on in the mind of the criminals. Should we not have a legal system because we do not have full information?

A responsible society does not execute murderers because no one knows for certain their exact degree of culpability.

No, a responsible society does not execute criminals because it MIGHT happen that the verdict was incorrect, and execution is final (irreversible) and because it costs too much money.

Putting them in prison is a far cry from not creating them!

It is the second best solution. Just like “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure”.

If this were the only life we have there might be a reason for sifting people out prior to birth but your thread presupposes the existence of God and presumably survival after death - which implies that your bafflement should take into account the eternal context of our life on earth.

If you wish to argue about some continuation, then you need to present a proof of that continuation. Just because you believe it, it does not make it real.

To judge everything by what happens** in this world** is obviously unreasonable.

On the very contrary, to judge what happens in this world by presenting a totally unsubstantiated state of affairs outside this existence is completely irrational and unreasonable. What happens here and now can only be judged on its own merit.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

From a human perspective you are spot on. The trouble is that we are dealing with a Deity. From the perspective of God a mass murderer may be killing people at a time in their life that they will go directly to Him, this would be a “good” for both the individual souls and God.

The trouble is not talking about a deity. The trouble is the “MAY BE” (emphasis mine). What God can and cannot do is not the point here. The point is “Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi”. Even if God is infinitely more knowledgeable and powerful than we are, we have something in common with him (according to the believers), we were created in his image, and as such both God and humans are moral agents.

And if there is an absolute, independent morality, then it is binding on both humans and God. If it is only binding on us, then this "morality: is relative and not absolute. Pick your choice. The age old Euthyphro dilemma.

Trying to anthropomorphize God places limits on Him that do not belong.

You also anthropomorphize God whenever you make an utterance about God. To say that God is “good” is imposing the human concept of “good”. If the word “good” makes something totally different when applied to God, then you have no epistemological right to use it in that context.

 

[Aloysium]

Pallas your time might be better spent listening,
trying to understand what people are telling you
rather than arguing out of your seeming frustration,
lost in the darkness of unfathomable mystery,
clutching at intellectual pieces of flotsam
hoping that in joining the disparate concepts,
some solid ground will be found
on which to stand with certainty.

The only explanation you may receive is silence.
If you want to know Truth, know Love.
Pray, surrender to the eternal Heart,
embracing those gifts offered by the Holy Spirit.

Your mind has got it all covered.
The cognitive bars are solid;
the cage door is closed and locked.
A brilliant soul sits dormant on its stoop,
unaware of its capacity to soar
In eternity, through the heavens.

This is all so much WOW!

 

[tonyrey]

A person’s decision is justified if that person believes it is reasonable.

Do you believe your actions are justified? If so why? If not why not?

Do you really think that the victim of a gang-rape should shrug it off by saying: “well, the creation of these independent thugs was a sufficient justification for allowing this rape to happen. Why should I complain about the minor inconvenience of being raped and tortured by these ten thugs? After all the existence of independent agents is more valuable than my measly little life and suffering.” Is this how the rape victim SHOULD react? Of does she have a legitimate complaint against the creator of those independent agents - when the creator KNEW what will happen?

Of course she has but would she be entitled to destroy them utterly for all eternity?

The comparison of God with a human parent is unsound for three reasons. Only God determines the precise extent of our freedom, has insight into our minds and knows the ultimate outcome of our lives.

Nevertheless we routinely render judgments based upon our imperfect knowledge of what is really going on in the mind of the criminals. Should we not have a legal system because we do not have full information?

We have an imperfect legal system which doesn’t claim to be infallible and mete out eternal punishments…

A responsible society does not execute murderers because no one knows for certain their exact degree of culpability.

No, a responsible society does not execute criminals because it MIGHT happen that the verdict was incorrect, and execution is final (irreversible)…

Then you agree!

… and because it costs too much money.

Morality descends to expediency when it is determined by finance.

Putting them in prison is a far cry from not creating them!

It is the second best solution. Just like “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure”.

Shouldn’t the punishment fit the crime? Not creating them seems a gross injustice…

If this were the only life we have there might be a reason for sifting people out prior to birth but your thread presupposes the existence of God and presumably survival after death - which implies that your bafflement should take into account the eternal context of our life on earth.

If you wish to argue about some continuation, then you need to present a proof of that continuation. Just because you believe it, it does not make it real.

The same reasoning applies to your opinion!

To judge everything by what happens in this world is obviously unreasonable.

On the very contrary, to judge what happens in this world by presenting a totally unsubstantiated state of affairs outside this existence is completely irrational and unreasonable. What happens here and now can only be judged on its own merit.

Thinking inside the materialist’s home-made box is not only irrational and unreasonable but also inconsistent with belief in truth, goodness, freedom, justice and love. What happens here and now has no merit whatsoever if it is the product of purposeless events. GIGO.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Of course she has but would she be entitled to destroy them utterly for all eternity?

To “destroy” is not the same as “not to create”.

Shouldn’t the punishment fit the crime? Not creating them seems a gross injustice…

How could it be? You cannot render justice or injustice to someone who does not exist.

 

[oldcelt]

I would agree that He is surprised, although amazed might be a more accurate word.
But, He is more than watching. Within eternity, with infinite compassion and mercy, He observes what we choose to make of our lives.
The way I understand creation, we cannot persist without being brought into existence in every moment. A creator cannot just watch; He must create.

I see no evidence for such.

John

 

[tonyrey]

To “destroy” is not the same as “not to create”.

The effect is the same. Not to create just one person amounts to depriving the world of many others. If our first ancestors hadn’t been created the human race wouldn’t exist. That is the logical absurdity of rejecting our power to choose what to believe and how to live - in accordance with Schopenhauer’s dictum that it would be better if man had never appeared on this planet.

How could it be? You cannot render justice or injustice to someone who does not exist.

In that case there are no victims of abortion or contraception. According to that argument it doesn’t matter if a couple are prevented from having children nor if the human race becomes extinct. In other words life is ultimately valueless - which is perfectly consistent with the view that we exist for no reason or purpose whatsoever:

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle,
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

• Macbeth

A most inspiring philosophy!

 

[tonyrey]

I see no evidence for such.

John

I thought you believe in continuous creation?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The effect is the same.

Tony, are you really a follower of the catholic church? Because according to this assertion there is no difference between abstinence, NFP and contraception… the effect is the same. Those who abstain are just as “guilty” of depriving us from the existence of their “possible” offsprings, than those who employ contraception. I am not an expert, but I think this looks like a heretical view.

Not to create just one person amounts to depriving the world of many others.

Undoubtedly. So what? There would be others to take their place.

That is the logical absurdity of rejecting our power to choose what to believe and how to live

You keep mentioning these two as if they were “married”. You certainly can choose how to live. But since you insist, go and “choose” to believe that Santa Claus or Rudolf or the magical elves at the North Pole are real, and they bring presents to the children at Christmas. When you will honestly believe this, let me know.

In that case there are no victims of abortion or contraception.

Of course there are no victims of contraception. Some people say that abortion is “killing” an existing being, but I saw no one who would say that contraception is “killing”. If only the end result matters, then there is no difference between working for your money and robbing a bank.

According to that argument it doesn’t matter if a couple are prevented from having children nor if the human race becomes extinct. In other words life is ultimately valueless - which is perfectly consistent with the view that we exist for no reason or purpose whatsoever:

We create our own purposes. Whether the human race exists or not does not matter in the greater scheme of things. Here on Earth another species would take our place and since only the end result matters it is irrelevant if the dominant species is the “humans” or the “dolphins”, or maybe the “rats”.

I think you make no distinction between “existence” and “non-existence”. You cannot hurt someone who does not exist, you cannot do anything for someone who does not exist. And that is the bottom line. Existence is not the same as non-existence.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And if there is an absolute, independent morality, then it is binding on both humans and God. If it is only binding on us, then this "morality: is relative and not absolute. Pick your choice. The age old Euthyphro dilemma.

The “age old Euthyphro dilemma” was found wanting ages ago. It is a false dichotomy because it ignores the possibility - indeed the reality - that God is the absolute ground of being and therefore the ground of morality.

God is not bound by an absolute, independent morality, he IS the absolute and infinite morality itself. And the objection that then God can unilaterally make immoral things moral is simply a misconceived point. It is from the very nature and being of God that morality rises. He cannot willy-nilly change the ipsum ease subsistens of his very nature.

Yes, I anticipate your objection: then God cannot be omnipotent. That would be as nonsensical as a registering the objection that an omnipotent God could not actually be omnipotent unless he had the “power” to be omniscient AND a “know-nothing” at the same time, or omnibenevolent AND absolutely evil at the same time or omnipotent AND impotent at the same time.

The problem, for you, is that the omni- traits could very well reduce and transpose to each other. In other words, it is in the very essence of omnipotence to be omniscient, in the very essence of omniscience to be omnibenevolent and in the very nature of omnibenevolence to be omnipotent. Ergo, omnibenevolence could simply flow from the very nature of Being itself as the cascade effect of omnipotence/omniscience in the essence of Being Itself. Morality and moral goodness would then simply be a de facto attribute of the omnipotence/omniscience of absolute Being Itself.

In other words, God is not bound by an independent, absolute morality, he simply is the absolute morality itself. He IS WHAT HE IS (I AM WHO AM) - absolute reality itself. He is “bound” by that morality only in the very trivial sense of being “bound” by what he is.

 

[DCNBILL]

The trouble is not talking about a deity. The trouble is the “MAY BE” (emphasis mine). What God can and cannot do is not the point here. The point is “Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi”. Even if God is infinitely more knowledgeable and powerful than we are, we have something in common with him (according to the believers), we were created in his image, and as such both God and humans are moral agents.

What we have in common with Him is precisely that which He gave us that is His image, the ability to love.

One can not hold the Creator to the same standard as the created.

And if there is an absolute, independent morality, then it is binding on both humans and God. If it is only binding on us, then this "morality: is relative and not absolute. Pick your choice. The age old Euthyphro dilemma.

This is silly reasoning, When God creates both man and the “rules” for that man the Creator is not held to the rules that He created, they were created for man not Himself.

You also anthropomorphize God whenever you make an utterance about God. To say that God is “good” is imposing the human concept of “good”. If the word “good” makes something totally different when applied to God, then you have no epistemological right to use it in that context.

True we can only speak of God as we can relate to Him as a creature but God does reveal Himself to us all of the time, one just has to pay attention.

Yes God is “The Good” and as His beloved I have every right to call my Father that.

Trust me when I say that a relationship with your Creator is infinitely more fulfilling than a futile denial of His existence.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

One can not hold the Creator to the same standard as the created.

Yes, you can - moreover you MUST. If it is immoral to commit genocide when we do it, then it is immoral to do the same when God does it. Otherwise you use the first horn of the dilemma - everything is “good” when God does it. But in that case I ask “what is good”? Your answer: “whatever God does” - and that is unacceptable.

This is silly reasoning, When God creates both man and the “rules” for that man the Creator is not held to the rules that He created, they were created for man not Himself.

In other words, “might makes right”?

True we can only speak of God as we can relate to Him as a creature but God does reveal Himself to us all of the time, one just has to pay attention.

That is pretty insulting to all the unbelievers and all the non-Christians - even if you did not intend it to be insulting.

Yes God is “The Good” and as His beloved I have every right to call my Father that.

Defining “good” to be synonymous with whatever God is or does IS the first horn of the dilemma, even if you deny it.

Trust me when I say that a relationship with your Creator is infinitely more fulfilling than a futile denial of His existence.

Nope, trust must be earned, and your insistence of denying the validity of the dilemma and redefining “good” to whatever God does will not earn you any “brownie points”…

 

[DCNBILL]

Yes, you can - moreover you MUST. If it is immoral to commit genocide when we do it, then it is immoral to do the same when God does it. Otherwise you use the first horn of the dilemma - everything is “good” when God does it. But in that case I ask “what is good”? Your answer: “whatever God does” - and that is unacceptable.

In other words, “might makes right”?

That is pretty insulting to all the unbelievers and all the non-Christians - even if you did not intend it to be insulting.

Defining “good” to be synonymous with whatever God is or does IS the first horn of the dilemma, even if you deny it.

Nope, trust must be earned, and your insistence of denying the validity of the dilemma and redefining “good” to whatever God does will not earn you any “brownie points”…

Thanks for “listening” anyway, I hope that I am not insulting you if I say I will keep you in my prayers.

 

[tonyrey]

Tony, are you really a follower of the catholic church?

I have been asked that question many times but so far haven’t been excommunicated!

Because according to this assertion there is no difference between abstinence, NFP and contraception… the effect is the same. Those who abstain are just as “guilty” of depriving us from the existence of their “possible” offsprings, than those who employ contraception. I am not an expert, but I think this looks like a heretical view.

You will soon discover why it is extremely orthodox!

Not to create just one person amounts to depriving the world of many others.

Undoubtedly. So what? There would be others to take their place.

Do you really assess the value and significance of human life by replaceability? It sounds both callous and ruthless to me. The Nazis had the same idea…

That is the logical absurdity of rejecting our power to choose what to believe and how to live

You keep mentioning these two as if they were “married”. You certainly can choose how to live. But since you insist, go and “choose” to believe that Santa Claus or Rudolf or the magical elves at the North Pole are real, and they bring presents to the children at Christmas. When you will honestly believe this, let me know.

Do you honestly believe all your beliefs and values have been thrust upon you since the day you were born and you are now compelled to be an atheist for the rest of your life against your will? And also how you live is not related in the slightest to what you believe or disbelieve?

In that case there are no victims of abortion or contraception.

Of course there are no victims of contraception. Some people say that abortion is “killing” an existing being, but I saw no one who would say that contraception is “killing”. If only the end result matters, then there is no difference between working for your money and robbing a bank.

How about “the morning after pill without the need for a face-to-face appointment” as advertised ? If your mother has taken it you wouldn’t be alive to stand up for the rights of an unborn child… Or do you think they have none? Do you still believe there are no victims of contraception?

NB

"Emergency contraception may stop ovulation, fertilisation of an egg, or **a fertilised egg **from implanting in the uterus (womb).

[fpa.org.uk/contraception-help/emergency-contraception#FGHfEAig4icA6Hk2.99

](Morning after pill ad | LloydsPharmacy Online Doctor UK)

According to that argument it doesn’t matter if a couple are prevented from having children nor if the human race becomes extinct. In other words life is ultimately valueless - which is perfectly consistent with the view that we exist for no reason or purpose whatsoever.

We create our own purposes. Whether the human race exists or not does not matter in the greater scheme of things. Here on Earth another species would take our place and since only the end result matters it is irrelevant if the dominant species is the “humans” or the “dolphins”, or maybe the “rats”.

Not even the end result matters in your scheme of things! Why single out the end in an ocean of absurdity? Take it to its logical conclusion… How can we create our own purposes if life is purposeless? You really mean “invent” like a game of chess which has no basis in reality. It may be entertaining but ultimately futile - and abominably unjust if there is no afterlife - but then even justice, freedom, equality, innocence or guilt (and of course evil) are human fictions in the universal context of futility. If only matter exists nothing matters even if we pretend it does. Hurrah for absurdity!

But wait a minute… **How **do we absurd creatures know everything is absurd?

 

[tonyrey]

The “age old Euthyphro dilemma” was found wanting ages ago. It is a false dichotomy because it ignores the possibility - indeed the reality - that God is the absolute ground of being and therefore the ground of morality.

God is not bound by an absolute, independent morality, he IS the absolute and infinite morality itself. And the objection that then God can unilaterally make immoral things moral is simply a misconceived point. It is from the very nature and being of God that morality rises. He cannot willy-nilly change the ipsum ease subsistens of his very nature.

Yes, I anticipate your objection: then God cannot be omnipotent. That would be as nonsensical as a registering the objection that an omnipotent God could not actually be omnipotent unless he had the “power” to be omniscient AND a “know-nothing” at the same time, or omnibenevolent AND absolutely evil at the same time or omnipotent AND impotent at the same time.

The problem, for you, is that the omni- traits could very well reduce and transpose to each other. In other words, it is in the very essence of omnipotence to be omniscient, in the very essence of omniscience to be omnibenevolent and in the very nature of omnibenevolence to be omnipotent. Ergo, omnibenevolence could simply flow from the very nature of Being itself as the cascade effect of omnipotence/omniscience in the essence of Being Itself. Morality and moral goodness would then simply be a de facto attribute of the omnipotence/omniscience of absolute Being Itself.

In other words, God is not bound by an independent, absolute morality, he simply is the absolute morality itself. He IS WHAT HE IS (I AM WHO AM) - absolute reality itself. He is “bound” by that morality only in the very trivial sense of being “bound” by what he is.

:clapping: I would like to add that God is Love and therefore the only rational basis of morality. His commandments are not arbitrary rules but absolute truths about successful development and fulfilment because we are persons made in His image and likeness.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That is pretty insulting to all the unbelievers and all the non-Christians - even if you did not intend it to be insulting.

You might, according to the same logic, claim that the truth is “pretty insulting to all unbelievers” in the truth, but the fact that some are insulted by the truth does not make it any less true.

What you have to show is that Christian claims are untrue before objecting to their “insult” inducing issues.

This idea of sensitivity to others’ beliefs no matter what those beliefs are is simple-minded. Perhaps it is the sensibilities of some that need adjusting rather than adjusting the truth to fit the sensitivities of everyone.

 

[oldcelt]

I thought you believe in continuous creation?

I should have been more specific…I see no evidence of any entity watching or intervening.

 

[Bradski]

The effect is the same. Not to create just one person amounts to depriving the world of many others.

That can be easily discounted. If, for example, Martin Bryant had not existed, then all his victims would still be alive and all their descendants would not be deprived of existence. As he never had any children, and will not have any children, then that is not applicable to him.

Of course she has but would she be entitled to destroy them utterly for all eternity?

As opposed to punishing them for all eternity?

 

[Gorgias]

You also anthropomorphize God whenever you make an utterance about God. To say that God is “good” is imposing the human concept of “good”. If the word “good” makes something totally different when applied to God, then you have no epistemological right to use it in that context.

It’s a shame that you blithely disregard the thought of Aquinas; otherwise, you might benefit from his discussion of ‘univocal’, ‘equivocal’, and ‘analogical’ discourse.

 

[Thomas_White]

God does know all, and so yes, he did know that Adam and Eve would disobey him, however, God gave man free will, and his knowing humans would disobey did not rob them of their free will, nor did it mean that he “wanted” them to fall.

But why would God give free will to Adam and Eve when he knew this design could and would result in Original Sin?