I am baffled, please explain

[Gorgias]

Obviously we cannot assume that God is an idiot, so the only logical conclusion is that he WANTED us to fail.

No, that’s not the only logical conclusion. Another reasonable conclusion is that God wants us to try, and He values the honest, faithful attempt more highly than the raw result.

… Why? Who cares?

Clearly, not you: you already have your conclusion, and obviously, don’t care to entertain other points of view which contradict yours.

The logical answer is inescapable.

Quite so. The logical answer is that you’re here to proselytize.

 

[Bradski]

1. Through no fault of their own the potential descendants of Bryant’s victims (X)cannot exist.
2. Through no fault of their own the potential descendants of Bryant (Y) cannot exist.

What…?

Bryant’s victims would have undoubtedly had descendants. He killed young children. We know that people would have existed if he hadn’t killed.

We know for a certainty that Bryant has not and will not have any descendants. So if Bryant had existed or not, there would be no Bryant descendants.

So taking Bryant out of the equation, the only ‘potential descendants’ that are affected are those of his victims.

If Bryant already has children or is likely to have children, then your very weak argument stands. As that is not the case, it doesn’t.

I have never seen any evidence that God does not exist. Not one shred.

This is why we have the FSM.

Is there any evidence that everything has come from nothing?

None.

What Man believed in the first instance was that gods or supernatural creatures had made everything. Then an increasing proportion of the world decided it was gods.
Then one god. Then one God.

And that He had done it as written. But some people said - hang on, there may be more to it than that. And discovered that there was. We discovered it was a lot bigger than we’d been told (yeah, actually God did that). And a lot older (yeah, God did that). There were more dimensions (yeah, same guy. It was Him). Time wasn’t what it appeared to be (yeah, God did that as well). It appeared to have had a beginning (yeah, that was God too).

All the time we have been discovering that everything is the result of natural processes. So what a lot of people have been saying for all this time is that God is nature. Whatever we discover, whatever new insight into the universe we grasp, a lot of people elbow their way into the discussion and claim that their god is responsible.

So God, as the claim so obviously states, is nature itself.

Now personally, I have no disagreement with this whatsoever. But if we take the investigation back as far as we can, then we hit a roadblock. An insurmountable road block. It’s a point beyond which it is physically impossible to go. So the people doing the investigations have no answer, so they say it must be the same cause that we have discovered all along. That is Nature. And a lot of the the other people say ‘Yeah, God’.

And some say Vishnu. And some say the Great Serpent. And others shout out the name of the god they had been taught about as they grew up.

I’m quite happy with that.

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

If you want to claim that God is responsible for their actions, then you by extension reduce humanity’s choices in life to being predetermined, which they are not.

You are misrepresenting the argument. It happens quite a lot, so you’re not alone.

The point is that God created us, with free will, but knowing we would sin. He sold the gun to someone with free will, did not coerce the guy in any way, but knew, with absolute certainty, that he would kill someone with it.

Now both you and I and every other reasonable person on the planet would state, quite unequivocally, that the person selling the gun bears some responsibility for the consequent evil. That person is God in this case.

But at this point, there is huge rush for the door, everyone falling over themselves to avoid having to come to terms with a blazingly simple scenario.

What’s wrong with: Yes it does appear to be that way. But who can know the mind of God…’

 

[PRmerger]

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.

What is the atheistic explanation for Martin Bryant?

 

[Bradski]

What is the atheistic explanation for Martin Bryant?

There isn’t one.

Edit: Or do you mean secular?

 

[PRmerger]

There isn’t one.

Interesting.

You accept that?

You don’t have a problem not having an answer for your children?

 

[Bradski]

Interesting.

You accept that?

You don’t have a problem not having an answer for your children?

Ah, you do mean atheist.

I’m not sure what is meant by ‘an answer’ for my children. Or an explanation. It doesn’t really make sense to me. Unless the question is meant more: Why did you have children?

Which I don’t think it is…

 

[PRmerger]

Ah, you do mean atheist.

I’m not sure what is meant by ‘an answer’ for my children. Or an explanation. It doesn’t really make sense to me. Unless the question is meant more: Why did you have children?

Which I don’t think it is…

What is your answer, as an atheist, to your children who ask, “Why is there a man like Martin Bryant who kills dozens of people? What happens to him when he dies? Is there any justice for the people who died horribly?”

 

[Bradski]

What is the atheistic explanation for Martin Bryant?

But would would the Christian explanation be for him? I’m assuming that your question means that you believe there is one.

All he brought was misery, anguish and guilt to scores of people. I really think you’d be hard-pressed to find anything good that came out of his life. Most definately impossible to balance out the evil.

Unless you are going to argue that we need pain and loss to appreciate…well, to appreciate something or other. And unless you can point out someone who has had their wife and children gunned down who thinks some good came out of it, we are heading for a ‘Who can know God’s mind’ moment.

 

[Bradski]

What is your answer, as an atheist, to your children who ask, “Why is there a man like Martin Bryant who kills dozens of people? What happens to him when he dies? Is there any justice for the people who died horribly?”

They get the secular answer. And that would include: No, there is no justice that can make up for the loss.

And we’re crossing posts, but what is the Christian anwer?

 

[PRmerger]

They get the secular answer. And that would include: No, there is no justice that can make up for the loss.

That’s profoundly awful.

 

[PRmerger]

They get the secular answer. And that would include: No, there is no justice that can make up for the loss.

And we’re crossing posts, but what is the Christian anwer?

The Christian answer is: God makes it up to them.

In a spectacular way, BTW.

 

[Bradski]

That’s profoundly awful.

No point in guilding the lilly. I guess I could tell them that he’s likely to be tormented for eternity, but I don’t think theyd think the punishment fitted the crime.

In fact, if I said he was going to be tormented/tortured for a few years they would baulk at it.

 

[PRmerger]

No point in guilding the lilly. I guess I could tell them that he’s likely to be tormented for eternity, but I don’t think theyd think the punishment fitted the crime.

In fact, if I said he was going to be tormented/tortured for a few years they would baulk at it.

But you still have no answer for why there is evil in the world.

That doesn’t bother you?

 

[Bradski]

But you still have no answer for why there is evil in the world.

It’s in our nature.

And saying: ‘God will make it up to you’ is no answer at all. It’s no answer to the man who has his wife and children gunned down. You cannot say: It’s OK, God will make it up to them and you’. At what point does it become acceptable to say that? As he’s shooting them? As the child is running away, do you shout out to her mother: ‘It’s OK, God will look after her!’

Wasn’t God going to send the family to heaven in any case? Why a lifetime of anguish and torment and guilt?

What’s the purpose? What’s the difference in one child living and the other dying? What is the reason? Because you must believe that there is a reason.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

However, that’s not what you’re really arguing for: what you’re really arguing for is a world in which God enforces unwavering obedience.

You keep missing the point, so I will spell it out for you.

1. There are infinitely many possible worlds.
2. Among those worlds there are some where all the people freely choose to “love” and “obey” God.
3. There are other worlds, where some people will freely choose and disobey God.
4. There are also worlds, where God enforces his wishes, but we do not deal with them. We only consider those worlds where God does not enforce anything.
5. God knows all the outcomes of each of these possible worlds.
6. God is free to choose any of these worlds and instantiate / actualize it.
7. What God is NOT able to do is to “close his imaginary eyes” and make a random selection, unknowing what the choice will be. This is the crucial point. Every act that God makes is intentional and purposeful.
8. The fact that God knows how people will behave does not limit the peoples’ freedom, it does not turn the people into robots. It just so happens that they freely choose to love and obey God.
9. The fact that God chooses that particular world does not make the people less free.

Therefore God could have chosen to instantiate (or actualize) a world, where everyone is free, and it just so happens that everyone chooses to love and obey God. To say that as long as the world is only “possible” but not actualized, the choices made by the people are “free”, but as soon as that world is “promoted” from possible to actual, the people become robots from free agents is absurd. Capisci???

Yet, having had a toothache, I learned the importance of good dental hygiene; the toothache taught me a lesson that benefited me in my life.

Typical “sour grapes” type of rationalization. The alternative is NOT to have tooth decay at all. Why is having NO tooth decay at all inferior to the one where we need to learn how to deal with tooth decay?

You’ve just moved the goalposts. The question isn’t whether we seek out negative experiences, as you’ve just attempted to shade the discussion, but whether negative experiences have the capacity to have beneficial long-term outcomes.

Wrong answer. Many negative events MIGHT have positive side effects (and many actually do!), but are those beneficial side effects better than not having problems at all? That is the question. To be beaten close to death, and recovering from that beating is not better than not being beaten at all. Yes, living in a world without wars, murders, rapes and such “deprives” us from the “wonderful” experience of living through those events, but that “deprivation” is not viewed as a negative thing by normal human beings. That is why we try our best to avoid them.

The fact that you do everything you can to avoid the negative experiences (as any normal person does) belies your assertion that having bad experiences and recovering from them is better than having no bad experiences at all. Your actions speak louder than your words. Your words are just words, for the sake of being contrarian. You do not live according to your words… and that makes you a hypocrite.

If that’s an argument disguised as snark, you’ve exceeded your wildest expectations: it has no characteristics of an argument at all! Congrats!

It was designed to show the absurdity of what you said: namely to have people who only have good intentions, who would never wish to do harm to others are “robots”. They all have free will, they just do not want to rape, kill and do other assorted “evil” things. And if the whole world would contain only such people, that world would not be composed of “robots”.

However, if I’m being charitable and want to supply your argument for you, then I think you’re saying that a universe in which people are created without free will – but rather, simply have eternal beatitude given to them – is better than a universe in which people have free will. We disagree with that notion: free will is one of the greatest gifts God has given us. It is also, unfortunately, a gift which people may choose to misuse.

Very bad reasoning. Certain amount of freedom is good, but unbridled freedom is not. Free will for its own sake has no “value” at all. And to use your own words: “freely asserted, freely rejected”. Yes, I am aware that imitation can be the highest form of flattery, but in this case it is not.

To use an imprecise analogy: suppose we could build intelligent cars with a certain amount of freedom. To allow them to choose the speed within the limits of safety is a wise decision, because micromanaging would be inefficient. As such a certain, limited amount of freedom is a good idea. But to allow these cars to veer off the road and endanger the lives of the passengers would be idiotic.

Using this example, we are like the intelligent cars without any built-in “brakes”, we can choose to kill, maim, rape, torture at will. Only an idiot designer would create such a “product”, or a designer who does not care, or one who actually enjoys the mayhem we can (and do) produce. Pick your choice.

Are you asserting that free will does not exist, then?

I do not assert anything. All I am pointing out that there is no way to decide if we have free will, or not. We assume that we have, and it is a reasonable assumption. But that does not constitute a proof.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

IOW you don’t believe in heaven? Then I guess you don’t believe in hell either?

Of course not. If heaven would exist, it would be nice. But hell - a place of eternal torture - could be invented by an infinitely evil psychopath.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

No, that’s not the only logical conclusion. Another reasonable conclusion is that God wants us to try, and He values the honest, faithful attempt more highly than the raw result.

Incorrect analysis. On God’s level there are no unknowns. He knew who will succeed and who will fail. He could create only those who will try and succeed. Why create those who will try and fail or not even try at all? Again, the only logical conclusion is that he wants them to fail. The trouble is that you painted yourself into a corner with the idea of omniscience and omnipotence.

As said before: God is ultimately responsible for everything, the good, the bad and the ugly. There are no surprises for God. There are no random actions for God. Everything that happens is either directly willed by God, or indirectly allowed by God. Whatever God does, he does deliberately.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Sorry for butting in.

But you still have no answer for why there is evil in the world.

Because “guano” happens. The “world” does not care. I do, and you do, and all people with good will do. But we are powerless to prevent it.

That doesn’t bother you?

It does on a hypothetical level. We have no power to eradicate what you call “evil”. I wish we did, and if we could - we would. And if we could - by brainwashing (or forcefully stopping) all the would-be-criminals BEFORE they could perform their maims, rapes and murders, then YOU would be up in arms shouting: “how dare you to deprive those people of their God-given freedom to perform whatever their twisted mind tells them to do”… or am I mistaken? Would you be supportive of limiting their ability of those horrible acts? Please tell me that you would, that you would join me in saying: “to hell with the free will of the psychopaths and sociopaths”. I would be happy to send you a brotherly hug to my fellow crusader in fighting the “evil” in this world.

Then all we had to do is to convince God to join us in our righteous struggle against the “evil”. Sounds easy? I wish it were. But God does not care.

 

[Gorgias]

Incorrect analysis.

Not in the least. Rather, you fail to address my assertion.

On God’s level there are no unknowns. He knew who will succeed and who will fail.

Agreed. If He values the attempt – to the point that what He’s doing is giving us the free will to try – then the question of a lack of ‘unknowns’ doesn’t enter into the equation. Why you fail to address this – or even consider it – makes it clear you do not wish to enter into dialogue, but rather, simply wish to assert your own stance. One is reminded of Vogons and their notion of ‘dialogue’.

He could create only those who will try and succeed. Why create those who will try and fail or not even try at all? Again, the only logical conclusion is that he wants them to fail.

If the ‘game’ is exercising the opportunity to try, aside from the success of the attempt, then a results-oriented approach (like yours), fails to have any explicative value. In fact, what it is capable of is only to continue to blindly assert its own (challenged but nevertheless undefended) position. Which, clearly, is what you’re doing.

The trouble is that you painted yourself into a corner with the idea of omniscience and omnipotence.

No; the trouble is that you cannot hear the defense of these ideas.

As said before: God is ultimately responsible for everything, the good, the bad and the ugly. There are no surprises for God. There are no random actions for God. Everything that happens is either directly willed by God, or indirectly allowed by God. Whatever God does, he does deliberately.

Umm… is anyone debating this? No… what we’re debating is the set of illogical conclusions that you draw from this fact.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Incorrect analysis. On God’s level there are no unknowns. He knew who will succeed and who will fail. He could create only those who will try and succeed. Why create those who will try and fail or not even try at all? Again, the only logical conclusion is that he wants them to fail. The trouble is that you painted yourself into a corner with the idea of omniscience and omnipotence.

As said before: God is ultimately responsible for everything, the good, the bad and the ugly. There are no surprises for God. There are no random actions for God. Everything that happens is either directly willed by God, or indirectly allowed by God. Whatever God does, he does deliberately.

Actually there is no corner. God may not “create” persons in the same way he creates stars, tulips and armadillos. It may very well be that “creation” of beings with free agency is a dynamic pursuit. In other words, we are responsible for creating ourselves as persons by the very capacity of free will that puzzles you so.

What that means is that with human persons, it could be that God does not know in any prior sense (though he knows in an eternal sense) that humans will fail but - since human persons potentially participate in eternity - our “present” existence is precisely what merges us with the eternal now. In other words, God knows we fail when we fail because our personal autonomy fully determines our failing.

God does not have a past or a future, but all is eternally present to him. There is no past perspective for God from which he could know “before” because he is not within a time stream of any sort, nor constrained by it.

it isn’t the case that God “knew who will succeed and who will fail,” but rather our failing or success is what God knows when he knows it precisely because he has endowed us with personal autonomy.

I think the issue is much more perplexing than the simple analysis you present.