I still cannot understand you!

[Areopagite]

Trinity is like I have one egg, which is really three egges, which is really just one egg. What kind of an omlette will come out of one egg, which is really three eggs, which is really just one egg, after all?

So, you’re saying that this is like saying A=3A (or something like this … I don’t know if this crude algebraic equation will just look dumb). However, this is not what the Trinitarian doctrine states. We’re not taking a term and saying that it equals three of those terms. It’s more like A=3B, where A=God, and B=Person. Like I said before, we are not saying that there are three Gods in one God, or three persons in one Person … there are three Persons in one God. Your egg example is repeating the same term, whereas the Trinitarian doctrine has two different terms, so the principle of non-contradiction is not being violated. Once again, in order to disprove the Trinity, you have to explain why personhood cannot exist in plurality within an infinite being.

It is not enough that the “bad stuff” leads to some “good”.

There are three more things to consider.

1. One is, is the “bad stuff” necessary, in other words, can that “good” be achieved without the “bad”.
2. Two, is the amount of “bad” sufficient, but not excessive to achieve that “good”.
3. And three, is the bad “worth” to get that “good”.

#1 is the most difficult to answer, but I’ll answer it further down.

With #2, you need omniscience to figure out just exactly how much “bad” you need to achieve a “good” … and I don’t think that’s humanly possible for any situation. I’m not offering this as some kind of proof for anything, except for proving that the claim “this bad situation is too horrible for any good” is unfounded, because you need omniscience to really understand the full evil consequences and good consequences of anything.

With #3, any bad thing that is endured is worth it if it assists one to attain eternal happiness, I would say (perhaps you disagree). I think you would agree that we’re all sinners (or at least, we all do bad things here and there), and thus we all deserve punishment to some degree. If God exists, any pain that comes along would help pay for the sins, restore justice, and reorder the soul (this is not just a Christian concept).

To say that the indiscriminate deaths of many people could be “justified” by the deaths of some “deserving” ones cannot be accepted. The “bad” people could have been extinguished by giving them a convenient heart attack, and the other people could live on. To say that the rape and killing of some girl could be justified by the possible prevention of some other rapes (which is far from certain) is not acceptable. The price paid by the girl cannot be left out from the analysis. Was it worth for the victim? If one asserts that she will be rewarded in heaven is still deficient. Was is necessary for her to be raped? Could she have gained admittence into heaven **without **having been raped?

There are a lot of infinitely good questions here …

One thing right off the bat, there’s a parable in the Gospels about someone maliciously seeding a field with weeds. The farmer decides not to go and uproot the weeds, for fear that some of good wheat might be pulled out too. Thus, the wheat and weeds grow side by side. This can be read like this: God could have simply removed all the evil-doers, but did not … for the reason that (I would say, at least) some evil-doers might repent and become good. This is one reason why God could allow sinners to live (at least for awhile).

Also, one of the main reasons (if not, of course, the main reason) for creating us was to show forth love. One of most profound ways to show love is to forgive those who have wronged you horribly. Christ was innocent but put to death, and yet forgave them, and in fact offered salvation … eternal happiness. So, that’s some major love there. Christ was perfectly innocent and allowed himself to suffer and mystically feel all human suffering that has and ever will happen. So whatever happens to us, we have the opportunity to follow Christ and forgive those who trespass against us … and in so doing, we become like Christ, showing love … and frankly, how love conquers all.

The purpose of creation could not have been achieved without sin, paradoxically enough. Without sin, there would not be the opportunity of complete loving forgiveness. There is a latin phrase “Felix Culpa” which means “happy fault” referring to the original sin of Adam and Eve and that, though evil, it eventually “won for us the savior.” So, this is a infinitesimally small explanation of why the bad happenings of the world is necessary for the goodness of love and salvation.

I hope that helped … microscopically at least. It obviously might require a bit more (or … a lot more) explanation.

You are correct when you say that people would be still dissatisfied even if there would be some instances where the “greater good” would be plainly visible. But that is not the point. At least we could see some evidence that allowing some evils would bring forth otherwise unattainable greater goods. But there are none, none at all.

The “visibility” of things of these natures vary widely between person to person. A lot of people seem to look at life as if there is no greater good being achieved ever. But a lot of people see it very clearly even in the darkest of moments. I know this might annoy you, but Christianity gives one the eyes to see purpose behind suffering. Obviously, not all Christians have this realization fully (in fact, none of them do fully), but life starts to make a whole lot more sense when seen through eyes of faith. And this is not always just some detached doctrine we hold, but it can become a very tangible and very clear truth with everything we look at.

Unfortunately, this truth cannot be proved … that is why it’s called faith. But, it is given to those who, at least, begin trying to be open to it.

Suppose someone presents a hypothesis, and conducts some experiments to support the hypothesis. The experiments never show that the hypothesis is valid, on the contrary, they show that the hypothesis is incorrect. How many experiments should be performed before one discards the hypothesis?

I’m not entirely sure how an objective experiment could be conducted on the things we’re talking about here. I may be wrong. Could you give an example of what you’re talking about?

 

[Spock]

So, you’re saying that this is like saying A=3A (or something like this … I don’t know if this crude algebraic equation will just look dumb). However, this is not what the Trinitarian doctrine states. We’re not taking a term and saying that it equals three of those terms. It’s more like A=3B, where A=God, and B=Person. Like I said before, we are not saying that there are three Gods in one God, or three persons in one Person … there are three Persons in one God. Your egg example is repeating the same term, whereas the Trinitarian doctrine has two different terms, so the principle of non-contradiction is not being violated. Once again, in order to disprove the Trinity, you have to explain why personhood cannot exist in plurality within an infinite being.

Well, the closest human term that comes to mind is that God is schizophrenic Sorry, but I don’t offer this seriously. No matter how we talk it over, it just does not make any sense.

#1 is the most difficult to answer, but I’ll answer it further down.

With #2, you need omniscience to figure out just exactly how much “bad” you need to achieve a “good” … and I don’t think that’s humanly possible for any situation. I’m not offering this as some kind of proof for anything, except for proving that the claim “this bad situation is too horrible for any good” is unfounded, because you need omniscience to really understand the full evil consequences and good consequences of anything.

Omniscience would be nice, but common sense will suffice. Imagine a father who drinks habitually, and when drunk, he beats his family. I would be hard pressed to see anything “good” in this, but I will admit my lack of omniscience, and allow that “maybe” there is.

The point here is that the beating is random, sometimes it lasts longer, sometimes it ends sooner. Even if accepting that “mysterious” greater good, the question arises: “was the exact amount of pain administered precisely the amount that was necessary?”. It can be answered two different ways: 1) God somehow intervened and stopped the father’s hand **exactly **when the **correct **amount of suffering was inflicted, or 2) by sheer accident the father stopped the beating **precisely **at the proper time. Both assumptions are unsatisfactory. Assumption 1) is contradicted by the assertion that God hardly ever (if ever) intervenes - out of “respect” for our free will (which is **another **thing I do not understand. Why is the free will of the bad but strong ones always allowed to override the free will of the good but weak ones?). Assumption 2) is wildly improbable - pretty much to the point of impossible. Don’t forget, we are talking about **precise, exact **amount of suffering here - in a mathematical sense. Even a **miniscule amount of unnecessary pain **cannot be justified.

With #3, any bad thing that is endured is worth it if it assists one to attain eternal happiness, I would say (perhaps you disagree). I think you would agree that we’re all sinners (or at least, we all do bad things here and there), and thus we all deserve punishment to some degree. If God exists, any pain that comes along would help pay for the sins, restore justice, and reorder the soul (this is not just a Christian concept).

Unfortunately that is an extention of the “playing field”. But I will keep on playing. The trouble is that the “bad thing” endured here must be a logical prerequisite to that hypothesized “eternal happiness”. It cannot be just said, that some bad stuff will be “justified” by giving happiness later. We agreed (I think) that the “bad stuff” must be necessary, without the bad stuff there cannot be the “greater good”. What you say here is different.

One thing right off the bat, there’s a parable in the Gospels about someone maliciously seeding a field with weeds. The farmer decides not to go and uproot the weeds, for fear that some of good wheat might be pulled out too. Thus, the wheat and weeds grow side by side. This can be read like this: God could have simply removed all the evil-doers, but did not … for the reason that (I would say, at least) some evil-doers might repent and become good. This is one reason why God could allow sinners to live (at least for awhile).

And if they do not repent, then the suffering was in vain…

Also, one of the main reasons (if not, of course, the main reason) for creating us was to show forth love. One of most profound ways to show love is to forgive those who have wronged you horribly.

I don’t think so, but my belief is irrelevant here. What if the person dies in the event, and cannot forgive?

The purpose of creation could not have been achieved without sin, paradoxically enough. Without sin, there would not be the opportunity of complete loving forgiveness. There is a latin phrase “Felix Culpa” which means “happy fault” referring to the original sin of Adam and Eve and that, though evil, it eventually “won for us the savior.” So, this is a infinitesimally small explanation of why the bad happenings of the world is necessary for the goodness of love and salvation.

Unfortunately there is a deeper concept here, which I cannot accept. I will illustrate it with an example: “it is better to be sick and recover, than it is to be healthy all the time”. This is called “sour grapes”. Since the bad must be endured, we can try to rationalize it. To be very blunt here, it is akin to say to the rape victim: “you might as well lay back and enjoy it, so at least something good will come out of it”. Sorry for the brutal picture.

I’m not entirely sure how an objective experiment could be conducted on the things we’re talking about here. I may be wrong. Could you give an example of what you’re talking about?

It was just an analogy. I mean, just how many “unexplained bad things” must occur, coupled with the lack of “explained bad things” before one starts to doubt God’s assumed benevolence? If there is faith, the answer is “no amount”. If there is no faith, the answer is “one”. In the real world, one failed experiment invalidates the hypothesis. In the world of faith it does not matter. Facts can never shake faith. As Billy Graham said: “my mind is made up. Don’t try to confuse me with facts”. And that is yet another thing I am unable to comprehend. (The number just keep growing, doesn’t it?).

 

[Areopagite]

Well, the closest human term that comes to mind is that God is schizophrenic Sorry, but I don’t offer this seriously. No matter how we talk it over, it just does not make any sense.

It’s not suppose to be comprehendible, otherwise the Church would be wrong when it calls the Trinity a mystery. However, all I’m saying, and what the Church is saying, is that there is no logical contradiction in what the Trinity is said to be (as stated by divine revelation). So, you can correctly say that it doesn’t make sense, but you cannot say that it is self-contradictory … or, if you do that, you’ll obviously have to philosophically demonstrate that.

As a side note, when one increases in their faith, they can receive more supernatural insight into the nature of Trinity … and it will start to make sense. That’s really the only way to understand it in any meaningful way. In any case, the claims about what it is has no been shown to conflict with each other.

The point here is that the beating is random, sometimes it lasts longer, sometimes it ends sooner. Even if accepting that “mysterious” greater good, the question arises: “was the exact amount of pain administered precisely the amount that was necessary?”. It can be answered two different ways: 1) God somehow intervened and stopped the father’s hand **exactly **when the **correct **amount of suffering was inflicted, or 2) by sheer accident the father stopped the beating **precisely **at the proper time. Both assumptions are unsatisfactory. Assumption 1) is contradicted by the assertion that God hardly ever (if ever) intervenes - out of “respect” for our free will (which is **another **thing I do not understand. Why is the free will of the bad but strong ones always allowed to override the free will of the good but weak ones?). Assumption 2) is wildly improbable - pretty much to the point of impossible.

Very thorough thinking by the way. I like this precision.

I would agree that assumption 2 is improbable and throw it out.

There is an important distinction here: free will vs. freedom from physical coercion. With free will we have the power to choose to do something. However, sometimes the choice cannot be physically carried out though. However, it still bears moral significance because we can still form the intent to do something without actually doing it. Thus, trying to murder someone is immoral, even if you get impeded in the process by one reason or another. Also, this relates too, I think, what Christ said about how one can “sin in their heart” by willfully fantasizing about committing a sin but not physically doing it. Now, God cannot force our free will one way or the other, not in the sense that He can’t force the physical carrying-out of the act (because He CAN stop that), but in the sense He cannot make us internally consent to this or that, can’t force us to willfully choose good or evil, etc. Does that make sense?

Though God (and everyone else) cannot force our will to choose one thing or the other, He can, of course, incline us to choose one action or the other. This can often be done not just in big ways (e.g. making one’s car break down to cause a discouraging inconvenience in our goal to get to the house of a person we intend to murder … perhaps inclining us to change our mind and drop the intent), but also in subtler ways in the form of slight emotional influences. The emotions don’t determine our actions but incline us to particular actions, making them easier to choose. It is worthy to note, I think, that if the emotions are very strong … strong enough to the point of insanity … then we cease being able to make a moral, free-willed choice, because free will requires some degree of clarity of mind. Oftentimes, but not always, the strength of a person’s emotions are not strong enough to completely set aside his will but merely reduces the will’s culpability. In that case, they are not fully choosing to do evil a lot of times when they commit an immoral action, due to their lack of full clarity.

Continued on next post…

 

[Areopagite]

The trouble is that the “bad thing” endured here must be a logical prerequisite to that hypothesized “eternal happiness”. It cannot be just said, that some bad stuff will be “justified” by giving happiness later. We agreed (I think) that the “bad stuff” must be necessary, without the bad stuff there cannot be the “greater good”. What you say here is different.

I might be misunderstanding you here, but … I’m not saying that bad people are justified in their bad acts. But I am saying that God is justified in allowing the bad acts to happen. I might be totally missing your question.

And if they do not repent, then the suffering was in vain…

Then that’s they’re problem. The point is that God gave them a chance and showed his love that way. Also, we know that many people have repented. Some of the greatest saints were really bad sinners. Also, the suffering that unrepentant sinners caused to good people can make the good people even better by their forgiveness of them (even if the sinners do not accept their forgiveness).

What if the person dies in the event (of being wronged by someone), and cannot forgive?

If they didn’t get a chance to forgive, then God won’t hold it against them obviously.

But forgiveness (and hence love) could be shown to the sinner by either the relatives of the victim or by God Himself, who was wronged in the sin as well. Many sinners receive a vivid sense of love and forgiveness at some spiritual experience, either being some kind of vision, or something more ordinary, such as receiving forgiveness in the confessional.

Unfortunately there is a deeper concept here, which I cannot accept. I will illustrate it with an example: “it is better to be sick and recover, than it is to be healthy all the time”. This is called “sour grapes”. Since the bad must be endured, we can try to rationalize it. To be very blunt here, it is akin to say to the rape victim: “you might as well lay back and enjoy it, so at least something good will come out of it”. Sorry for the brutal picture.

I know that it is not against reason to say that all these theological claims could be mere rationalizations of the evils of the world. However, you cannot prove that it is a rationalization (unless you can … which has yet to be seen). I’m saying, given what can be known by natural reason, these theological claims could be rationalizations or they could be true. You cannot prove either one. It’s a matter a faith … but a faith that does not contradict reason. That’s the claim.

It was just an analogy. I mean, just how many “unexplained bad things” must occur, coupled with the lack of “explained bad things” before one starts to doubt God’s assumed benevolence? If there is faith, the answer is “no amount”. If there is no faith, the answer is “one”.

People lose their faith all the time, but then gain it back all the time. You are correct in saying that one unexplained bad thing can make one doubt God’s benevolence if one has no faith, but this can also be true with those with faith. That is because we actually have free will to reject the faith. That’s what Catholics believe, at least.

In the real world, one failed experiment invalidates the hypothesis. In the world of faith it does not matter. Facts can never shake faith. As Billy Graham said: “my mind is made up. Don’t try to confuse me with facts”. And that is yet another thing I am unable to comprehend. (The number just keep growing, doesn’t it?).

Billy Graham, though he has some respectable qualities, was a Protestant, and many (not all) Protestants either believe or tend to think that faith and reason contradict each other … thanks to Martin Luther’s theology (the Muslims certainly seem to think this way too). However, Catholicism does not think this way. If facts contradict faith, then the faith is wrong. St. Paul even says that if it is discovered that Christ didn’t rise from the dead, then we are the most miserable of people … because the faith would be wrong. But once again, I don’t see how an experiment in this world could get to the truth in a reliable, serious, and objective method regarding the particular truth here being discussed (and that’s because of the whole thing about needing omniscience to sort all the good and bad effects out and whatnot). Hope that helped.

 

[Spock]

There is an important distinction here: free will vs. freedom from physical coercion. With free will we have the power to choose to do something. However, sometimes the choice cannot be physically carried out though. However, it still bears moral significance because we can still form the intent to do something without actually doing it. Thus, trying to murder someone is immoral, even if you get impeded in the process by one reason or another. Also, this relates too, I think, what Christ said about how one can “sin in their heart” by willfully fantasizing about committing a sin but not physically doing it.

Sorry, I don’t see how this pertains to the exact amount of pain being administered.

I might be misunderstanding you here, but … I’m not saying that bad people are justified in their bad acts. But I am saying that God is justified in allowing the bad acts to happen. I might be totally missing your question.

Maybe so. So I will try to clarify. The usual defense (what you adopted here) is that evil can be morally justified if and only if: 1) it brings forth some greater good, 2) if the evil is logically necessary to bring forth that greater good and 3) if the resulting pain and suffering coming from that evil is not excessive. If the “evil” fulfills these criteria, it can be properly called “necessary evil”. Necessary evil is morally justifyable, gratituous evil, however is not. If there is evil, which does not bring forth some greater good, if the greater could have been achieved without the evil, or the negative consequences of the evil are excessive, then this evil cannot be justified. If God allows unnecessary evil then God is not benevolent.

All I am saying is that I am not aware of even one instance where the three requirements are obviously fulfilled, and I see zillions of events where the three requirements do not “seem” to be fulfilled. And that huge discrepancy makes me doubt. Again, how many “false” results will make a believer doubt? There is no such number. All the “seemingly” negative results will be explained away or rationalized.

I know that it is not against reason to say that all these theological claims could be mere rationalizations of the evils of the world. However, you cannot prove that it is a rationalization (unless you can … which has yet to be seen). I’m saying, given what can be known by natural reason, these theological claims could be rationalizations or they could be true. You cannot prove either one. It’s a matter a faith … but a faith that does not contradict reason. That’s the claim.

Rationalization is to deny the facts if they seem to contradict the accepted hypothesis (or dogma).

Billy Graham, though he has some respectable qualities, was a Protestant, and many (not all) Protestants either believe or tend to think that faith and reason contradict each other … thanks to Martin Luther’s theology (the Muslims certainly seem to think this way too). However, Catholicism does not think this way. If facts contradict faith, then the faith is wrong. St. Paul even says that if it is discovered that Christ didn’t rise from the dead, then we are the most miserable of people … because the faith would be wrong. But once again, I don’t see how an experiment in this world could get to the truth in a reliable, serious, and objective method regarding the particular truth here being discussed (and that’s because of the whole thing about needing omniscience to sort all the good and bad effects out and whatnot). Hope that helped.

I sure can give you some posible experiments. It is widely asserted that “prayer works”. But does it? You can conduct properly formed experiments and selectively pray for some people, and measure if the prayer was successful or not. The trouble is that such “experimentation” is not allowed. You are “forbidden” to test God.

If such an experiment would fail (and it would), then the rationalization will jump in, and it would be asserted that fulfilling that prayer was against God’s will. That earns a big “duh” on my part.

 

[Areopagite]

Areopagite:

Here I was addressing your remark:

Assumption 1) is contradicted by the assertion that God hardly ever (if ever) intervenes - out of “respect” for our free will (which is another thing I do not understand. Why is the free will of the bad but strong ones always allowed to override the free will of the good but weak ones?).

And so, God can intervene and physically stop too much pain from being administered without forcing our free will. Hence, an answer to your question: “How can God assure that the exact amount of pain that is necessary for the greater good be administered” would be that God can physically stop one from causing too much pain to another, if necessary, without violating free will. Is that more clear?

The usual defense (what you adopted here) is that evil can be morally justified if and only if: 1) it brings forth some greater good, 2) if the evil is logically necessary to bring forth that greater good and 3) if the resulting pain and suffering coming from that evil is not excessive. If the “evil” fulfills these criteria, it can be properly called “necessary evil”. Necessary evil is morally justifyable, gratituous evil, however is not. If there is evil, which does not bring forth some greater good, if the greater could have been achieved without the evil, or the negative consequences of the evil are excessive, then this evil cannot be justified. If God allows unnecessary evil then God is not benevolent.

All I am saying is that I am not aware of even one instance where the three requirements are obviously fulfilled, and I see zillions of events where the three requirements do not “seem” to be fulfilled. And that huge discrepancy makes me doubt. Again, how many “false” results will make a believer doubt? There is no such number. All the “seemingly” negative results will be explained away or rationalized.

Are you arguing “Since it seems obvious to me that there is too much suffering for there to be any higher purpose, hence there is no higher purpose.” This is no proof. Also, the obviousness of a higher purpose varies form person to person. The idea that “there is too much suffering for there to be a benevolent God” is not held by everyone. You may claim that such people who refuse to accept that idea are lying to themselves, but, of course, once again, I don’t know how you could prove that. That would require some level of telepathy.

So your argument “it’s obvious that there is meaningless suffering” might work for people who agree with you, but it won’t work for people who do not think it is obvious. It’s not an objective argument. It seems very much an argument from ignorance.

Continued on next post…

 

[Areopagite]

Rationalization is to deny the facts if they seem to contradict the accepted hypothesis (or dogma).

Oh, perhaps. I thought it could mean, “Making something up using reason for some purpose” with the possibility that it might not contradict the given facts. But you might be right. I think your definition is a more accepted one.

In that case, I’ll restate and correct myself…

I’m saying, given what can be known by natural reason, these theological claims could be made up to make us feel better or they could be true. You cannot prove either one. It’s a matter a faith … but a faith that does not contradict reason. That’s the claim.

I would thus deny that Christianity is a rationalization (using your definition, which might be the more right one) because it has yet to be demonstrated that the doctrines of the faith contradict the given facts. I would say, the faith cannot be proved, but it cannot be disproved. And it’s not illogical to say, in the perspective of natural reason alone, that Christianity may just be contrived to fit some end, but that it also may be true.

Is that more clear?

I sure can give you some posible experiments. It is widely asserted that “prayer works”. But does it? You can conduct properly formed experiments and selectively pray for some people, and measure if the prayer was successful or not. The trouble is that such “experimentation” is not allowed. You are “forbidden” to test God.

If such an experiment would fail (and it would), then the rationalization will jump in, and it would be asserted that fulfilling that prayer was against God’s will. That earns a big “duh” on my part.

The phrase “prayer works” is a broad expression of how prayer works. Obviously, if God exists, He can choose to follow through with your petitions or not. It is said, nonetheless, that God answers all prayers … but sometimes He says “No.” Though, oftentimes, this answer can come in the form of giving strength to prayerful person to endure the adversity that he had wished to be delivered from, for example. Obviously, if you pray to God for the permission to murder someone, He’s going to say no, yet, if you’re honestly trying to talk to go, that spiritual openness can cause you to hear and understand why it’s not good to murder them.

Also, prayer is not mechanistic. It completely depends on the wills of the persons involved. Not only does it depend on the will of the person praying but, as said before, on the will of God to answer the prayer. One’s choices do not necessarily have to follow a recognizable pattern, due the freedom to determine one’s actions every single time. Also, very related to this, the whole point of prayer is to open’s one’s heart and mind to God, and so if you treat prayer as completely mechanistic and superstitious and non-heartfelt activity, then you are missing the whole point of prayer, and hence God is likely not going to take you very seriously. Also, even if you are praying for something good, you may have a bad or very deficient intent. You might be praying for someone’s healing, just because you want to keep borrowing money from him (for example). That doesn’t increase your chance of getting an affirmative response at all.

Since prayer is not mechanistic, but dependent on the freedom of multiple persons, and oftentimes with varied shades of intentions, I don’t think scientific experimentation on the efficacy of prayer is very sensible or, rather, even possible. Too many ways not to be objective.

Yes, it’s not good to “test” God, just like a child shouldn’t “test” his parents. This, correct me if I’m wrong, is in the sense of trying to see how far he can push one’s behavior until the parents punish him. I think. I don’t know if attempted scientific tests on prayer would fall into this category of testing. Some may say yes and others no. Frankly, I don’t know.

There’s more on this topic, if you still think this is all garbage.

 

[Betterave]

Not quite. The suggestion is simple: “interfere, and prevent the needless suffering”.

To be more precise, the needless suffering cannot be justified. And that is what I am after. I would like to see some proof or evidence that the all the existing sufferings are necessary for some greater good, which cannot gained by eliminating or lessening some of the existing suffering. But then the “pot” is not allowed to ask, is he? The potter has the power, and the pot is powerless. And might makes right.

Spock, I think you need to eat crow on some of your earlier comments, but I like this one. You make some very nice clarifications. Now what do you think it means to say that God is not a utilitarian? (I think Areopagite (pbuh) has perhaps made some dangerous arguments that flirt with the idea that God is a utilitarian.) Is it necessary that suffering be *necessary *for some greater good? I don’t think that would be a prudent claim for anyone to make. Why shouldn’t it be enough that suffering is part of some greater good? God is just *not *a pleasure-maximizer/pain-minimizer on the Christian view - remember the cross? What clearer proof could there be? The good that God wills is of a different kind (equivocal) from the utilitarian variety you appear to have in mind.

Btw, the pot is allowed to ask the potter questions. But also, yes, might does make right, provided might is not just brute power, but is loving omniscience. Can you see that? (Omniscience is, by definition, the power to always be right.) Say *you *were all-knowing and all-benevolent; we would be stupid not to listen to you, correct? But of course we could still ask you questions, we just shouldn’t expect to necessarily understand your answers right away.

 

[Betterave]

As far as testing prayer goes, why not? But obviously part of the theory of prayer is that we pots are not in charge, we don’t just tell the potter what to do, we humbly ask him, knowing that, as the cheesy country song goes, “some of God’s greatest gifts… la la… are unanswered prayers.” This constraint would have to be incorporated into the experimental methodology somehow.

Studies showing the general benefits of prayer for psychological health have been done though (sorry I don’t have any to cite - I doubt that such research would be hard to find though).

 

[Areopagite]

As far as testing prayer goes, why not? But obviously part of the theory of prayer is that we pots are not in charge, we don’t just tell the potter what to do, we humbly ask him, knowing that, as the cheesy country song goes, “some of God’s greatest gifts… la la… are unanswered prayers.” This constraint would have to be incorporated into the experimental methodology somehow.

Studies showing the general benefits of prayer for psychological health have been done though (sorry I don’t have any to cite - I doubt that such research would be hard to find though).

There have also been tests of these kind that have showed that they have absolutely no effects, and, in some cases, showed they had detrimental effects. One such case was when there were two groups of people with the same health defect (it might have been cancer), and a few individuals were told to pray for one of the groups and not the other, but the group that was not prayed for had better results. But then there are cases that show the opposite. It’s a highly un-objective experiment. It lacks the possibility for it to be done in a controlled setting. One reason is that, in the case I mentioned, the group not being prayed for … might have actually been prayed for. There is no objective way to make sure. Also, perhaps the praying group had the wrong intention with prayer, pompously trying to prove that they were right, which would perhaps give reason for God to not answer their prayer. I would also say there is a lot of possibility for fraud too, on both sides, depending on who is doing the experiment and what his worldview is. So many things.

And, as I said before, prayer is not a mechanistic thing. It depends on the wills of certain people, namely the praying person and God. Choice does not have to be consistent. But this doesn’t mean prayer is non-existent … it’s just doesn’t necessarily follow a consistent, predictable course, just like people’s choices.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

There have also been tests of these kind that have showed that they have absolutely no effects, and, in some cases, showed they had detrimental effects. One such case was when there were two groups of people with the same health defect (it might have been cancer), and a few individuals were told to pray for one of the groups and not the other, but the group that was not prayed for had better results. But then there are cases that show the opposite. It’s a highly un-objective experiment. It lacks the possibility for it to be done in a controlled setting. One reason is that, in the case I mentioned, the group not being prayed for … might have actually been prayed for. There is no objective way to make sure. Also, perhaps the praying group had the wrong intention with prayer, pompously trying to prove that they were right, which would perhaps give reason for God to not answer their prayer. I would also say there is a lot of possibility for fraud too, on both sides, depending on who is doing the experiment and what his worldview is. So many things.

And, as I said before, prayer is not a mechanistic thing. It depends on the wills of certain people, namely the praying person and God. Choice does not have to be consistent. But this doesn’t mean prayer is non-existent … it’s just doesn’t necessarily follow a consistent, predictable course, just like people’s choices.

This isn’t what Betterave meant, I think. Praying is good for your health - the health of the person praying. This isn’t proof that prayer works, but it is proof that the attitudes that accompany prayer are good for you.

 

[Areopagite]

This isn’t what Betterave meant, I think. Praying is good for your health - the health of the person praying. This isn’t proof that prayer works, but it is proof that the attitudes that accompany prayer are good for you.

You’re right. Betterave said “psychological health.” I stand corrected, and I would agree that I think there is enough demonstrable evidence to show that the “the attitudes that accompany prayer are good for you.” In fact, there have been tests on that, and those have a kind of consistent positive set of results.

 

[matahari]

Billy Graham, though he has some respectable qualities, was a Protestant, and many (not all) Protestants either believe or tend to think that faith and reason contradict each other … thanks to Martin Luther’s theology (the Muslims certainly seem to think this way too). However, Catholicism does not think this way. If facts contradict faith, then the faith is wrong. St. Paul even says that if it is discovered that Christ didn’t rise from the dead, then we are the most miserable of people … because the faith would be wrong. But once again, I don’t see how an experiment in this world could get to the truth in a reliable, serious, and objective method regarding the particular truth here being discussed (and that’s because of the whole thing about needing omniscience to sort all the good and bad effects out and whatnot). Hope that helped.

---

Whenever I see this argument ’ faith versus reason ’ I want to say Faith is not against Reason , because faith is Above reason
We have got so used to making a god of reason that if we cannot prove it in the laboratory then its probably not true.
Perhaps our ancestors were smarter than us and did not continually agonise over
things which were obviously true.
Our faith makes sense to us and is corroborated by history
:twocents::shamrock2:

 

[david_friol_1]

At least many of you. Those, who say that God’s existence is forever a matter of faith - those I can understand. Faith is considered to be of a higher value than reason, evidence and proof. “Happy are those the have not seen, yet believe” - says the Bible (approximately).

Your belief that there is no God is still taken on faith so there is really no difference. Science(the study of the material world) can not give any absolute proof either for or against the existence of God(an immaterial being). However, it can point in the direction of a creator who left his mark on the world.

Now, those who assert that God’s existence can be rationally demonstrated - usually by some appeal to logic - those I cannot understand. If God’s existence could be rationally demonstrated - there would be no reason for faith. Therefore all the purported “proofs” are insufficient - and necessarily so.

Your lack of understanding is not a very good “reason” to “believe” that there is no God. Spock these “proofs” which you say are insufficient are probably not intended to be “proofs” that you can stick in you test tube. They are more likely just evidence that helps to give a reason for placing ones faith one step away from the belief in no God and therefore one step close to the belief in God. It is not really that complicated. If I could understand it with barely a high school diploma I’m sure someone as smart as you could too if only you would not block your path from seeing it.

So, kindly abandon that kind of “argument”. Stick to your faith, and don’t try to bring reason into the conversation. It does not work.

The only “reasoning” that seems to keep falling short and is not working is the one that put these threads together though I hate to break the news to you
God bless you Spock