I still cannot understand you!

[Betterave]

This is fine, to a certain extent. My dichotomy works like this: “if faith is sufficient, then a rational underpinning is unnecessary. If reason is sufficient, then faith is unnecessary”. Reason would work for me. The trouble is that all the purported rational arguments are unsatisfactory.

Of course they’re unsatisfactory, but there is an explanation for that: your reason is disordered. If you refuse to rule out this possibility by argument, you’re begging the question. Your btq may well serve as further evidence that you have **no right **to beg this question, that, indeed, **your **reason is objectively disordered.

Alternately you can provide an explanation as to why your question-begging is not unreasonable. Do you think you’ve done that? I think in the following you’ve done nothing of the sort. On the contrary, you’ve displayed a very obvious lack of knowledge and rational rigor. Therefore, I think the scales of reason weigh pretty heavily against you at this point.

I seriously doubt that “reason” is “disordered” - whatever that might mean. Reason offers the one and only method that works under all circumstances - except when it comes to the “supernatural”. From that my conclusion is: “reason works fine - and therefore the supernatural is superfluous”.

Now, I don’t argue for not making original assumptions, which cannot be rationally supported - at the time when the assumptions are made. When there was no microbiology, most people (doctors, too) assumed that illnesses are caused by “demons”, etc… Pasteur and others thought otherwise, and assumed very little (invisible) things (bacteria) and started to look for them. Eventually, they found them, and the explanation for demons was discarded. (Not by the Church, which still performs exorcisms. Shows just how inflexible the Church is). This whole process started with unsupported assumptions - and eventually the support was found. However, there is another side of this coin. The researchers are very busy to try and discredit the new assumptions - and this is the part that gives us assurance, that the process will “weed out” the incorrect assumptions.

The trouble with the supernatural is that one makes the assumptions, and is allowed (even encouraged) to seek for supporting evidence, but is not allowed to look for evidence to the contrary. The basic assumptions of faith cannot be questioned (God’s existence, Jesus’s divinity, etc…). Such questioning is considered “heretical”, and strongly discouraged - by threats of excommunication. This difference is fundamental, and totally discredits the authority of the Church - for me. If there is some truth in an assumption, there is no need to intimidate the opposition, a critical view should be welcomed. This behavior has pretty dark implications - in my eyes. It shows that the Church may pay lip service to reason - as long as it seems to support the Church’s position, but as soon as reason starts to criticize the dogma, it becomes an anathema, it must be stomped out. The word for such behavior in my vocabulary is: “hypocrisy”.

In my vocab, begging questions you have no right to beg is (at least sometimes) hypocrisy.

Here’s another dilemma: Either religious people are not stupid, i.e., they have reason, well-ordered reason stays within its proper bounds, and religious folks’ reasons for believing in God are reasonable. Or religious people have reason, but well-ordered reason stays within its proper bounds, and therefore many religious folks (often apparently very intelligent ones) must have *disordered *reason since it constantly goes out of bounds. Therefore, either belief in God is reasonable or reason is disordered. You pick!

 

[Spock]

Of course they’re unsatisfactory, but there is an explanation for that: your reason is disordered. If you refuse to rule out this possibility by argument, you’re begging the question. Your btq may well serve as further evidence that you have **no right **to beg this question, that, indeed, **your **reason is objectively disordered.

You gotta be kidding me. You did not even tell me what is a “disordered reason”, and I have no idea. Then you accuse me of question begging. Are you serious?

Here’s another dilemma: Either religious people are not stupid, i.e., they have reason, well-ordered reason stays within its proper bounds, and religious folks’ reasons for believing in God are reasonable. Or religious people have reason, but well-ordered reason stays within its proper bounds, and therefore many religious folks (often apparently very intelligent ones) must have *disordered *reason since it constantly goes out of bounds. Therefore, either belief in God is reasonable or reason is disordered. You pick!

How can faith in God be reasonable? Reason rests on two things: namely logic, and rational underpinning. I can say that religious people are logical, but I cannot see the rational underpinning for their beliefs. How can I?

When I see contradictions, like the concept of trinity? No matter that its called a “mystery”, it is just a contradiction. When they say that God is pure love and I see no signs of it - but I see zillions of signs against it. Show me some signs - here and now (not millenia ago), that God comes to the rescue of those who are need. I don’t accept arguments from ignorance. I have seen the assertion many times that God is indeed doing the best for us, and when the available evidence contradicts it, it must be a “measurement error” - since we do not have the “full picture”. As if the hypothesis would be presented that gravity is repulsion and not attraction, and the zillions of instances to the contrary are all “measurement errors”. Mind you, I admit that these are logical arguments, but they are totally unreasonable.

Your question goes to the heart of the matter. I am wondering how can smart, intelligent people check in their reason into the cloak room when it comes to religious questions. If some human would behave like God does, the last adjective you would use is “loving”. And when I point out the discrepancy of two measuring rods, the retort comes: “how dare you to question God?”, and “since when is the pot-maker responsible to the pot?” Is that a rational argument? Shouting down the opponent? These are the reasons that I am geniunely interested in these questions. I would like to understand.

Obviously I am not always rational either. But when my errors are pointed out to me, I will promptly “eat crow” and admit my error. I do not try to explain away my error.

 

[Areopagite]

How can faith in God be reasonable? Reason rests on two things: namely logic, and rational underpinning. I can say that religious people are logical, but I cannot see the rational underpinning for their beliefs. How can I?

What do you mean by rational underpinning?

When I see contradictions, like the concept of trinity? No matter that its called a “mystery”, it is just a contradiction.

Could you flush that out for us? What’s contradictory in the idea of having three persons exist in one infinite being?

Your question goes to the heart of the matter. I am wondering how can smart, intelligent people check in their reason into the cloak room when it comes to religious questions. If some human would behave like God does, the last adjective you would use is “loving”.

There are two ways a person can “act like God” and they are very different.

One way is when we consider ourselves as the ultimate good and see everyone else as below us and thus believe that we can do anything without consequences. This is being like God, in the way where we are actually separating ourselves from God and acting contrary to Him.

The other way is when we act in accord to how God wants us to act. When we do that, God works through us because we allow Him too. People start to see who God truly is through our cooperation with Him.

Another reason, though, why God is not associated with love is of course because of human sin. One may get the impression that God is unloving not because of their own sin but because of the sin of others, especially those close to them (and most especially parents … their father above all). Bad fathers or at least bad Christians can really cause emotional confusion when one thinks about God (though healing from that is possible of course). I had a lot of anger at God because of bad Christians, and it too me awhile to realize that I was angry at the sins of those people and not at God. Those Christians had given me a horrible picture of what God was like. But paradoxically, I could appreciate God more, after realizing how bad sin is.

Another thing to mention is that the idea of God can understandably seem very distant from us, and hence seem disconnected with love. This distance was caused by sin, but is repaired by the Incarnation. Jesus is God in the flesh and thus bridges the gap between us and God. And you must admit that … If some human would behave like Jesus does, the FIRST adjective you would use is “loving”.

And when I point out the discrepancy of two measuring rods, the retort comes: “how dare you to question God?”, and “since when is the pot-maker responsible to the pot?” Is that a rational argument? Shouting down the opponent? These are the reasons that I am geniunely interested in these questions. I would like to understand.

Once again, these are examples of Christians failing to act like God (i.e. failing to follow Him opposed to acting like they themselves are the supreme good, etc.). Christians may have the correct beliefs but not follow them entirely, and this is why the sins of bad Christians are worse than the sins of bad pagans. They know the truth but don’t follow it fully, and in so doing, they misrepresent their faith and show it as something evil rather than good.

Anyway, I hope that helped.

 

[Spock]

What do you mean by rational underpinning?

I think it is pretty obvious. Something that is not just logically correct, but also logically sound.

Could you flush that out for us? What’s contradictory in the idea of having three persons exist in one infinite being?

Everything. There is one God. Jesus was separate from God. To say that God and Jesus are the same makes no sense, especially when God is called the father, and Jesus is called the son. At the bare minimum it is muddying the waters.

There are two ways a person can “act like God” and they are very different.

One way is when we consider ourselves as the ultimate good and see everyone else as below us and thus believe that we can do anything without consequences. This is being like God, in the way where we are actually separating ourselves from God and acting contrary to Him.

The other way is when we act in accord to how God wants us to act. When we do that, God works through us because we allow Him too. People start to see who God truly is through our cooperation with Him.

This is not what I was alluding to. When someone is in pain, we call it “moral”, “loving” etc… if one runs to help. When someone is hungry, it is “loving” to go and feed him. God manifestly does not do any of these. To say that God “outsourced” this to us, and we should do it is “explaining away”. When there is no other person around who would be in the position to help, God still does not “will” the problem away. A human who would do similarly (outsourcing the help) would be called selfish, indifferent or worse.

Once again, these are examples of Christians failing to act like God (i.e. failing to follow Him opposed to acting like they themselves are the supreme good, etc.).

Those were quotations (not verbatim) from the Bible. Isiah 45:9 says: “Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’” So those who say stuff like this are not really “far out”. The trouble is that such quotes do not constitute an argument - and they are used when posters run out of the actual arguments.

 

[Matthias123]

If I could offer something…

Existence is contingent upon and defined by the property of affect. This is to say that something exists if it has the ability to affect and does not exist if it does not have the ability to affect (producing effect).

Being == existing (as per many dictionaries). Thus to be means to have potential to affect (the potential to cause effect).

**Affect **== cause of change in state.

I’m not sure where you were heading, but if you start with these, you are likely to get there easier.

I think the problem is that we are from different philosophical traditions =) We are describing the same thing from different points of attack.

You seem more Analytic, while I am a traditional Thomist. Both are good!

 

[punkforchrist]

I think the problem is that we are from different philosophical traditions =) We are describing the same thing from different points of attack.

You seem more Analytic, while I am a traditional Thomist. Both are good!

And then you have John Haldane’s Analytic Thomism!

 

[Betterave]

You gotta be kidding me. You did not even tell me what is a “disordered reason”, and I have no idea. Then you accuse me of question begging. Are you serious?

I am serious (I won’t even ask if you are!).
You wrote:

I seriously doubt that “reason” is “disordered” - whatever that might mean. Reason offers the one and only method that works under all circumstances - except when it comes to the “supernatural”. From that my conclusion is: “reason works fine - and therefore the supernatural is superfluous”.

You obviously rejected the proposition “reason is disordered” - you want to complain now that you have no idea what you were rejecting, but that you weren’t begging the question? What do you think begging the question is? This is further evidence that your reason is disordered - and even knowing just this about ‘disordered reason’, it should no longer be possible for an intelligent person who was making a sincere effort to understand to have “no idea” what disordered reason is.

 

[Betterave]

Originally Posted by Betterave
Here’s another dilemma: Either religious people are not stupid, i.e., they have reason, well-ordered reason stays within its proper bounds, and religious folks’ reasons for believing in God are reasonable. Or religious people have reason, but well-ordered reason stays within its proper bounds, and therefore many religious folks (often apparently very intelligent ones) must have disordered reason since it constantly goes out of bounds. Therefore, either belief in God is reasonable or reason is disordered. You pick!

You’ll have a better chance of understanding what is reasonable about others’ positions if you are willing to honestly face what is unreasonable about your own. Which side of the above dilemma do you choose? You want to just ignore difficulties with your own position? You can do that, and your thinking will never get below a surface veneer of self-satisfied pseudo-rationality. The appeal to mystery is a result of the rigorous application of reason to the problems of existence. The rejection of mystery is the result of ignoring difficulties with one’s common-sense simplistic view of the world.

When you see a contradiction in your own viewpoint (or when one is brought to your attention), you can make a distinction; or you can just ignore it, change the subject and attack the supposed contradictions in others’ viewpoints. The latter would be another manifestation of disordered reason.

How can faith in God be reasonable? Reason rests on two things: namely logic, and rational underpinning. I can say that religious people are logical, but I cannot see the rational underpinning for their beliefs. How can I?

When I see contradictions, like the concept of trinity? No matter that its called a “mystery”, it is just a contradiction. When they say that God is pure love and I see no signs of it - but I see zillions of signs against it. Show me some signs - here and now (not millenia ago), that God comes to the rescue of those who are need. I don’t accept arguments from ignorance. I have seen the assertion many times that God is indeed doing the best for us, and when the available evidence contradicts it, it must be a “measurement error” - since we do not have the “full picture”. As if the hypothesis would be presented that gravity is repulsion and not attraction, and the zillions of instances to the contrary are all “measurement errors”. Mind you, I admit that these are logical arguments, but they are totally unreasonable.

Your question goes to the heart of the matter. I am wondering how can smart, intelligent people check in their reason into the cloak room when it comes to religious questions. If some human would behave like God does, the last adjective you would use is “loving”. And when I point out the discrepancy of two measuring rods, the retort comes: “how dare you to question God?”, and “since when is the pot-maker responsible to the pot?” Is that a rational argument? Shouting down the opponent? These are the reasons that I am geniunely interested in these questions. I would like to understand.

Obviously I am not always rational either. But when my errors are pointed out to me, I will promptly “eat crow” and admit my error. I do not try to explain away my error.

Well-ordered reason takes one thing at a time and is patient in working through it. If you argue that smart, intelligent people do not do this (or commit other rational blunders), you are again proving the point that reason is at least sometimes disordered (or that reason/reasonable people aren’t always reasonable). More importantly, you are not being patient and taking one thing at a time. Shoving a whole bunch of ‘problems’ on the table at one time, instead of just addressing the current point, is the approach of someone with disordered reason, i.e., whose reason is negatively influenced by their passions, and so is distracted by them and impaired in the pursuit of truth.

 

[Spock]

You obviously rejected the proposition “reason is disordered” - you want to complain now that you have no idea what you were rejecting, but that you weren’t begging the question? What do you think begging the question is? This is further evidence that your reason is disordered - and even knowing just this about ‘disordered reason’, it should no longer be possible for an intelligent person who was making a sincere effort to understand to have “no idea” what disordered reason is.

At least be honest in your quotes. I said that I don’t even know what is “disordered reason” would be. I did not reject it, but asked. And you did not answer. The ball is in your court, buddy.

Shoving a whole bunch of ‘problems’ on the table at one time, instead of just addressing the current point, is the approach of someone with disordered reason, i.e., whose reason is negatively influenced by their passions, and so is distracted by them and impaired in the pursuit of truth.

Aha. So it is the sign of “ordered reason” to evade the direct problems. You know… I don’t think that I am very much interested in your (name removed by moderator)ut. If you define what is “disordered reason”, and you answer those direct questions I asked, then I will reconsider.

 

[Areopagite]

I think it is pretty obvious [what rational underpinning means]. Something that is not just logically correct, but also logically sound.

So “Rational underpinning” is logical soundness. The requirements for logical soundness is logical validity (i.e. logical correctness) and true premises … which then results in a true conclusion. You had listed “rational underpinning” separate from logic when you said what Reason rested on, even though “rational underpinning” essentially falls under logic. But you probably meant simply that reason rested on true concepts/judgments and logical validity. In fact, yes, that’s what you were pretty much saying. And, furthermore, you said that we (at least sometimes) are logical, but the propositions in our syllogisms do not match reality. Right? Just confirming we’re on the same page here.

Everything. There is one God. Jesus was separate from God. To say that God and Jesus are the same makes no sense, especially when God is called the father, and Jesus is called the son. At the bare minimum it is muddying the waters.

Just to clear up the doctrine here …
The Trinity is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus is the Incarnation of the Son. Hence, Jesus and the Son are not interchangeable, since the Jesus implies both divine nature and human nature, whereas the Son, in Himself, just implies divine nature.

So, Jesus is separate from God in some sense. He is a human being with the divine nature as well … hence He is God. Nonetheless, it is true that Jesus is God, but not wholly true that God is Jesus (the terms are not convertible). I may be wrong on this, but I don’t think I am.

God is called the Father, but God is also called the Son and the Holy Spirit as well. That’s because there are three persons in one God. They are “relationally separate” but not separate in nature.

I don’t blame you if you didn’t follow and if it ranked of B.S., but what exactly is contradictory about that? I know no human understands it, but a clear contradiction has never been shown to exist. You have to get really philosophically in order to even try. Like, you have to define “personhood” and “nature” and all that (and the Church has clearly defined these things and they are in agreement with Greek, Roman, and Scholastic philosophy). So just by saying they are “separate” is a little vague. Perhaps you can show the irrationality of it in relatively simple terms, but I would be impressed.

This is not what I was alluding to. When someone is in pain, we call it “moral”, “loving” etc… if one runs to help. When someone is hungry, it is “loving” to go and feed him. God manifestly does not do any of these. To say that God “outsourced” this to us, and we should do it is “explaining away”. When there is no other person around who would be in the position to help, God still does not “will” the problem away. A human who would do similarly (outsourcing the help) would be called selfish, indifferent or worse.

A profound issue. No easy answer, but here’s a little something …

This touches a little bit on the issue discussed in your “For the life of mine … I cannot understand you!” thread, where morality is discussed.

The question that must be addressed here in order for a serious answer is … what is love? You give some good examples, but what do they have in common? Why are those actions called loving (and I’m not denying that they ARE loving)? I would say that love is seeking the good for a person … giving them what is perfects them, makes them a better person, etc. Now, there are times when deprivation of a particular good should be employed for the achievement of a greater good. Foregoing comforts in order to save money for giving to the poor could be one example. Not eating at certain times can be healthy, etc.

Now, if God exists, He knows everything, and knows particularly what we need and what we don’t need … and what we can forego for the betterment of some greater good in us. He may cause poverty for various reasons … one reason is that in can bring about humility and honesty, for example. It can make people stronger in many ways. It can sanctify and condition our desires, a spiritual exercise of the soul. And, as Christ said, the first shall be last. The poorest people shall merit more treasure in heaven than the rich. In fact, it’s generally true from people who have experienced both poverty and riches that they are actually happier when they were poor. The highest suicide rate is among the rich.

Anyway, you may accuse God of putting people to the test beyond their endurance. But, actually, if God exists, He would probably be the only one to know how much each human can really endure. God never give us more than we can bear. Time and time again, people emerge from horrendous situations stronger and more heroic than every before. But again, it’s tempting to say “It’s too hard! It’s too painful! It’s too much!” It’s tempting especially when you look at other people in dire situations. But, for all you know, you might be more miserable. Mother Theresa, living in the slums of Calcutta, with the poorest or the poor, believed that people were more miserable in America, judging by the people she met.

Anyway, that probably doesn’t help. But thought I’d mention that.

 

[Spock]

So “Rational underpinning” is logical soundness. The requirements for logical soundness is logical validity (i.e. logical correctness) and true premises … which then results in a true conclusion. You had listed “rational underpinning” separate from logic when you said what Reason rested on, even though “rational underpinning” essentially falls under logic. But you probably meant simply that reason rested on true concepts/judgments and logical validity. In fact, yes, that’s what you were pretty much saying. And, furthermore, you said that we (at least sometimes) are logical, but the propositions in our syllogisms do not match reality. Right? Just confirming we’re on the same page here.

Yes, we certainly are. It is most gratifying to have mutual understanding. Does not happen very often.

Just to clear up the doctrine here …
The Trinity is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus is the Incarnation of the Son. Hence, Jesus and the Son are not interchangeable, since the Jesus implies both divine nature and human nature, whereas the Son, in Himself, just implies divine nature.

So, Jesus is separate from God in some sense. He is a human being with the divine nature as well … hence He is God. Nonetheless, it is true that Jesus is God, but not wholly true that God is Jesus (the terms are not convertible). I may be wrong on this, but I don’t think I am.

God is called the Father, but God is also called the Son and the Holy Spirit as well. That’s because there are three persons in one God. They are “relationally separate” but not separate in nature.

I don’t blame you if you didn’t follow and if it ranked of B.S., but what exactly is contradictory about that? I know no human understands it, but a clear contradiction has never been shown to exist. You have to get really philosophically in order to even try. Like, you have to define “personhood” and “nature” and all that (and the Church has clearly defined these things and they are in agreement with Greek, Roman, and Scholastic philosophy). So just by saying they are “separate” is a little vague. Perhaps you can show the irrationality of it in relatively simple terms, but I would be impressed.

To be both one and three “entities” is a violation of the law of non-contradiction. That is all I am saying.

A profound issue. No easy answer, but here’s a little something …

This touches a little bit on the issue discussed in your “For the life of mine … I cannot understand you!” thread, where morality is discussed.

The question that must be addressed here in order for a serious answer is … what is love? You give some good examples, but what do they have in common? Why are those actions called loving (and I’m not denying that they ARE loving)? I would say that love is seeking the good for a person … giving them what is perfects them, makes them a better person, etc. Now, there are times when deprivation of a particular good should be employed for the achievement of a greater good. Foregoing comforts in order to save money for giving to the poor could be one example. Not eating at certain times can be healthy, etc.

Now, if God exists, He knows everything, and knows particularly what we need and what we don’t need … and what we can forego for the betterment of some greater good in us. He may cause poverty for various reasons … one reason is that in can bring about humility and honesty, for example. It can make people stronger in many ways. It can sanctify and condition our desires, a spiritual exercise of the soul. And, as Christ said, the first shall be last. The poorest people shall merit more treasure in heaven than the rich. In fact, it’s generally true from people who have experienced both poverty and riches that they are actually happier when they were poor. The highest suicide rate is among the rich.

Anyway, you may accuse God of putting people to the test beyond their endurance. But, actually, if God exists, He would probably be the only one to know how much each human can really endure. God never give us more than we can bear. Time and time again, people emerge from horrendous situations stronger and more heroic than every before. But again, it’s tempting to say “It’s too hard! It’s too painful! It’s too much!” It’s tempting especially when you look at other people in dire situations. But, for all you know, you might be more miserable. Mother Theresa, living in the slums of Calcutta, with the poorest or the poor, believed that people were more miserable in America, judging by the people she met.

Anyway, that probably doesn’t help. But thought I’d mention that.

You are very right, it does not help. I am not arguing that all “misfortunes” are somehow “bad”. Clearly, some actually have positive outcomes, not just “maybe”, but certainly. The best example would be a doctor causing temporary pain to heal a patient.

The problem is the universal nature of disasters, for example. People perish whether they were good or bad. It cannot be argued that they all “came off better dying in a catastrophe” - at least I have never heard an attempt to do so. Besides, what you said is the “argument from ignorance”. I just don’t see that “maybe some people are better off suffocating in a tsunami”, since even if their death would bring forth some unspecified good (which is not impossible!) the **way **of death does not add anything to this assumed good.

I would be much more inclined to accept your argument, if such inexplicable events happned once in a blue moon. If, once in a while we would encounter a misfortune for which we would be unable to see an explanation, but in the majority of the events, it would be obvious just what kind of good does come out of the misfortune. In this case the argument you just put forth would be something to ponder. But it is not the case. We literally never can discern this possible greater good. What kind of greater good can come out from the torture and rape of a poor little girl?

 

[Betterave]

At least be honest in your quotes. I said that I don’t even know what is “disordered reason” would be. I did not reject it, but asked. And you did not answer. The ball is in your court, buddy.

Honest??
You wrote:
“I seriously doubt that “reason” is “disordered” - whatever that might mean. Reason offers the one and only method that works under all circumstances - except when it comes to the “supernatural”. From that my conclusion is: “reason works fine - and therefore the supernatural is superfluous”.”

“Reason works fine” means “reason is not disordered”; it **constitutes **a rejection of the proposition “reason is disordered” - is your thinking really in such a literalistic strait-jacket that you cannot not see that? (=>disordered reason)

Aha. So it is the sign of “ordered reason” to evade the direct problems. You know… I don’t think that I am very much interested in your (name removed by moderator)ut. If you define what is “disordered reason”, and you answer those direct questions I asked, then I will reconsider.

You’re not a very careful reader are you? (Another sign of disordered reason!) You can of course ignore what you want to ignore. I guess I’ll just have to hope that others will benefit from what I write, even if I’m wasting my time with you.

I wrote:
“Shoving a whole bunch of ‘problems’ on the table at one time, instead of just addressing the current point, is the approach of someone with disordered reason, i.e., whose reason is negatively influenced by their passions, and so is distracted by them and impaired in the pursuit of truth.”

If you’re wondering, ‘i.e.’ stands for id est, ‘that is’ in Latin. Can you find the definition yet (which I gave, btw, in abbrieviated form, also with my initial use of the term)? I’ve also given you multiple examples. Your pleading justified ignorance at this point… (another case of disordered reason!)

 

[James_S_Saint]

Careful Betterave, you are dangerously close to getting excommunicated from Spock’s holy church. :tsktsk:

 

[Areopagite]

(Regarding the Trinity) To be both one and three “entities” is a violation of the law of non-contradiction. That is all I am saying.

Not sure, of course, what you mean by “entity” (I’m sorry I’m so annoying … I really am). Is “entity” the same thing as … “thing”? Because of course you would not necessarily disagree that three things can be in one thing (like, three eggs can be in one basket … not that I’m saying that’s what the Trinity is like). It’s unclear what you mean.

But in a nutshell, the doctrine goes something like this: God the Father knows Himself so perfectly that it generates another person (called God the Son), and then the love between those two persons spirates the Holy Spirit. It is said the Son is the Knowledge of God, and the Holy Spirit is the Love of God. I know it’s a mystery and all, but it can be parsed out enough to dispel accusations of logical contradiction. That’s what Thomas Aquinas said anyway (and, yes, he would say that wouldn’t he?)

So, define what you mean by entity. It’s not like we’re saying that there are three Gods in One God, or Three Persons in One Person, but … three persons in one God. The law of non-contradiction has yet to be show itself clearly. Here’s a link to Aquinas on the Trinity:

sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum033.htm

I took a class on it, and followed it to the end … but that was a long time ago. It’s quite complicated and requires a handful of familiarity with a lot of terminology. But if you’re going to make serious accusations as to its invalidity, you have to actually show that you seriously understand the argument, otherwise you have no right to be taken seriously. Just saying. I think that’s fair enough.

I am not arguing that all “misfortunes” are somehow “bad”. Clearly, some actually have positive outcomes, not just “maybe”, but certainly. The best example would be a doctor causing temporary pain to heal a patient.

The problem is the universal nature of disasters, for example. People perish whether they were good or bad. It cannot be argued that they all “came off better dying in a catastrophe” - at least I have never heard an attempt to do so.

Obviously, death doesn’t benefit any one’s earthly life. But if heaven exists, you could say death could be a benefit to them. And it can also be argued that if they are guilty enough and actually deserve damnation, then death would benefit them too (for going to hell would benefit them, as prison benefits guilty criminals … more on this later, if necessary).

Does that make sense? It’s some broad strokes, I know.

Besides, what you said is the “argument from ignorance”.

I’m not actually proving this stuff, I’m just showing how the truths of the faith don’t necessarily contradict reason. It’s impossible to prove from natural reason these things that I am saying, but they don’t actually logically go against the facts as they are given to us in human experience.

You would say, though, that all death is meaningless if these truths of faith were wrong, though, right?

I just don’t see that “maybe some people are better off suffocating in a tsunami”, since even if their death would bring forth some unspecified good (which is not impossible!)

Well, there are infinite possibilities of good things that could result in suffocating in a tsunami. But I’ll just mention a few, since I’m not very creative.

First of all, what I said above could still apply here.

Also, tsunamis could rid horrible people from society (technically, you could consider that a good thing … kind of messed up, but still)

Also, even if he wasn’t bad, his death could remind people of the fragility of life and cause them not to spend their lives fruitlessly.

Etc, etc, etc. (If you REALLY want, I could scrounge out some more answers … but I hope I don’t have to).

the **way **of death does not add anything to this assumed good.

Oh, sure it can. And, in any case, what does it matter?

Different manners of death can be more meaningful to different people (whether they be the ones dying or the ones witnessing the death).

Do you not agree?

Continued on next post…

 

[Areopagite]

I would be much more inclined to accept your argument, if such inexplicable events happened once in a blue moon. If, once in a while we would encounter a misfortune for which we would be unable to see an explanation, but in the majority of the events, it would be obvious just what kind of good does come out of the misfortune. In this case the argument you just put forth would be something to ponder. But it is not the case. We literally never can discern this possible greater good.

Understandable. But, really, where do you draw the line? Even if inexplicable events happened less frequently (once in a blue moon), we would still say “Man! Life doesn’t make any sense! Why does this ALWAYS happen!” What is the right amount exactly? It’s probably unanswerable by humans. But, God, if He exists, probably knows the right amount to bring about the greatest good, even if it doesn’t seem like it. That’s what school felt like most of the time for me … constant sense of meaninglessness and pain … but in the end, despite even the faults in my schooling, it showed itself as very purposeful and to my benefit.

What kind of greater good can come out from the torture and rape of a poor little girl?

A very sensitive one, but I will give some answer (though I am not qualified to).

One possible good that can come is that it could horrify potential rapists from becoming actual rapists. Or, it could even cause the rapists himself to realize his sin and spend the rest of his life fighting rape. I’m not very good with example here, but technically those are good effects …

This reminds me, of course, of the story of St. Maria Goretti. Although she wasn’t raped, she was stabbed multiple times by her attempted rapist, and eventually died because of it. Nonetheless, as she was dying, she prayed that the man (Alessandro was his name) be forgiven and come to repentance. Alessandro was thrown in jail and had no intent on repenting. But eventually, after a vision, he repented completely, and after he was released (serving 30 years, because he had only been a minor) he begged forgiveness from the parents … and they forgave him! They actually became friends! And Alessandro and the family attended Maria’s canonization ceremony (where the Pope proclaims someone a saint). Crazy stuff. So, there’s an example of something good resulting from something really bad. And maybe that stuff goes on more than we think, in more invisible way … I’m just saying it’s possible.

What would be worse than the idea that the torture and rape of a poor little girl has some salvageable good effects, would be the idea that it has no good effects whatsoever … that it happened for no reason, and that the girl will never be able to make sense of it, because nothing makes sense. Not that that’s an argument, I’m just protecting against the accusation that the Christian outlook on bad events is a grim one compared to the alternative.

 

[James_S_Saint]

What kind of greater good can come out from the torture and rape of a poor little girl?

It inspires the passengers of the train to make sure it can’t happen again by discovering and preventing the actual cause (hopefully with better sight than to merely judge).

 

[kk23wong]

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).

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.

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.

She cannot be seen because you are inside.
She cannot be something else.
Faiths are her concepts.

Her charity and love are being preached because she has everything you want.
She rears all of us from our birth till death.
Believe in her not because of religions, but nature of the God.

In the era of rationality, all atheists are going to be converted by the truth.
To me, truth is always one.
Science can do.

Religions and culture are the concepts of both the God and humankind.
The God is one, but religions are plural.
It is not empty, but supported by science.

The God may not be the one you know.

As a young philosopher who knows her,
She does not want to abolish religions.
Religions are heritages from our ancestor.

Beginner the God and with her end, bring us ours.
History will tell. Science will do.

Teru Wong

 

[Spock]

Not sure, of course, what you mean by “entity” (I’m sorry I’m so annoying … I really am). Is “entity” the same thing as … “thing”? Because of course you would not necessarily disagree that three things can be in one thing (like, three eggs can be in one basket … not that I’m saying that’s what the Trinity is like). It’s unclear what you mean.

The word “entity” is as neutral as they come. I want to avoid “thing”, because it has some overtones (of being inanimate), and I want to avoid “being” because it also has overtones (of being conscious). And three eggs in a basket is really not like the trinity. 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?

Obviously, death doesn’t benefit any one’s earthly life. But if heaven exists, you could say death could be a benefit to them. And it can also be argued that if they are guilty enough and actually deserve damnation, then death would benefit them too (for going to hell would benefit them, as prison benefits guilty criminals … more on this later, if necessary).

I will try to answer the “gist” of your post.

The concept that all “bad things” are undesirable is obviously false. We can always construct scenarios where “seemingly” bad things will lead to “good results”. But the problem is a bit deeper. 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”.

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?

This is but a very short analysis.

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.

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?

 

[Betterave]

So what is the pot suggesting to the potter? Better if nothing had existed, than that one innocent child should be condemned to suffer temporarily?

(On the other hand, quite right to point out that the suffering of an innocent is not ‘justified’ by anything. That should hardly be the point. God is not a utilitarian, so far as we know. Redemption (of evil-doers) is not justification (of evil). Jesus redeems sinners, he doesn’t justify sins.)

 

[Spock]

So what is the pot suggesting to the potter? Better if nothing had existed, than that one innocent child should be condemned to suffer temporarily?

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

(On the other hand, quite right to point out that the suffering of an innocent is not ‘justified’ by anything. That should hardly be the point. God is not a utilitarian, so far as we know. Redemption (of evil-doers) is not justification (of evil). Jesus redeems sinners, he doesn’t justify sins.)

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.