If I can find an answer to these questions, I will turn back to religion

[LilyM]

Right. Please explain to me why a God whi is all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful couldn’t possibly understand, far better than you or I ever will, both the best interests of humanity and everything else that He is on about!

 

[LilyM]

You’re committing the fallacy of anthropomorphising - assuming that our poor weak partial human efforts at understanding justice, mercy and whatnot correspond to the superhuman perfection of those things as embodied in God.

 

[MonteRCMS]

1. God creates.

His gifts to us are so enormous that He places a few rules on our use of those gifts.

1. Human personality derives from free will.

We have the ability to make choices.

 

[FredBloggs]

You’re committing the fallacy of anthropomorphising - assuming that our poor weak partial human efforts at understanding justice, mercy and whatnot correspond to the superhuman perfection of those things as embodied in God.

Exactly my point. I’m asking the question: why does God allow evil when he could prevent it? And your answer is the epitome of special pleading: “Because he’s God and that’s that.”

 

[Sbee0]

No, that’s not true, but if we dig into that our posts will quickly get bloated. Happy to take that up in a separate thread.

————-Sure. I just don’t see where any of that can exist, for reasons stated below.

If I rob a bank I’m 100% a victim and not a perpetrator as my circumstances and outside factors all added up in a perfect storm to make me commit that crime. If someone saves soneone’s life why would they be praised - they are an automaton doing what fate programmed them to do

I never said it wasn’t counter-intuitive. But intuition isn’t, in my view, a good enough reason to believe in something for which we have no evidence.

————-I am absolutely 100% a victim of my circumstances if I committed a crime as I am not responsible for it, as would always be the case in a predeterministic world. Even if you argue that in a way I am responsible for it as I was merely influenced by outside agencies and I was not forced to do it, it all comes down to the fact that in a predeterministic world the inevitable outcome is that I commit the crime so the conclusion is the same. Then I guess there wouldn’t be as much of a need for lawyers. Maybe that’s not always a bad thing. Lol

So it stands to reason there can be no sin as ultimately we are not responsible for anything that offends God. Scripture says something quite different than that.

Ok, well if you hadn’t already guessed, I’m not bound by the strictures of scripture
[/quote]

———-Fair enough But it’s easy to see why free will is the basis for Christian belief.

The logical fallacy is in the popular notion that an all knowing omniscient God means we cannot have free will.

Statement: It’s a logical fact that if God knows I will put my brown shoes on today then I will put my brown shoes on today.

Fallacious Conclusion (Modal Fallacy): What God knows about what is to happen precludes free will. Therefore, I had no choice in the matter, it is a fact that I must put my brown shoes on and therefore I didn’t have the free will to say, choose a different colour.

So if God knows you’re going to put your brown shoes on today, you still might not? Or are you saying that God knows what you’re going to do before you choose to do it? How does that work? Could he (I assume you consider God a “he”) stop you making that free choice? Is he omnipotent?

Yes he is omnipotent. And yes God could stop me but he doesn’t, as we do have free will. God’s foreknowledge doesn’t override free will. I put my brown shoes on, God knew I was going to do that, it is a fact that if God knew I was going to do that then I would, but saying I had no choice on the matter and I was forced to do it because of that foreknowledge is a fallacial conclusion.

A future event can not be a logical certainty before it happens. Aristotle’s sea battle paradox is an example of why predeterminism (or fatalism) is not logically sound IMO.

Edit: Guess I can’t split up the quotes - some of the words in the grey quote box are my reply…

 

[Sbee0]

God doesn’t “allow” nor is a cause of evil to happen, it’s a product of our free will to choose evil.

If we had no free will and everything was predetermined by God, we’d see no evil happening as it would be a logical contradiction of our all loving and all powerful God.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Exactly my point. I’m asking the question: why does God allow evil when he could prevent it? And your answer is the epitome of special pleading: “Because he’s God and that’s that.”

really, you are asking about the problem of evil.

what reading have you done on it, what do you understand of sin

 

[fhansen]

God doesn’t “allow” nor is a cause of evil to happen, it’s a product of our free will to choose evil.

If we had no free will and everything was predetermined by God, we’d see no evil happening as it would be a logical contradiction of our all loving and all powerful God.

God certainly does allow evil, or else it couldn’t have its way at all in our world, but He doesn’t cause it either because, yes, that’s done by created beings with free will. The Church teaches that at the end of the day God has an ultimate purpose for allowing evil, ro bring an even greater good of some kind out of it.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

God doesn’t “allow” nor is a cause of evil to happen, it’s a product of our free will to choose evil.

If we had no free will and everything was predetermined by God, we’d see no evil happening as it would be a logical contradiction of our all loving and all powerful God.

God certainly does allow evil, or else it couldn’t have its way at all in our world, but He doesn’t cause it either because, yes, that’s done by created beings with free will. The Church teaches that at the end of the day God has an ultimate purpose for allowing evil, ro bring an even greater good of some kind out of it.

That’s right. I’d actually say it’s more that God allows us the freedom to commit good and evil acts and that explains why there’s a lot of it in the world.

 

[LilyM]

It’s special pleading - and a fallacy - if and ONLY if it’s unjustified. That is if the special case is not in fact special.

See If I trust my heart surgeon because he or she has additional knowledge that I do not have about how the heart works that’s a totally correct and justified thing to do. They are in fact special compared to me, and should be treated as such.

If I send my child to bed at 8 when I go to bed at 10 because being very young they need more sleep, again that’s justified and not wrong. The child is in fact a special case and can and should be treated so

So t’s up to you to explain why God is NOT special and therefore should be treated the same as our fellow humans.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

Who says God needs us to defend Him?

That doesn’t mean God needs us.

 

[mythbuster1]

The entire criminal justice system stands against proposition 2. The entire premise of law is that you know right from wrong, and if you do wrong, it is because you freely chose to do wrong, and are therefore deserving of punishment. That is why we do not punish those too lacking in faculties to discern right from wrong, but we do punish those with their faculties who have acted contrary to the law. So then, when the child of criminals becomes a criminal himself, it is not because of any compulsion, but because he has willfully rejected righteousness in imitation of his parents. Therefore, though his parents bear the guilt of leading him into a life of crime, he is entirely responsible for his own actions.

 

[LilyM]

Amen! Couldn’t have put it better myself.

 

[Gorgias]

The behavior of believers who tend to rush to his defense and use terms like “defend the Gospels” etc

Many people say many things. That doesn’t mean they’re right.

If I knew with certainty that if I brought a child into the world it would burn for eternity in hell, and I went ahead and freely chose to bring that child into the world, Yes, I’d be responsible for that child burning for eternity in hell.

Now we’re getting to one of my favorite discussions about omnipotence: the notion of ‘middle knowledge’. To state the objection briefly: if God’s omnipotence doesn’t entail Him knowing counterfactuals, then God does not know the eternal destiny of a created human until it’s true that the human will be created. Therefore, it is not the case that God “brings humans into the world knowing that they will burn for eternity in hell.” And, therefore, without harm to the notion of His omniscence, he is not – by your definition - “responsible for that child burning for eternity in hell.”

Claiming that my having a child is the same as God creating all of humanity knowing everything that would happen are in any way synonymous is bizarre.

It’s really not, if you take the time to think through the question carefully.

Yes, I want a partner who chooses to be with me. I thought we already decided that God doesn’t need anything and is complete unto himself

Wanting a partner who chooses you does not imply that you need him. Just that you desire a partner who meets certain conditions. It’s pretty sloppy logic to presume that the former implies the latter.

I would like to be freely chosen, but I don’t go out and have some robot partner created to satisfy my urge.

Exactly. Neither does God.

I don’t go out and meet a bunch of people then kill or harm the ones that don’t choose me.

Neither does God.

believers claim it’s proof of just how much God loves us, that he lets us freely choose him, or punishes us.

No – those who do not believe claim that believers make these claims. We don’t. To wit, we don’t claim that God “kills or harms us”.

 

[FredBloggs]

It’s special pleading - and a fallacy - if and ONLY if it’s unjustified. That is if the special case is not in fact special.

See If I trust my heart surgeon because he or she has additional knowledge that I do not have about how the heart works that’s a totally correct and justified thing to do. They are in fact special compared to me, and should be treated as such.

If I send my child to bed at 8 when I go to bed at 10 because being very young they need more sleep, again that’s justified and not wrong. The child is in fact a special case and can and should be treated so

So t’s up to you to explain why God is NOT special and therefore should be treated the same as our fellow humans.

You can query your heart surgeon afterwards and understand why certain things were done. It’s not beyond your ability to read up and find out for yourself. And you can be confident that your heart surgeon has undergone rigorous training stemming from an accumulated body of knowledge, all of which is accessible. You can hold your heart surgeon accountable for what they do. Other heart surgeons can be asked for second opinions. Your heart surgeon is not immune to challenge.

Your child can ask why they have to go to bed early and you can explain it to them (unless you’re the sort of parent who says, “Never question my decisions”). Then, as they grow up they can start to understand, using the body of knowledge we have accumulated, why kids need more sleep than adults. They can read the research. You are not immune to challenge.

None of this applies with God. God is a special case. You can’t query him. You can’t read up on why he does what he does (or doesn’t). He’s completely opaque. “God allows evil that he could prevent, because he’s God.”

Special pleading.

 

[abucs]

FreeMe, we know through logic that something existed that was not created.

Catholics say this something is God.

Our minds are forged in our reality of cause and effect. When we are talking about something outside of our reality then we are on new ground and the old rules (our way of thinking) become less reliable.

 

[abucs]

• Why would God create the entire universe for the sole purpose of having people worship him? This seems very egotistical to me, and I just can’t get my head around the fact that our only purpose in life is to worship God. This is not to say that I am not thankful for what I have (I don’t have any issues with worshipping god), it’s just that I don’t understand why God would be so needing of worship that he created our entire reality just so that he can get it. I feel like it would make a lot more sense if he created us for a purpose other than this.
• It is a scientific fact that everyone’s personalities and actions are formed by two things 1. Their biology, and 2. Their experiences (nature and nurture), however nobody is personally responsible for these things - meaning that nobody is actually responsible for their actions. Since God is responsible for both the biology of people and for the situations/experiences they have, he is therefore also responsible for their actions and every decision they make. This means that nobody is personally responsible for their ‘sins’, so how can God send people to hell when it is actually HIM who is the one who caused them to sin?

1. You have to think about what God is in Catholic Theology. God is existence itself and it is a merciful, giving, just and loving existence. To 'worship God; is to worship this existence. If you choose not to worship this then you are choosing against the reality of existence. God wants to be worshipped for your sake, not His.
2. Science deals with the material world. your question implies there is nothing outside of the material world. This is not the Catholic theological position, nor the scientific position for that matter. When it comes to the question of what forms a human then to limit yourself to only material (name removed by moderator)uts is a mistake. By asking the question of how can God condemn anyone then you are mixing up two world views (the materialist and the Catholic) and the question becomes a contradiction. Either there is a God and therefore you have to look broader than science or there is not a God and then your question of how can God judge someone does not make sense. You can’t have it both ways.

Peace.

 

[LilyM]

No. Some patients never will have the capacity to understand what their doctors say and do. In such cases they usually can, and should, trust to the doctors skill and knowledge. Or at least get a second opinion only from another equally skilled and knowledgeable doctor.

And the point of God is that He is the pinnacle and perfection- not to mention the arbiter and source - of morality. If He weren’t He wouldn’t be God. And if there were others equally skilled or knowledgable and so fit to give a second opinion, He wouldn’t be the only and we would worship those others alongside Him.

 

[FredBloggs]

The entire criminal justice system stands against proposition 2. The entire premise of law is that you know right from wrong, and if you do wrong, it is because you freely chose to do wrong, and are therefore deserving of punishment.

Exactly - and that’s where the problem lies. Our justice systems assume free will.

The problem is that there is no evidence that free will exists. Given the tendency towards retributive justice (and its correlation with recidivism), our justice systems are in all probability far less effective and far less “just” than they could be.

If we were to assume free will didn’t exist, how would we change our justice system?

 

[FredBloggs]

No. Some patients never will have the capacity to understand what their doctors say and do. In such cases they usually can, and should, trust to the doctors skill and knowledge. Or at least get a second opinion only from another equally skilled and knowledgeable doctor.

Some might not, but plenty do. Plenty of patients must be heart surgeons themselves.

And the point of God is that He is the pinnacle and perfection- not to mention the arbiter and source - of morality. If He weren’t He wouldn’t be God. And if there were others equally skilled or knowledgable and so fit to give a second opinion, He wouldn’t be the only and we would worship those others alongside Him.

Exactly. “God is special, he’s above second opinions, he’s perfect. And that’s that.”

That is special pleading! (And a healthy dose of begging the question into the bargain.)

You can’t refute special pleading by more special pleading.