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

[LilyM]

You still have failed to show why we are unjustified in considering God to be a special case, which is what you are required to do.

You’re starting by assuming that the moral codes that apply to humans are the sum total of morality. That what humans consider to be good is the sum total of all goodness. That there couldn’t possibly be a higher or different good than that which is comprehensible to us. This is simply unsustainable.

We don’t hold animals to the same behavioural standards as humans because we understand that they are different order of being to us. So is God and the burden is on you to prove otherwise and to make.the case as to why God should be judged by the same standards as man. This you have singularly failed to to.

 

[Lee1]

I have read many peoples accounts of how God thinks, why He does certain things etc over the years. I watched a video of a Franciscan friar explaining how we never really know why someone has done something unless we ask them, anything we think about their motives are therefore assumptions. I do not assume I know why God has done anything or not done something, how can anyone know the mind of God. Is it not written in Isiah that “my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways.”

Until I am told differently I will assume I am responsible for my own actions since I can make assumptions as to why I commit them. Why would Jesus have told us to seek salvation if we had no choice in the matter.

As for organised religion, I think it’s better than people being simply left with superstition and folklore and their own imaginings which, let’s face it, can be extremely erroneous. I like the Catholic faith because it’s genuine and actually very spiritual in my opinion.

 

[FredBloggs]

You still have failed to show why we are unjustified in considering God to be a special case, which is what you are required to do.

LOL, you think it’s my burden to show why a God I don’t think exists, isn’t special??

You’re starting by assuming that the moral codes that apply to humans are the sum total of morality. That what humans consider to be good is the sum total of all goodness. That there couldn’t possibly be a higher or different good than that which is comprehensible to us. This is simply unsustainable.

I don’t make any such assumptions. You are clearly assuming that there is a higher good, because your whole position rests on that assumption.

We don’t hold animals to the same behavioural standards as humans because we understand that they are different order of being to us. So is God and the burden is on you to prove otherwise and to make.the case as to why God should be judged by the same standards as man. This you have singularly failed to to.

You claim that there is a God, and that he’s perfect.

I merely ask why, if he’s all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good, doesn’t he prevent evil?

Your reply is, “Because he’s special.” But then you claim that isn’t special pleading. The mind boggles. I think we’re done here.

 

[abucs]

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

You would have to define what justice is without the concept of free will.

Also, why would anyone respect your definition of justice since you obviously didn’t come up with it rationally but it is simply the product of biological reactions to your environment.

Others biological reactions to their environment would have a different definition of justice.

In short there would not be a justice system, or if there was it would likely be enforced on the weak by the strong and be incredibly authoritarian and brutal.

The problem is that there is no evidence that free will exists.

I would disagree with this statement.

 

[Lee1]

Why does God allow evil deserves it’s own post I think. I too have asked myself this question and because I asked myself a question that should be directed to God I had no answer.
All I can say is that I believe that God is omnipotent and ubiquitous, and evil is produced by negative energy in a sea of energy which also contains positive energy, that produces a dynamism of the total psychic energy which permeates all things.
Good is a human label, as is evil. These terms cover a multitude of things.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Read Psalm 116

Psalm 116​

1 I love the Lord, for he heard my voice;
he heard my cry for mercy.

2 Because he turned his ear to me,
I will call on him as long as I live.

3 The cords of death entangled me,
the anguish of the grave came over me;
I was overcome by distress and sorrow.

4 Then I called on the name of the Lord:
“Lord, save me!”

5 The Lord is gracious and righteous;
our God is full of compassion.

6 The Lord protects the simple;
when I was brought low, he saved me.

7 Return to your rest, my soul,
for the Lord has been good to you.

8 For you, Lord, have delivered me from death,
my eyes from tears,
my feet from stumbling,

9 that I may walk before the Lord
in the land of the living.

10 I trusted in the Lord when I said,
“I am greatly afflicted”;

11 in my alarm I said,
“Everyone is a liar.”

12 What shall I return to the Lord
for all his goodness to me?

13 I will lift up the cup of salvation
and call on the name of the Lord.

14 I will fulfill my vows to the Lord
in the presence of all his people.

15 Precious in the sight of the Lord
is the death of his faithful servants.

16 Truly I am your servant, Lord;
I serve you just as my mother did;
you have freed me from my chains.

17 I will sacrifice a thank offering to you
and call on the name of the Lord.

18 I will fulfill my vows to the Lord
in the presence of all his people,

19 in the courts of the house of the Lord—
in your midst, Jerusalem.

Praise the Lord.[a]

 

[Gorgias]

If you’re not going to base your beliefs on what can be tested empirically, then in all probability, no harm done. That doesn’t make the belief correct, or substantive.

Some things, by their very nature, are incapable of being tested empirically. Why, then, is an empirical test (or, as in this case, the lack of one) the standard of proof?

And those perceptions are not reliable, as we have seen proven hundreds of times.

So, I guess the perception of running into a tree isn’t reliable either, then? So, your standard of proof isn’t reliable, either!

 

[Gorgias]

I believe God felt lonely. Thus, He created the entire universe from His own radiant.

Well, good on you. But, that’s not what Christianity teaches.

So, you’re welcome to your own personal opinion, but…

your answer is the epitome of special pleading

I love it when the appeal to the ‘special pleading fallacy’ is made! Just for giggles, let’s review what that fallacy is and is not:

• It is not a claim that all appeals to exceptions are fallacious
• It is not a claim that all appeals to exceptions are ‘special pleading’
• It is the claim that, when one asserts an exception in a case that isn’t exceptional, then that assertion is fallacious

I’m not sure that there’s any case that is more exceptional (and by that, I mean “this single case is different than any other”) than the case of God. Truly, He is a singleton – He’s a one-off case; no other is like Him!

So, when a believer says “this doesn’t apply to God”, then that’s not “special pleading” (as much as you might like to think it is). Rather, it’s the epitome of non-fallacious reasoning!

None of this applies with God. God is a special case.

You realize you’ve just defeated the claim of “special pleading” right there, don’t you? (Either that, or you don’t really understand what “special pleading” means… )

I merely ask why, if he’s all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good, doesn’t he prevent evil?

Your reply is, “Because he’s special.” But then you claim that isn’t special pleading. The mind boggles. I think we’re done here.

It isn’t special pleading. I would recommend that you read up on what “special pleading” really means. Then we’ll be done here.

 

[Calliope]

I’ve just finished reading “Incognito” for a second time. Also a book about the psychology of cons. Rather apt for this discussion.

 

[mythbuster1]

In the absence of free will, right and wrong do not exist. Things simply are what they are, and there is no “should.” The very fact that you concede it is possible to change the justice system proves you believe free will exists.

 

[FredBloggs]

FredBloggs:

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

You would have to define what justice is without the concept of free will.

As far as I’m aware, the human race hasn’t charged me with defining justice assuming the existence of free will. Why does it fall to me to define it in the absence of free will?

Also, why would anyone respect your definition of justice since you obviously didn’t come up with it rationally but it is simply the product of biological reactions to your environment.

That’s either a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of what I’ve said. You’ve thrown the baby out with the bathwater and assumed that an absence of free will means an absence of rational thought, and all actions being random. Which is nonsense.

Others biological reactions to their environment would have a different definition of justice.

In short there would not be a justice system, or if there was it would likely be enforced on the weak by the strong and be incredibly authoritarian and brutal.

How do you figure that?

The problem is that there is no evidence that free will exists.

I would disagree with this statement.

Ok. What would you submit as evidence?

 

[FredBloggs]

FredBloggs:

your answer is the epitome of special pleading

I love it when the appeal to the ‘special pleading fallacy’ is made! Just for giggles, let’s review what that fallacy is and is not:

• It is not a claim that all appeals to exceptions are fallacious
• It is not a claim that all appeals to exceptions are ‘special pleading’
• It is the claim that, when one asserts an exception in a case that isn’t exceptional, then that assertion is fallacious

It’s the claim that a certain set of rules don’t apply to a certain individual, without providing any justification for that exception.

I’m not sure that there’s any case that is more exceptional (and by that, I mean “this single case is different than any other”) than the case of God. Truly, He is a singleton – He’s a one-off case; no other is like Him!

And that’s the problem. You’re asserting this, not demonstrating it. You can’t even show it’s a “him!”

So, when a believer says “this doesn’t apply to God”, then that’s not “special pleading” (as much as you might like to think it is). Rather, it’s the epitome of non-fallacious reasoning!

None of this applies with God. God is a special case.

You realize you’ve just defeated the claim of “special pleading” right there, don’t you? (Either that, or you don’t really understand what “special pleading” means… )

I seem to be the only person here who does. When I say “God is a special case,” I don’t mean that I think so. I mean that’s been the argument from LilyM. “God is special, he just is.” It’s a vacuous argument.

If God exists, and if “he” is all the things that Christians say he is, that still doesn’t make him immune from questioning why he does bad things to people you claim he loves.

I merely ask why, if he’s all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good, doesn’t he prevent evil?

Your reply is, “Because he’s special.” But then you claim that isn’t special pleading. The mind boggles. I think we’re done here.

It isn’t special pleading. I would recommend that you read up on what “special pleading” really means. Then we’ll be done here.

Ok, well if you’re just going to argue that special pleading doesn’t mean special pleading, then there’s no conversation left to be had. But I’ll humour you. I’ve checked the top five results from Google for the term “special pleading” and they all confirm my understanding - that one is arbitrarily excluded from being judged by the same criteria as everybody else, but with no justification. Please point me at the definition that you use.

To be clear, you can’t immunise God from special pleading just because you assert that “he” is perfect or some such. That would be… you guessed it… special pleading!

 

[FredBloggs]

In the absence of free will, right and wrong do not exist.

That only applies if you believe “absence of free will” is the same as “random thoughts and actions.” Which I hope you do not.

Things simply are what they are, and there is no “should.” The very fact that you concede it is possible to change the justice system proves you believe free will exists.

It does nothing of the sort! It proves I am able to think, and to weigh up options and what they might mean. Don’t conflate “free will” with “ability to think rationally.”

 

[FredBloggs]

FredBloggs:

If you’re not going to base your beliefs on what can be tested empirically, then in all probability, no harm done. That doesn’t make the belief correct, or substantive.

Some things, by their very nature, are incapable of being tested empirically. Why, then, is an empirical test (or, as in this case, the lack of one) the standard of proof?

Well, because empirical testing (done properly) produces the same result for everyone, regardless of aspiration. A subjective test will usually yield the results one hopes to see. Everything we’ve ever learned about the universe has been as a result of empirical testing.

And those perceptions are not reliable, as we have seen proven hundreds of times.

So, I guess the perception of running into a tree isn’t reliable either, then? So, your standard of proof isn’t reliable, either!

Well if you’re going to deliberately misrepresent what I’m saying, then there’s not much point in continuing. It seems there are very few people on this forum who are interested in actually discussing stuff. It’s mainly cheap attempts to score points.

Still, you guys can’t help yourselves - you have no free will

 

[SeriousQuestion]

In the absence of free will, right and wrong do not exist.

What’s the alternative?

 

[Sbee0]

In the absence of free will, right and wrong do not exist. Things simply are what they are, and there is no “should.” The very fact that you concede it is possible to change the justice system proves you believe free will exists.

Youre right, they do not exist. As I said, without free will, I am completely a victim of my circumstances or environment and not a perpetrator of any crime I might commit nor any “hero” for anything I might do to benefit others. I do not and cannot possibly take any responsibility for it, as it was an inevitable outcome.

Kind of telling I think that no defending lawyer I know of has attempted to argue this in court and won

As a believer, the existence of free will is indisputably the reason why there is evil in the world, as the lack of such free will would be a logical contradiction to the existence of an all-good Almighty God.

 

[Sbee0]

Statement A: If God knows I will put my brown shoes on then I will put my brown shoes on.

Statement B: If God knows I will put my brown shoes on then it is necessarily true that I must put my brown shoes on i.e. I was forced to do so.

Statement A is logically true, statement B is false due to logical fallacy.

Not hard to see where the argument against God’s omniscience with respect to free will falls down.

 

[FredBloggs]

FredBloggs:

In the absence of free will, right and wrong do not exist.

What’s the alternative?

Well, determinism isn’t the same thing as “random.”

 

[FredBloggs]

mythbuster1:

In the absence of free will, right and wrong do not exist. Things simply are what they are, and there is no “should.” The very fact that you concede it is possible to change the justice system proves you believe free will exists.

Youre right, they do not exist. As I said, without free will, I am completely a victim of my circumstances or environment and not a perpetrator of any crime I might commit nor any “hero” for anything I might do to benefit others. I do not and cannot possibly take any responsibility for it, as it was an inevitable outcome.

Kind of telling I think that no defending lawyer I know of has attempted to argue this in court and won

Are you really saying that free will must exist because the justice system depends on it? That’s like saying Unicorns must exist because I’m planning to ride one to work in the morning.

As a believer, the existence of free will is indisputably the reason why there is evil in the world, as the lack of such free will would be a logical contradiction to the existence of an all-good Almighty God.

I think that says it all. The only way you can justify your belief in a God that allows evil to occur, is to believe that free will is real. You’re making a necessity of something, which prevents you from considering rationally whether that thing is actually real.

But even the existence of free will doesn’t give God a get-out. If free will exists, my son has free will. But if I believed he was about to gun down an innocent person, I would do everything I could to stop him. “Free will” doesn’t mean everybody can just do whatever they want and nobody else has a moral obligation to intervene.

So if that moral obligation applies to us, why not to God? A hint: “because he’s God” would be a fallacious answer.

 

[Gorgias]

It’s the claim that a certain set of rules don’t apply to a certain individual, without providing any justification for that exception.

So, the explanation “he’s God, for crying out loud – He’s literally completely different than humans!” doesn’t sound like a justification to you?

You can’t even show it’s a “him!”

As in a “physical male”? No. He’s not a physical male – in fact, he’s not physical! But, God’s self-references in the BIble (and Jesus’ references to Him in the NT) identify Him with a male pronoun. That’s the ‘demonstration’ you’re looking for.

It’s a vacuous argument.

It really isn’t. We’re making the claim that God is fundamentally different than any human, and therefore, it would be absurd to expect that the exact standards that apply to us, also apply to Him in the same way.

why he does bad things to people you claim he loves

He doesn’t do them.

Please point me at the definition that you use.

That’s the definition, all right! So, the sticking point appears to be the definition of ‘justification’.

To be clear, you can’t immunise God from special pleading just because you assert that “he” is perfect or some such.

To be clear: the notion of ‘special pleading’ doesn’t require an empirical test for the justification, just the justification itself. With the justification present, it is – by the very definition! – not special pleading!