Morally justifiable pain, suffering and torture

[ateista]

Your “solution” is based on faulty assumptions, which we have pointed out numerous times.

Which assumptions are faulty? And why? Please make a short summary of them and the reason why they are faulty? I am very much aware that I can be seriously mistaken, and willing to admit it, if a logical and valid reasoning is presented. But so far I only saw invalid arguments, like “animals do not suffer”, and “it does not matter what happens to animals”, or “animals are for our use, and their pain is acceptable”…

You call God both non-existent and if not non-existent necessarily evil in His injustice and lack of mercy. You do this with a faulty definition of God, of evil, of “necessity”, of mercy, of justice, of a proper subject OF mercy and justice, and of the accuracy of your observations of various phenomena.

Well, let’s define “justice”. Justice is a concept, which describes the balance between an act and its repercussions. We speak of “justice being served”, if someone is not punished (or rewarded) disproportionately compared to his deed. In a sense it is a mathematical equation. Small “crime”, small punishment, big crime, big punishment, no crime, no punishment. Do you agree? If not, why not? Don’t forget that Justitia is depicted with her eyes blindfolded - which means that an offense against an animal is the same as the same offense against a human, or even toward God (if exists).

Now let’s define “mercy”. We speak of mercy, when some “bad deed” is NOT punished proprtionately, rather the punishment is too light or less than the deed deserves.

As such, “justice” and “mercy” are mutually contradictory. In any one instance one cannot be both “just” and “merciful” in conjuction with a deed. Can be either “just” or “merciful” but not both.

Therefore the definition of God being both just and merciful is nonsensical, like an object being both heavy and light at the same time for the same person.

Love is an emotion, which should be exrpressed in actions. To say that a father “loves” his child while neglects him is hypocrisy and should be treated as such.

It is absolutely required that “love”, “justice”, “mercy”, etc. be defined independently of God. To say that “God is love” or "God is “justice” etc. is just a set of meaningless propositions. Whether they can be justly applied to God is the actual point of the debate. (Of course it would help if God’s existence could be proven…)

So, what do you say? Are you willing to be reciprocal?

As I said, I am always willing to listen politely and accept if and when I am proven wrong…

I am also willing to reciprocate. If one defines justice as “whatever God does”, if one defines necessary pain as “whatever God allows to happen”, If one defines good as “whatever God does or allows to happen”, then indeed the “reasoning” is without logical contradiction.

The only problem is that these “definitions” are simply nonsensical, ludicrous and unacceptable. Not only for atheists, but also for theologians and philosophers.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
You call God both non-existent and if not non-existent necessarily evil in His injustice and lack of mercy. You do this with a faulty definition of God, of evil, of “necessity”, of mercy, of justice, of a proper subject OF mercy and justice, and of the accuracy of your observations of various phenomena.

Well, let’s define “justice”. Justice is a concept, which describes the balance between an act and its repercussions. We speak of “justice being served”, if someone is not punished (or rewarded) disproportionately compared to his deed. In a sense it is a mathematical equation. Small “crime”, small punishment, big crime, big punishment, no crime, no punishment. Do you agree? If not, why not?

Justice is the act which renders to each what belongs to them.

We, as either individuals or as some subset of mankind during some length of time, don’t necessarily see the justice due to whatever (person or non-person) is due their justice.

Since you will not accept, for understandable reasons, that God always dispenses full and complete justice in every case because He’s the only one with the required perspective and the required power (omnipotence) to do so, because you can’t understand how any being could possibly be more “omnipotent and omniscient” than you are, because that wouldn’t be “fair”, I understand your position perfectly and agree that you are right in your conclusions based on your faulty premises.

Don’t forget that Justitia is depicted with her eyes blindfolded - which means that an offense against an animal is the same as the same offense against a human, or even toward God (if exists).

What does Justitia have to do with God?

You equate animals with persons as regards justice (and mercy most likely). This is a fundamental error due to your lack of understanding of natural law and divine revelation, aka truth.

Now let’s define “mercy”. We speak of mercy, when some “bad deed” is NOT punished proprtionately, rather the punishment is too light or less than the deed deserves.

As such, “justice” and “mercy” are mutually contradictory. In any one instance one cannot be both “just” and “merciful” in conjuction with a deed. Can be either “just” or “merciful” but not both.

Mercy is the act of alleviating another’s misfortune.

It is possible both alleviate another’s misfortune and render to them what belongs to them. A good example of this is when a teacher eventually explains the benefits of the “torture” of having to work through a lesson, making the student feel better.

Therefore the definition of God being both just and merciful is nonsensical, like an object being both heavy and light at the same time for the same person.

A car is both heavy to a child and light to the cargo-ship which carried it to the child’s country.

Since you consider YOUR perspective to be the only valid one, it’s quite obvious how you can see God being neither just nor merciful, as you get to pick and choose what you will see in any “justice” or “mercy” involved situation.

You CHOOSE to see things specifically so that you can rail at God for being evil (unjust and not merciful), for reasons other than your so-called logic.

Love is an emotion, which should be exrpressed in actions. To say that a father “loves” his child while neglects him is hypocrisy and should be treated as such.

Does a father love his child if he “tortures” his child by making him do his lessons for the child’s own good?

Once again, YOU always choose a perspective which demands that you call God evil because you really really really want to call God evil. Since you DO in fact need to believe in “some” sort of God, you use your abililty (custom constructed by you) to call what you think WE think God is an “evil God” to claim YOUR version of God (the deist/pantheistic god as non-interfering watchmaker) is the REAL God, and drive away your “evil-father demons” into never molesting you again.

It is absolutely required that “love”, “justice”, “mercy”, etc. be defined independently of God. To say that “God is love” or "God is “justice” etc. is just a set of meaningless propositions.

God is love because God acts only with love.
God is all-just because He can’t perform unjust acts.
God is all-merciful because He will always offer his utmost mercy for our taking.

Does that help in making more sense of those propositions?

Whether they can be justly applied to God is the actual point of the debate. (Of course it would help if God’s existence could be proven…)

You can’t apply them to God because you are commited to finding God unjust, unloving, and unmerciful.

We are commited to applying them in perfect form to God, because we actually understand who God is.

You rail at a hallucination which you think we call God, while we wonder what the heck you’re railing at, because you’re pointing over there and ranting about “that thing” while we’re worshipping God over here.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
So, what do you say? Are you willing to be reciprocal?

As I said, I am always willing to listen politely and accept if and when I am proven wrong…

But you’re NOT wrong! Your conclusions are quite correct, based on your premises. We can’t convince you that your premises are wrong, of course, because that is your religion, your set of axiomatic beliefs which you faithfully hold to, and we’re only interested in showing you the results OF your axiomatic beliefs and NOT in changing them.

We CAN’T change another’s axiomatic beliefs! That change MUST come from the holder of those beliefs.

I am also willing to reciprocate. If one defines justice as “whatever God does”, if one defines necessary pain as “whatever God allows to happen”, If one defines good as “whatever God does or allows to happen”, then indeed the “reasoning” is without logical contradiction.

Thank you.

The only problem is that these “definitions” are simply nonsensical, ludicrous and unacceptable. Not only for atheists, but also for theologians and philosophers.

Once again, because you don’t understand what “God” means those ARE unacceptably nonsensical and ludicrious definitions!

To apply your definitions of justice, necessary suffering, love, mercy, etc, to God requires that one have the perception of an omnipotent (omniscient) being, which only God (by definition known through knowledge of natural law and confirmed by divine revelation) has, which no one is but God Himself.

You see what you think is injustice without seeing enough to justly draw that conclusion. Why then do you do it? Because you NEED to rail against God because God has been “unjust” to you.

You claim conclusions you must admit you can’t claim ARE conclusions! You know you don’t have enough information to make the claims you do and yet claim you do have enough information to make them!

That is called self-contradiction, and lying if done consciously.

I prefer to think you are just a typical so-called atheistic unconscious liar, and too wrapped up in your middle-school philosophizing to notice your self-contradiction and spouting of untruth (lying).

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Once again, because you don’t understand what “God” means those ARE unacceptably nonsensical and ludicrious definitions!

If one defines justice as “whatever God does”, if one defines necessary pain as “whatever God allows to happen”, If one defines good as “whatever God does or allows to happen”, then indeed the “reasoning” is without logical contradiction.

Those are nonsensical and ludicrous definitions whether or not the definer understands what is meant by “God”. To determine an attribute of God it is necessary to have an independent understanding and definition of what the attribute means, under pain of rendering the description meaningless. Otherwise I could define a new attribute of God, called yorqif. God is yorqif, in fact perfectly yorqif. What is yorqif? Yorqif is what God is. Taking this approach renders other attributes, such as justice, mercy, etc., just as meaningless. Of course we have such independent understandings of these concepts, which exist prior to their applicability or non-applicability to God, and so you can’t dodge the question by merely attempting to define it away.

To apply your definitions of justice, necessary suffering, love, mercy, etc, to God requires that one have the perception of an omnipotent (omniscient) being, which only God (by definition known through knowledge of natural law and confirmed by divine revelation) has, which no one is but God Himself.

If that is the case then this is true for any definition of justice, love, mercy, etc., which again render any description of God as “just” or “merciful” as meaningless. But if you have a well-defined concept, then we can see whether it applies to God or not. Surely you should be happy to demonstrate that it does. Your chest-pounding and attempts to dodge the question indicate that perhaps you, yourself, are not quite so sure as you make out.

 

[OTavern]

You don’t differentiate between awareness and self-awareness. Animals are most definitely aware of their surrondings (as their behavior attests) and the condition of their bodies. According to experiments the higher apes and some other animals even exhibit a rudimentary self-awareness. (Apes actually were taught sign language and they asked for food when they were hungry.)

They are most certainly aware of the condition of their bodies. When rats were allowed to press down of two levers, one of which stimulated the pleasure center of their brain and the other one stimulated the pain center, they only induced pain once, while kept on pressing the pleasure inducing one until they literally collapsed from exhaustion.

Such behavior indicated that they were aware (anticipating) of the difference. True, not all animals are as advanced as rats and not all species were exposed to such experiments. The result was always the same: animals learned very fast to induce pleasure to themselves, and avoid inducing pain.

That proves conclusively that they are aware of the pleasure and pain (without conceptualizing it).

Actually, this does not conclusively prove “awareness” in the sense of self-awareness or consciousness. Chess playing computers can respond to a variety of complex moves on the part of an opponent in ways that appear to be anticipating your moves and hence seem to be “aware” of your play. They can even defeat human chess masters because of programming, but certainly you are not acknowledging that these computers have consciousness – are you?

In fact, if you did not know Deep Blue was programmed, you might falsely attribute consciousness to it as well, for example, if a clever taxidermist and robot creator gave it a fur covering, then proceeded to challenge you to a game of chess where it soundly drubbed you.

It is interesting how you relax the criteria for proof when it suits you.

Animals have very complex neurological programming, in fact, much more complex programming than computers. This, in fact, allows them to respond to scenarios in such a way that they appear to be anticipating what is going on around them, but they may in fact merely be responding in programmed ways. It only appears to the experimenter that rats seem aware because the scientist has not allowed for the neurological sequences in the rat’s brain.

Keep in mind honeybees have an extraordinary capacity to communicate a wide range of variables through dance behaviour. This, too, may appear to be anticipating changes in the situation, but in reality are merely neurologically programmed to allow for a wide range of variables. Ditto with the other animals you brought up.

 

[OTavern]

Those are nonsensical and ludicrous definitions whether or not the definer understands what is meant by “God”. To determine an attribute of God it is necessary to have an independent understanding and definition of what the attribute means, under pain of rendering the description meaningless. Otherwise I could define a new attribute of God, called yorqif. God is yorqif, in fact perfectly yorqif. What is yorqif? Yorqif is what God is. Taking this approach renders other attributes, such as justice, mercy, etc., just as meaningless. Of course we have such independent understandings of these concepts, which exist prior to their applicability or non-applicability to God, and so you can’t dodge the question by merely attempting to define it away.

If that is the case then this is true for any definition of justice, love, mercy, etc., which again render any description of God as “just” or “merciful” as meaningless. But if you have a well-defined concept, then we can see whether it applies to God or not. Surely you should be happy to demonstrate that it does. Your chest-pounding and attempts to dodge the question indicate that perhaps you, yourself, are not quite so sure as you make out.

In general, I agree with you on this point, but you may be missing a more critical element. Let’s assume that what you are saying is that concepts like “justice” or “truth,” etc. are meaningful because they conform to reality, the ultimate ground of meaning, i.e., “the way it is,” so to speak. Concepts have an “objective” ground by which we can verify them and their truth value. This is true.

However, what if God is precisely that “objective ground?” What if God and ultimate reality are one and the same, but we have not recognized their identity simply because we do not understand reality completely or God completely?

It may be a false dichotomy to set up “truth” on one hand and “God” on the other, then try to measure one in contrast to the other; when in fact they are identical.

 

[OTavern]

I disagree with this. In my example I used a very simple scenario. Animals are exposed to pain (leading to death) which they do not “deserve”. They do not benefit from this exposure. To allow such incident we call “indifference” in humans. One may even call this behavior “cruel” and “evil”.

You “believe” animals are conscious of pain. You also “believe” they do not benefit from this exposure. These are the reasons you “believe” God is cruel and evil.

On the other hand, you cannot “know” animals are conscious of pain until you could get “inside their heads” so to speak. You also cannot know the possible benefits if they are conscious unless and until you do get “inside their heads.” Good luck with that.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

In general, I agree with you on this point, but you may be missing a more critical element. Let’s assume that what you are saying is that concepts like “justice” or “truth,” etc. are meaningful because they conform to reality, the ultimate ground of meaning, i.e., “the way it is,” so to speak. Concepts have an “objective” ground by which we can verify them and their truth value. This is true.

However, what if God is precisely that “objective ground?” What if God and ultimate reality are one and the same, but we have not recognized their identity simply because we do not understand reality completely or God completely?

It may be a false dichotomy to set up “truth” on one hand and “God” on the other, then try to measure one in contrast to the other; when in fact they are identical.

If this is the case then our human perceptions of justice, mercy, love, and so on, are rooted in the “objective ground” which is God, and therefore they are true. God must therefore conform to our human perceptions of these things under pain of contradiction.

What I object to is the intellectually dishonest approach of using human perceptions of the realities of justice, mercy, love, etc. (“grounded in the reality of God”) as means to lead one to appreciate the reality of God as all-just, all-merciful, all-loving and then when an objection is raised about whether God actually conforms to these concepts to chest-pound with “Well, how dare you measure God by your mere human conceptions!”. If our human conceptions of these things are not applicable to God then defining God in these terms is meaningless for us.

 

[Telemachus]

When contemplating the problem of “evil” it is frequently brought up that not all pain, suffering and torture (let’s call them collectively PS&T) is morally impermissible, there are instances when they can be morally justified. This is a correct observation. However, it is usually left at that, and it is not examined in detail. Let’s do that.

blah, blah, blah…

Summary: the PS&T of animals is morally / ethically indefensible. Their pain, suffering and torture is unnecessary. As such, God does allow unnecessary pain and suffering.

My conclusion is obvious. What is yours?

ateista,

Your ignorance of the Catholic Faith makes an issue out of something that is not an issue for us. You are not a believer in God as conceived by Christians because it does not conform to your idea of what God should be. Since we don’t believe in your god, you have only disproved the existence of it, and such a feat is of no consequence to us.

Short and simple: Catholic theology teaches that God allows evil to occur in the world. If you’d like to read about why this is, I suggest you do some research instead of lulling yourself into a haughty triumphalism on CAF. The Cathechism, the Bible, and the works of the Doctors of the Church would not be bad places to start.

Aside: seriously people, stop arguing with this guy. Shut him down and move on.

God Bless,
Telemachus

 

[ateista]

Those are nonsensical and ludicrous definitions whether or not the definer understands what is meant by “God”. To determine an attribute of God it is necessary to have an independent understanding and definition of what the attribute means, under pain of rendering the description meaningless. Otherwise I could define a new attribute of God, called yorqif. God is yorqif, in fact perfectly yorqif. What is yorqif? Yorqif is what God is. Taking this approach renders other attributes, such as justice, mercy, etc., just as meaningless. Of course we have such independent understandings of these concepts, which exist prior to their applicability or non-applicability to God, and so you can’t dodge the question by merely attempting to define it away.

If that is the case then this is true for any definition of justice, love, mercy, etc., which again render any description of God as “just” or “merciful” as meaningless. But if you have a well-defined concept, then we can see whether it applies to God or not. Surely you should be happy to demonstrate that it does. Your chest-pounding and attempts to dodge the question indicate that perhaps you, yourself, are not quite so sure as you make out.

Thank you very much for the clearly written and conscise points.

I have seen your new thread about the “problem of evil”, where you indicated that you will continue. I do not want to interrupt the flow of your thoughts, so I will answer them when you are finished.

 

[ateista]

Actually, this does not conclusively prove “awareness” in the sense of self-awareness or consciousness. Chess playing computers can respond to a variety of complex moves on the part of an opponent in ways that appear to be anticipating your moves and hence seem to be “aware” of your play. They can even defeat human chess masters because of programming, but certainly you are not acknowledging that these computers have consciousness – are you?

In fact, if you did not know Deep Blue was programmed, you might falsely attribute consciousness to it as well, for example, if a clever taxidermist and robot creator gave it a fur covering, then proceeded to challenge you to a game of chess where it soundly drubbed you.

It is interesting how you relax the criteria for proof when it suits you.

Animals have very complex neurological programming, in fact, much more complex programming than computers. This, in fact, allows them to respond to scenarios in such a way that they appear to be anticipating what is going on around them, but they may in fact merely be responding in programmed ways. It only appears to the experimenter that rats seem aware because the scientist has not allowed for the neurological sequences in the rat’s brain.

Keep in mind honeybees have an extraordinary capacity to communicate a wide range of variables through dance behaviour. This, too, may appear to be anticipating changes in the situation, but in reality are merely neurologically programmed to allow for a wide range of variables. Ditto with the other animals you brought up.

Very interesting points…

So you say, because we are unable (as of yet!) to fully decipher the neurological activities of the brain, we should not make a “hasty” judgment and attribute awareness to animals. They may be be just very complex neural computers, whose reaction to stimuli is simply preprogrammed.

Of course you realize that the working of the human and animal brain is extremely similar. We are certain that there is pleasure center and a pain center on both types of brains. Both have been proven by experiments.

So, let me ask: on what grounds do you know that humans have “awareness”? How do you know that our response to pain is more than a preprogrammed reaction? After all, we don’t know the precise neurological workings of our brain either.

How do you know that someone (a good actor) actually experiences pain, or just “fakes it”? You don’t know it, do you? Yet you give the benefit of the doubt, you use the duck principle: “if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck, it is a duck, and not an elephant”.

Indeed, we can not introspectively experience the pain of others, be they humans or animals. There is no gadget yet, which would “re-route” the neurological events to someone else’s brain, so they could directly experience the plasure / pain of other beings.

So what do we do? If someone behaves as if experiencing pleasure or pain. we accept that they do. Pain is not something you can take into your palm and examine it. Just like the duck principle: “if it looks like being in pain, behaves like being in pain, screams like being in pain - then it is pain”.

 

[ateista]

Short and simple: Catholic theology teaches that God allows evil to occur in the world. If you’d like to read about why this is, I suggest you do some research instead of lulling yourself into a haughty triumphalism on CAF. The Cathechism, the Bible, and the works of the Doctors of the Church would not be bad places to start.

I allowed for that when accepted the concept of necessary pain.

You are most welcome to show that gratuitous evil is allowed by God. And then show how allowing gratuitous evil is compatible with “benevolence”.

 

[ateista]

You “believe” animals are conscious of pain. You also “believe” they do not benefit from this exposure. These are the reasons you “believe” God is cruel and evil.

On the other hand, you cannot “know” animals are conscious of pain until you could get “inside their heads” so to speak. You also cannot know the possible benefits if they are conscious unless and until you do get “inside their heads.” Good luck with that.

The first objection I answered in my previous reply to you. You may or may not find it satisfactory. The second one is easy. Since in the example the animals affected die, there can be no “benefit” for them.

If you wish, you may stipulate that in their agony they are “rewarded” somehow, but then God could reprogram their neural pathways to experience the same “reward” without the burning process. It would be only a “minor” miracle…

 

[ateista]

Actually, this does not conclusively prove “awareness” in the sense of self-awareness or consciousness.

Oops. I overlooked this sentence. You did not talk about self-awareness or consciousness before. At best only the highests animals have some form of rudimentary self-consciousness.

However that is not the point: you said that it is not proven that animals have awareness of their pain. Not one word was uttered about the awareness of self. That is a whole different ballgame

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Summary: the PS&T of animals is morally / ethically indefensible. Their pain, suffering and torture is unnecessary. As such, God does allow unnecessary pain and suffering.

My conclusion is obvious. What is yours?

It’s necessary for medical research. God places higher value on human life than those of animals.

 

[OTavern]

If this is the case then our human perceptions of justice, mercy, love, and so on, are rooted in the “objective ground” which is God, and therefore they are true. God must therefore conform to our human perceptions of these things under pain of contradiction.

What if our human perceptions are incorrect? Why must God conform to our perceptions? Shouldn’t it be that our perceptions should conform to objective reality, whether we refer to that as God or not?

What I object to is the intellectually dishonest approach of using human perceptions of the realities of justice, mercy, love, etc. (“grounded in the reality of God”) as means to lead one to appreciate the reality of God as all-just, all-merciful, all-loving and then when an objection is raised about whether God actually conforms to these concepts to chest-pound with “Well, how dare you measure God by your mere human conceptions!”.

Basically, all we have are human perceptions, so even your objective “realities” of justice, mercy, etc. are mere human conceptions of these and may be in error.

If our human conceptions of these things are not applicable to God then defining God in these terms is meaningless for us.

I would argue that we ought not judge God by our human conceptions, but continually question our conceptions by “objective standards” as far as these are known, but always with the understanding that the “objective standards” may not be completely grasped by us. It is a tentative process, one that ought not be undermined by false conclusions on either side – on the side of thinking we can speak for God, but also not thinking that our own conceptions are correct paradigms either.

 

[Benadam]

I

would argue that we ought not judge God by our human conceptions, but continually question our conceptions by “objective standards” as far as these are known, but always with the understanding that the “objective standards” may not be completely grasped by us. It is a tentative process, one that ought not be undermined by false conclusions on either side – on the side of thinking we can speak for God, but also not thinking that our own conceptions are correct paradigms either.

I wanted what I said to mean that

 

[SeekingCatholic]

What if our human perceptions are incorrect?

Then they are obviously not grounded in objective reality, or God. But your previous post presupposed that they were.

Why must God conform to our perceptions? Shouldn’t it be that our perceptions should conform to objective reality, whether we refer to that as God or not?

If our perceptions are grounded in objective reality, or God, then God must conform to those under pain of logical contradiction - our knowledge that there cannot be a triangle with four sides means that God cannot be a God who could make such a triangle.

Basically, all we have are human perceptions, so even your objective “realities” of justice, mercy, etc. are mere human conceptions of these and may be in error.

Philosopical skepticism is a kindergarten exercise, readily refuted by Rand’s idea of the “stolen concept”. Your statement that “all we have are human perceptions which could be in error” is therefore itself a human perception and could, therefore, be in error. It’s like the statement, “there is no absolute truth”.

We can know objective reality and can understand the objective reality of concepts such as justice, mercy, love, and so on.

I would argue that we ought not judge God by our human conceptions, but continually question our conceptions by “objective standards” as far as these are known, but always with the understanding that the “objective standards” may not be completely grasped by us. It is a tentative process, one that ought not be undermined by false conclusions on either side – on the side of thinking we can speak for God, but also not thinking that our own conceptions are correct paradigms either.

You still can’t use a human conception to attempt to say something about God, and then when someone refutes you on that and shows God is not compatible with that conception say, oh well, it’s only a human conception and not applicable to God. If it wasn’t applicable to God, you shouldn’t have used it to describe God in the first place.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Once again, because you don’t understand what “God” means those ARE unacceptably nonsensical and ludicrious definitions!

Quote:
If one defines justice as “whatever God does”, if one defines necessary pain as “whatever God allows to happen”, If one defines good as “whatever God does or allows to happen”, then indeed the “reasoning” is without logical contradiction.

Those are nonsensical and ludicrous definitions whether or not the definer understands what is meant by “God”. To determine an attribute of God it is necessary to have an independent understanding and definition of what the attribute means, under pain of rendering the description meaningless.

Otherwise I could define a new attribute of God, called yorqif. God is yorqif, in fact perfectly yorqif. What is yorqif? Yorqif is what God is.

Now, without possessing the knowledge that God is all-loving, all-powerful, all-just and all-merciful, God being all-yorqif is much less meaningful than if God is known as being all-loving, all-powerful, all-just and all-merciful. Would you not agree?

I agree that love, power, justice and mercy (and GOOD) must be defined before they have any meaning, but since the PRIME meaning of all these things is some elaboration of “GOOD” one can’t apply a bad (or non-existent) meaning of these terms to God, as that violates the basic requirement that any descriptor of God be “good” in nature.

What ateista is trying to do is prove that God is evil, or non-existent, by describing percieved actions of God’s as non-good, which is axiomatically impossible for the believer, while being axiomatically necessary for the unbeliever.

The problem is in ateista’s perceptions, and not in his definitions, other than the one definitional mistake of God being not God (not good) but some creature of “that by which all things came to be as they are”.

 

[Benadam]

To me it isn’t because God as creator is the source of good. Being the source of good God does not possess it as something outside of Himself that can be taken away but good is what God is.

And this is sheer nonsense. Without actually defining “mercy”, “justice”, “good” and “love” independently

from God your sentences like “God is mercy” carries no informational value. You simply define God as a synonym for “mercy”, “justice”, etc…

God as source of Mercy, Justice, etc does not possess them as something outside of himself. I agree we must have independent definitions and in as much as they are true definitions they will point to their true object.

On the very contrary, these are attributes which allegedly pertain to God.

They do pertain to God but that doesn’t mean God must be viewed as not being their source.

But enough of this. The thread is not about God’s alleged attributes or nature. It presented one specific dilemma, and so far there was no argument refuting the only logical solution.

If no one can justify, and I’ll assume these concepts are pretty much universal, all suffering, pain and torture, that is proof God doesn’t exist. I’m not sure that is logical.