Old Question -- Any New Answers?

[Pieman333272]

The “emotional” aspect is not relevant.

It’s very relevant. Your own type of people complain endlessly when I offer an emotional response to your argument. I’m reversing the argument. All this is is your opinion, your feelings. Nothing more valuable than the subjective words of an angry atheist. Give me hardcore logic or philosophy or science or admit it’s just what you think.

The deductive type of an argument presupposes that we can agree on a set of starting points (as axioms) and base the logical argument on them. (Without axioms there can be no deduction, I am sure you are aware of that.)

I agree. How does that pose a problem?

And here is the first stumbling block. Can we agree on the definition of such a simple concept as “benevolent”? In my vocabulary the word “benevolent” is very well defined. It designates a person who cares about others, who helps others, who is not aloof about other people’s pain, health, hunger etc. That person does not “outsource” the helping to others, but performs the help himself (as long as he is able to do it). No excuse that right now there is no help, but “later” there will be some reward.

Now, it may happen that this person “stays his hand”, and does not perform the expected help, but in that case he (or his advocate) must explain very clearly and sufficiently why the route of “non-help” was preferable. Not just mumbling that “maybe” there is a very good reason, why the help was withheld, but we are unable to know that reason. That is not an argument (in everyday vernacular it is called BS-ing), and I want to make sure that you are aware of this, before we even start (if we ever get there).

I was about to say your definition was loaded then I saw that second paragraph. Anyway, I guess I could go along with that, if it leads into what I want to see.

Can we agree that this is the bare minimum for the definition of “benevolent”? If we cannot, there is no common ground, and we shall talk past each other. Can we agree that there is BS-ing in the form of “maybe”?

Fine. Let me add that when one says, “maybe”, they often mean it works as an explanation but we can’t confirm it. If that’s what you mean, that’s a unfair because virtually every solution cannot be confirmed. If you mean them offering the sort of mystic quasi-knowledge “you can’t know God’s plan”, then I agree.

I am not hopeful. When a conversation like this ends, and the believer runs out of arguments, he/she will invariably say: “How dare you to question God? Whatever God does to you is just, right, moral and fine, because God is the Creator. The (absolute) moral rules do not apply to God, since he is the rule-maker.”

I’ve never done that. Thanks for the steryotype.

So, my friend, I will decline your challenge, UNLESS we can agree on the starting points and the rules of the conversation. If we can, then I will be happy to engage in a friendly dialog with you. The ball is in your court. As I said I am not hopeful. So far it never happened that the prospective opponent would have agreed to these terms. Not that these terms are unfair to either party. But for whatever reason they do not want to agree. Beats me, why?

As I said, I’m fine with that definition of benevolence but only with the latter definition of “BS-ing”.

A perfect example of an unacceptable baloney. You must spell out exactly and precisely why is not rendering help is preferable to the help. “Maybe” simply does not cut it.

Ad homenims don’t either. I’m offering hypothetical solutions. I never promised they were the case, I said they work.

 

[Luvya]

I am not interested in making any emotional argument. If I slip, you slap me down.

I was about to say your definition was loaded then I saw that second paragraph. Anyway, I guess I could go along with that, if it leads into what I want to see.

That is promising. I would prefer to see your possible enhancements to this definition before we go any further. Unless we can agree (beyond a “guess”) on the definiton of benevolence, there is no reason to continue.

Fine. Let me add that when one says, “maybe”, they often mean it works as an explanation but we can’t confirm it. If that’s what you mean, that’s a unfair because virtually every solution cannot be confirmed.

I see nothing unfair about it. Let’ me try to explain, using an analogy. A doctor performs a very painful procedure, and an onlooker (who has no idea what it is all about) is upset at the “cruelty” of the doctor. He asks for an explanation. If you can give an explanation, all is well. If you cannot give it, you are not allowed say: “well, I have no idea, but I have faith and trust, that there is a very good explanation for it”. That is totally unacceptable. That is what I call BS.

I’ve never done that. Thanks for the steryotype.

I did not say you did. I said it was my experience. Don’t get defensive on me.

Ad homenims don’t either. I’m offering hypothetical solutions. I never promised they were the case, I said they work.

That is not an ad-hominem. I said that a “maybe” (in and by itself) is not an argument. I am not looking for “proofs” rather for arguments to substantiate the assertions.

 

[Pieman333272]

I am not interested in making any emotional argument. If I slip, you slap me down.

That is promising. I would prefer to see your possible enhancements to this definition before we go any further. Unless we can agree (beyond a “guess”) on the definiton of benevolence, there is no reason to continue.

Good, and thank you. I’ll need to look it over again, but I have to be quick here for possible enhancements. I’ll post that later.

I see nothing unfair about it. Let’ me try to explain, using an analogy. A doctor performs a very painful procedure, and an onlooker (who has no idea what it is all about) is upset at the “cruelty” of the doctor. He asks for an explanation. If you can give an explanation, all is well. If you cannot give it, you are not allowed say: “well, I have no idea, but I have faith and trust, that there is a very good explanation for it”. That is totally unacceptable. That is what I call BS.

I agree, in that case. But here’s the scenario, using the same analogy, which could be called “maybe” but if you call that BS-ing is unfair:

The Doctor is doing a procedure. An onlooker comments that part of it seems (unnecessarily) gruesome or cruel. Another onlooker replies that “maybe” the doctor needs to do it to ensure, say, diseases aren’t spread or that the recovery will be faster. He can’t confirm it, but it makes some amount of sense from a hard logical standpoint. If you dismiss that as “BS-ing”, I view that as unfair because we can’t confirm any of the solutions, logical or emotional, to the problem of evil.

That is not an ad-hominem. I said that a “maybe” (in and by itself) is not an argument. I am not looking for “proofs” rather for arguments to substantiate the assertions.

Oh, I misunderstood. My bad!

 

[Luvya]

Good, and thank you. I’ll need to look it over again, but I have to be quick here for possible enhancements. I’ll post that later.

Sure thing. I will be here.

I agree, in that case. But here’s the scenario, using the same analogy, which could be called “maybe” but if you call that BS-ing is unfair:

The Doctor is doing a procedure. An onlooker comments that part of it seems (unnecessarily) gruesome or cruel. Another onlooker replies that “maybe” the doctor needs to do it to ensure, say, diseases aren’t spread or that the recovery will be faster. He can’t confirm it, but it makes some amount of sense from a hard logical standpoint. If you dismiss that as “BS-ing”, I view that as unfair because we can’t confirm any of the solutions, logical or emotional, to the problem of evil.

Now that is interesting. I do not disagree on principle, but I don’t think your position is teneble - as presented. Onlooker “A” questions the validity of the procedure. Onlooker “B” says that it is logically possible that the questionable part is necessary. “B” does not have any positive knowledge why that procedure would be necessary, all he says that there is no logical reason why it would not be.

Sorry, that is not acceptable. This is what I call an empty argument (let’s forget about the BS). I stick to the old duck principle: “if it looks like a duck, tastes like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck - it is very probably a duck”. An actual argument why it is not a duck despite all appearances would be worthy to contemplate, but to say that it is “logically possible” that this seemingly duck-like entity is really a horse in disguise is not acceptable. There must be some actual reason for denying what we all expereince and see. I hope you see why not. There are very few (or maybe no) events that “logically speaking” could not be something else. To allow this “logically speaking” would make any and all arguments vacuous.

Oh, I misunderstood. My bad!

Cool. Thanks.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I just read something on CAF awhile ago which reminded me of the age-old question, “Why doesn’t God heal amputees?” It got me thinking and googling. Now I know amputees aren’t sick, so that answer won’t cut it. I have yet to read a good answer for this and wondered if anyone here has something that makes sense?

Hi Faith,

As you can see this topic is difficult and its a question atheists like to ask to point out “flaws” in our beliefs.

I suppose there are many possible answers, but one thing is for sure, this amputee will be given a full glorified body at the resurrection.

Neil

 

[Faith1960]

The OP wasn’t meant to start a debate. I just want to know why there are certain things that prayer will not help, like restoring limbs to amputees.

 

[stevicus]

The OP wasn’t meant to start a debate. I just want to know why there are certain things that prayer will not help, like restoring limbs to amputees.

I’ve asked similar questions myself for years now, much of it while I was away from the Church and questioning the existence of God. I have to admit that I became quite angry and hateful towards God, precisely because of my frustration over questions like this. I never became an outright atheist (too Marxist-Leninist), although for a number of years, I identified as “agnostic.”

I recall a conversation I had with an atheist who believed that atheism actually made him more at peace with God. He said that if the universe created itself, then he can’t hate that any more than he could hate the Earth for orbiting the Sun. But if some intelligent being actually created the universe on purpose, then he would be angry at whoever or whatever it was that did it. So, by denying the existence of God, he’s no longer at angry at God. But there was another atheist I knew who was still angry at God, and I remember a nearly half-hour tirade from him against God. I won’t repeat what he said, as it was pretty bad, but it was enough to get me thinking about my own life and where I was headed.

That link about the 12 cops was interesting, but it didn’t really address any of the arguments I would have made. Thing is, if one human does evil to another human, even I would understand that it’s not God’s fault. If a human being chooses to do something, then that’s a matter of free will and human choice, which God has given us. I know from my own experience that if I’m contemplating doing something wrong or harmful to others, then something inside of me tells me not to do it. I figure it must be God telling my conscience to give me a warning, and that will keep my actions under control. But I also realize that I could just as easily ignore that warning and go ahead and do evil anyway. If God were to intervene and physically prevent me from doing evil, then I wouldn’t really have that choice to make.

So, questions like that seem relatively easy to understand, as long as one agrees that human beings have free will and the choice to do whatever they will within the boundaries of physical laws.

When it comes to illness, suffering, natural disasters, and premature death, that may be a bit more confusing. At least as far as death is concerned, I’ve always been told that a deceased person’s soul is with God and probably in a much better place than here on Earth. Believing that to be true, I can see where death itself doesn’t necessarily have to be viewed as an “evil act happening to a good person.” If someone dies early and makes it to Heaven, then they’ve made it in ahead of the rest of us. Those of us having to suffer through 30-40 more years of life might be the ones getting the raw deal, not those who get in at the head of the line. Of course, there’s no way for any of us to know for certain if someone makes it to Heaven or not - not until we get there ourselves.

So, all in all, I can actually reach a point of acceptance when bad things happen to good people. We might view it as a bad thing, but when a soul reaches Heaven and is united with God, I can’t see how God would view it as a bad thing.

But where I start to question things and get really bothered is when good things happen to bad people. Some people get away with the most despicable acts, yet they can still live comfortable, luxurious lives - on top of the world. Sometimes, history shows where evil people get their just desserts, just as good people might get rewarded beyond measure. But a lot of times, that doesn’t happen. Good people suffer, while evil has often triumphed. That’s what bothers me the most. Why do evil people seem to get away with it?

 

[Pieman333272]

Sure thing. I will be here.

The problem I saw was, you said an onmibenevolent (or mostly benevolent) being must justify or fix everything they can instantly. That’s not only loaded, it’s moronic. If it served a better purpose to fix it later, such as being given a better “reward”, then it is obviously a better idea for an onmibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent being to wait and do it better.

Now that is interesting. I do not disagree on principle, but I don’t think your position is teneble - as presented. Onlooker “A” questions the validity of the procedure. Onlooker “B” says that it is logically possible that the questionable part is necessary. “B” does not have any positive knowledge why that procedure would be necessary, all he says that there is no logical reason why it would not be.

Sorry, that is not acceptable. This is what I call an empty argument (let’s forget about the BS). I stick to the old duck principle: “if it looks like a duck, tastes like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck - it is very probably a duck”. An actual argument why it is not a duck despite all appearances would be worthy to contemplate, but to say that it is “logically possible” that this seemingly duck-like entity is really a horse in disguise is not acceptable. There must be some actual reason for denying what we all expereince and see. I hope you see why not. There are very few (or maybe no) events that “logically speaking” could not be something else. To allow this “logically speaking” would make any and all arguments vacuous.

When I said “logically speaking”, I meant from a hard logic perspective it is possible - there isn’t a contradiction between it and the laws of logic. And “B” didn’t say there was no reason it wouldn’t be necessary but that there are ** conceivable and possible** reasons that it would be necessary.

 

[Windfish]

So sorry… you have to answer that for yourself. The so called “problem of evil” is the ultimate thorn in the side of Christianity. No one has ever presented a viable argument, and never will. All the attempted responses are weak, dumb, pitiful cop-outs. Here is a collection of them: enjoy…

Or, you are just too dumb to understand them.

 

[Luvya]

The problem I saw was, you said an onmibenevolent (or mostly benevolent) being must justify or fix everything they can instantly.

That was not stipulated. I have no idea where you got that from.

That’s not only loaded, it’s moronic. If it served a better purpose to fix it later, such as being given a better “reward”, then it is obviously a better idea for an onmibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent being to wait and do it better.

That is acceptable. What would not be acceptable if that reward is not logically connected to the “suffering”. An example to show it. An alcoholic father beats up his kid, and later, after sobering up his gives a lollipop as a “reward”. There is no logical connection between the act and the reward.

When one speaks of the “greater good” as a justfying factor for some negative experience (pain or suffering), then there are a few requirements:

1. the pain and suffering must be logically necessary to achieve that greater good.
2. the pain and suffering cannot be decreased to achieve that greater good.

Example again: a doctor and his friend are on a field trip. The friend is bitten by a poisonous snake. The doctor must cut out the flesh (thereby causing suffering) in order to save the person’s life. This is justifyable. Suppose that the doctor also had a proper poison-antidote in his pocket (which could have been used) but decides not to use it. In this case the cutting of the flesh cannot be justified - even though the result is the same, namely saving the person’s life.

To make it simple: a benevolent entity cannot allow gratuitous pain and suffering. It will be your task to show why a certain, seemingly gratuitous suffering is really necessary. And you have to show it for every conceivable pain and suffering. It is a very hard task, methinks.

When I said “logically speaking”, I meant from a hard logic perspective it is possible - there isn’t a contradiction between it and the laws of logic. And “B” didn’t say there was no reason it wouldn’t be necessary but that there are ** conceivable and possible** reasons that it would be necessary.

Unless he can show what those “conceivable and possible” reasons are he did not say anything. To say that there “might” be some reasons, is an empty argument (argument from ignorance). I am afraid that this non-negotiable requirement will be the end of this possible conversation. And, by the way, this requirement is not “loaded”. As I said, the duck principle is in effect. I am willing to examine and contemplate an actual argument (just why is that seemingly duck-like entity is really a horse in disguise), but there must be some actual and very good reason to do it. To say that it is “logically not contradictory” simply does not cut it.

 

[Luvya]

Or, you are just too dumb to understand them.

Insults are always welcome. They tell us a lot about the person who delivers them.

 

[Pieman333272]

That was not stipulated. I have no idea where you got that from.

That is acceptable. What would not be acceptable if that reward is not logically connected to the “suffering”. An example to show it. An alcoholic father beats up his kid, and later, after sobering up his gives a lollipop as a “reward”. There is no logical connection between the act and the reward.

When one speaks of the “greater good” as a justfying factor for some negative experience (pain or suffering), then there are a few requirements:

1. the pain and suffering must be logically necessary to achieve that greater good.
2. the pain and suffering cannot be decreased to achieve that greater good.

Example again: a doctor and his friend are on a field trip. The friend is bitten by a poisonous snake. The doctor must cut out the flesh (thereby causing suffering) in order to save the person’s life. This is justifyable. Suppose that the doctor also had a proper poison-antidote in his pocket (which could have been used) but decides not to use it. In this case the cutting of the flesh cannot be justified - even though the result is the same, namely saving the person’s life.

Good. We’re in agreement.

To make it simple: a benevolent entity cannot allow gratuitous pain and suffering. It will be your task to show why a certain, seemingly gratuitous suffering is really necessary. And you have to show it for every conceivable pain and suffering. It is a very hard task, methinks.

What if I show a suffering is unnecessary but justified (in a way which follows from the suffering)? Actually, nevermind. I misinterpreted something you said. Sorry!

Unless he can show what those “conceivable and possible” reasons are he did not say anything. To say that there “might” be some reasons, is an empty argument (argument from ignorance). I am afraid that this non-negotiable requirement will be the end of this possible conversation. And, by the way, this requirement is not “loaded”. As I said, the duck principle is in effect. I am willing to examine and contemplate an actual argument (just why is that seemingly duck-like entity is really a horse in disguise), but there must be some actual and very good reason to do it. To say that it is “logically not contradictory” simply does not cut it.

Right. I’m saying, if I actually offer a sufficient explanation but cannot confirm that it is actually the case, does that or does that not pass by your radar?

 

[Luvya]

Good. We’re in agreement.

Most gratifying

Right. I’m saying, if I actually offer a sufficient explanation but cannot confirm that it is actually the case, does that or does that not pass by your radar?

How could I know without seeing it? Let’s give it a try. I will do my best to see your points as you intend them.

 

[Windfish]

Insults are always welcome. They tell us a lot about the person who delivers them.

Or the person to whom they are directed, if the insult happens to be accurate.

 

[Faith1960]

Or the person to whom they are directed, if the insult happens to be accurate.

Getting back to the OP, why doesn’t God cure amputees and other things we know won’t change?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Getting back to the OP, why doesn’t God cure amputees and other things we know won’t change?

Is this a fact? Has there never been a cured amputee?

I could make a couple of guesses:

1. Miracle cures always fall within the physically possible, even if many of them are highly unlikely to happen naturally. Replacing a limb would require matter to appear out of nowhere which even 1-in-a-trillion-trillion-trillion quantum-level conincidences wouldn’t be able to fix.
2. Maybe God only works miracles when they are sufficiently hidden. So something internal to the body can be fixed away from prying eyes but a restored limb would be too obvious.

 

[Luvya]

Is this a fact? Has there never been a cured amputee?

I could make a couple of guesses:

1. Miracle cures always fall within the physically possible, even if many of them are highly unlikely to happen naturally. Replacing a limb would require matter to appear out of nowhere which even 1-in-a-trillion-trillion-trillion quantum-level conincidences wouldn’t be able to fix.
2. Maybe God only works miracles when they are sufficiently hidden. So something internal to the body can be fixed away from prying eyes but a restored limb would be too obvious.

Regenration of lost body parts is quite normal. Rodents regrow their lost teeth. If you cut a planaria in half, both sides will regenerate into full individual. regeneration So it should not be too big a deal. Possible logical solutions: 1) God cannot do it. 2) God could do it, but does not want to do it. 3) There is no God. Pick your choice.

 

[djeter]

"This is true: “There is nothing lovelier under the sun than to be under the sun.” Even suffering, pain, and anguish prove the same thing in their different ways. Human beings like to live and are unwilling to die. That is why murder and manslaughter are crimes, after all.

This is also why a suicide horrifies survivors, and why, on the other side of the spectrum, the sacrifice of one’s life awakens lasting honor. This, at any rate, is how a normal, unproblematic sensibility feels about things. That having been said, a further consideration forces itself on us already on this first level: we cannot help feeling that life demands a higher price after all. From the troubles of childhood to the troubles of old age, with the difficulties of puberty and the burdens and cares of adulthood in between. Ditto any disease or amputations you wish to offer.

And this is already true when things go on in an inconspicuous, everyday way. How much more true won’t it be, then, in times of misery and war, or when one faces gloomy prospects for the future? It is true that people would prefer not to die, but do they honestly want to live through it all again? — Let me refer here to Book 19 of Augustine’s De civitate Dei, as it were, a little summa of everything that has been said about the difficulty of life: “Is there anyone who could capture the misery of life in words, even if he poured out a flood of eloquence?” (Chapter 4). For man, Augustine thinks, is in constant conflict with himself and so with his fellow men. — And yet the “normal man” will stick with the biblical motto, “Better a living dog than a dead lion” (Ecclesisastes 9:4)."

A selection from a recent 3 part post I’m making “The Gift Of Life — Why There Is No Right To Die” (Parts One and Two) by Jörg Splett – 3-5 and 6 later. The pdf file is on line but probably too long to absorb in a single reading (28 pages). It all flows from Genesis when God looks upon his creation and says that it is good. You will note that Luvya contests this (along with the idea of God as well, I guess).

This long piece has many interesting diversions along the way (shows you the point Chesterton was making in Manalive, for example). Hope you enjoy it and by the time you finish up you will see the answers to Luvya’s queries and why most of her foundational arguments are dead wrong.

dj

 

[Big_Dummy]

I just read something on CAF awhile ago which reminded me of the age-old question, “Why doesn’t God heal amputees?” It got me thinking and googling. Now I know amputees aren’t sick, so that answer won’t cut it. I have yet to read a good answer for this and wondered if anyone here has something that makes sense?

I have read testimonies of God healing amputees. In most cases, I think God is likely using their weakness as a means of drawing them to himself. Jesus told us it is better to lose a body part then spend eternity in Hell. II Cor 12. II Peter 1

 

[vz71]

I just read something on CAF awhile ago which reminded me of the age-old question, “Why doesn’t God heal amputees?” It got me thinking and googling. Now I know amputees aren’t sick, so that answer won’t cut it. I have yet to read a good answer for this and wondered if anyone here has something that makes sense?

The question presupposes a God capable of doing so and also acting toward our benefit.

Given the suppositions behind the question itself, it is perfectly acceptable to ask what it is this God sees that we do not.

Obviously if there is a being that knows me and loves me and that can see eternally, if I ask for something and do not receive it, then it must be for my benefit not to receive it.