Sour grapes... "o happy fault"!

[tonyrey]

There are two sides to this question. First, is it better to, for example, get cancer and then recover and secondly, are you are a better person from having gone through that experience.

In the first instance I would say, obviously, I would rather not get it. But I think that a wake-up call like getting a reprieve from an early death if you were to suffer from it can be a huge benefit in that you appreciate life a lot more.

I think that it’s human nature to appreciate something more if it was a struggle to get it. You don’t WANT to keep losing but you enjoy the good times a lot more than someone who expects to win.

Like my Grandad always said, if it didn’t hurt to lose, then you’re not going to enjoy it when you win. In other words, the losses, falling and getting up again and again, makes the final victory that much sweeter. I think we’ve all experienced that.

Bravo, Brad! You’re on the right track >>>>>

 

[tonyrey]

DaddyGirl

I should add that those who have caused unnecessary suffering cannot undo what they have done but they can always do something to atone for it - not necessarily in this life but certainly in the next. That is why there is no final answer to evil in this world.

So what? There is no such thing as evil in the sceptic’s scheme of things.** In a Godless universe everything is valueless, purposeless and meaningless - including that very conclusion.** In other words scepticism is irrational and self-destructive. The grapes become very bitter indeed…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

There are two sides to this question. First, is it better to, for example, get cancer and then recover and secondly, are you are a better person from having gone through that experience.

But that is not the whole picture. Maybe you will become a better person, but was the negative event necessary for that change? Is there another, less negative method to achieve the same result? Let me present an example.

Suppose you and a friend (who is a physician) go for a trip. You get bitten by a poisonous snake, and the only way the doctor can save your life is to cut off your finger. Clearly, the result was “worth” the loss. But what if the doctor had an antidote, which would have saved your life in a much less “negative way”? It is never enough to look at the positive result, one must also consider the price. If the same positive result can be achieved by a “cheaper” method, then only an idiot would pay more than necessary.

In the first instance I would say, obviously, I would rather not get it. But I think that a wake-up call like getting a reprieve from an early death if you were to suffer from it can be a huge benefit in that you appreciate life a lot more.

Not for me. The three almost fatal heart attacks did not make me appreciate life more. I already appreciated it. What they did was leave me with a weaker heart, a loss of strength and stamina, and a bunch of expensive medications to be taken every day. Not to mention some huge bills from the doctors and the hospitals. No positive, only negative effects.

I think that it’s human nature to appreciate something more if it was a struggle to get it. You don’t WANT to keep losing but you enjoy the good times a lot more than someone who expects to win.

In our life we attempted to make a business to help us to retire. Twice we we failed, the third time we (mildly) succeeded. The first two failures had absolutely no positive side effect. They simply forced us to work longer than we hoped for. And, of course the frustration of failure and the financial loss was also there… and no “good” came out of it.

Like my Grandad always said, if it didn’t hurt to lose, then you’re not going to enjoy it when you win. In other words, the losses, falling and getting up again and again, makes the final victory that much sweeter. I think we’ve all experienced that.

And there is the saying, “no pain, no gain”. Or “whatever does not kill you, makes you stronger”. Cutesy sayings what I call rationalizing.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

Let’s discuss this problem. If there would not have been the “original sin”, then there would be no need for a “redeemer”. As it has been amply demonstrated in the thread about question of the original sin (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=965431) God could have instantiated a world, where there would not have happened a “disobedience”, no “original sin”, no “cursing of the creation by God”… and we all would happily live in the Garden of Eden.

Some people keep saying that it is “better” to fall down and then to get up than not to fall down in the first place. It is better to get cancer and recover than not to have cancer at all…??

This thread is directed to them. Why is it better to “fall” and then being able to get up compared to not falling down in the first place?

The story of Aesopus in the tale of the “sour grapes” talks about the fox, who craves those grapes, but since he is unable to get them - attempts to rationalize that the grapes are probably “sour”, so it would not be good to get them at all. In German the phrase is “Aus einer Not eine Tugend machen” - which translates into “to make a virtue out of a necessity”.

So, I suggest you start to ponder… why is getting a root canal better than to have a healthy dentition without having a problem at all? Why is it being beaten preferable to not being beaten at all? Do you have a rational argument?

If everything was perfect from the beginning, with no knowledge of evil, we would not be able to experience Gratitude in the presence of God.

You see God fills us with sadness, so that we could know joy.
He makes War, so we could have peace.
He makes everything that is ill toward a human being, so we could experience what it truly means to be well.
God is wise. He justifies the Greater Good by allowing and permitting evil.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

If everything was perfect from the beginning, with no knowledge of evil, we would not be able to experience Gratitude in the presence of God.

God could show us in virtual reality what the alternative would be… and then we could be grateful that we do not live in that virtual reality.

You see God fills us with sadness, so that we could know joy.
He makes War, so we could have peace.
He makes everything that is ill toward a human being, so we could experience what it truly means to be well.
God is wise. He justifies the Greater Good by allowing and permitting evil.

The beatings will continue until the morale improves.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I don’t know if it’s logically necessary, but here’s an example from my own life where it was circumstantially necessary. Five years ago I was playing an online game, and I got to a pretty high level, and I had a lot of friends, and it was fun etc. But then I made a stupid decision to do something bad. I used a third party program, and then my account was terminated. That was rather heartbreaking, I was 13 at the time. But I had had another account, that I didn’t use, so I decided to come back with that one. I had to make new friends, so I went on a forum for that game and made a thread asking for friends. And then, I met the person who came to be my best friend for five years now, who has really changed my life for the better. He brought me closer to God in so many ways.

That is fine. I am happy for you.

This would not have happened if I had not made that thread looking for new friends, and I would not have made that thread for new friends had I not done that “happy fault” of cheating on a game. I wouldn’t have been able to become such great friends with that person had I not had to start over, because he helped me a lot in the game and then we got to know each other outside of it. I didn’t deserve this great thing to happen to me, but I am incredibly thankful that it did.

You don’t KNOW that. And cannot know that.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t know if it’s logically necessary, but here’s an example from my own life where it was circumstantially necessary. Five years ago I was playing an online game, and I got to a pretty high level, and I had a lot of friends, and it was fun etc. But then I made a stupid decision to do something bad. I used a third party program, and then my account was terminated. That was rather heartbreaking, I was 13 at the time. But I had had another account, that I didn’t use, so I decided to come back with that one. I had to make new friends, so I went on a forum for that game and made a thread asking for friends. And then, I met the person who came to be my best friend for five years now, who has really changed my life for the better. He brought me closer to God in so many ways. This would not have happened if I had not made that thread looking for new friends, and I would not have made that thread for new friends had I not done that “happy fault” of cheating on a game. I wouldn’t have been able to become such great friends with that person had I not had to start over, because he helped me a lot in the game and then we got to know each other outside of it. I didn’t deserve this great thing to happen to me, but I am incredibly thankful that it did.

If evil didn’t exist we wouldn’t be justified in regarding anything as good. Even to believe there are **only **degrees of goodness implies that some types are inferior to others! To demand a world without evil is a sign of insanity…

 

[Bahman]

Let’s discuss this problem. If there would not have been the “original sin”, then there would be no need for a “redeemer”. As it has been amply demonstrated in the thread about question of the original sin (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=965431) God could have instantiated a world, where there would not have happened a “disobedience”, no “original sin”, no “cursing of the creation by God”… and we all would happily live in the Garden of Eden.

Some people keep saying that it is “better” to fall down and then to get up than not to fall down in the first place. It is better to get cancer and recover than not to have cancer at all…??

This thread is directed to them. Why is it better to “fall” and then being able to get up compared to not falling down in the first place?

The story of Aesopus in the tale of the “sour grapes” talks about the fox, who craves those grapes, but since he is unable to get them - attempts to rationalize that the grapes are probably “sour”, so it would not be good to get them at all. In German the phrase is “Aus einer Not eine Tugend machen” - which translates into “to make a virtue out of a necessity”.

So, I suggest you start to ponder… why is getting a root canal better than to have a healthy dentition without having a problem at all? Why is it being beaten preferable to not being beaten at all? Do you have a rational argument?

The story of Adam and Eve is such a failure to explain creation and reality!

 

[Gorgias]

But that is not the whole picture. Maybe you will become a better person, but was the negative event necessary for that change?

The question isn’t whether it’s necessary; it’s whether it violates your assertion that it should be optimal.

Is there another, less negative method to achieve the same result?

Again, the question isn’t whether another possibility exists; it’s whether that possibility is optimal.

Your question is phrased in a particular way that asks us to look at the big picture. However, it then demands that we ignore the big picture and look at individual states. In terms of mathematics, your question asks about the ‘area under a curve’, but then demands that we consider local maxima and minima.

If the function is monotonically decreasing, or if it crosses the y=0 line, then your demand is logical: local minima and maxima do affect the value of the area under the curve.

However, if the function value goes to infinity (i.e., the limit of f(x) as x goes to infinity → infinity), then local minima and maxima do not affect the value of the area under the curve.

From a mathematical perspective, the answer to your question is “no” – the ‘negative experience’ does not make for a lesser value in terms of the ‘function’ that you apply to life.

However, (and I think that this is the second time I’m mentioning this to you – I can’t recall, offhand, if it was this thread or another that I mentioned this), if your perspective is atheism, then you have a point. If all you can see is an x-axis that extends to a distinct, finite point and then ends, then yeah – you’re going to conclude that, since there’s a finite endpoint to your line, there’s a distinct maximum value you can attain, and any little experience that doesn’t maximize your life experiences vis-a-vis your ‘value function’ is going to be perceived as hindering the ultimate value of your ‘value function’.

In other words, from the atheist’s viewpoint, anything that doesn’t maximize personal pleasure is ‘bad’; anything that increases personal pleasure is unassailably ‘good’. It’s a viewpoint that’s antithetical to Christianity.

Not for me. The three almost fatal heart attacks did not make me appreciate life more. I already appreciated it. What they did was leave me with a weaker heart, a loss of strength and stamina, and a bunch of expensive medications to be taken every day. Not to mention some huge bills from the doctors and the hospitals. No positive, only negative effects.

Notice that this analysis is one that’s bounded by human, physical existence, and does not take into consideration eternity. That’s why you’re perceiving things in the way that you do. Can you see this?

In our life we attempted to make a business to help us to retire. Twice we we failed, the third time we (mildly) succeeded. The first two failures had absolutely no positive side effect.

They taught you what is necessary to succeed. They reinforced your desire to succeed. And, perhaps, they made success taste that much sweeter.

 

[tonyrey]

The story of Adam and Eve is such a failure to explain creation and reality!

An unsubstantiated assertion is worthless since it requires little intelligence…

 

[tonyrey]

If everything was perfect from the beginning, with no knowledge of evil, we would not be able to experience Gratitude in the presence of God.

You see God fills us with sadness, so that we could know joy.
He makes War, so we could have peace.
He makes everything that is ill toward a human being, so we could experience what it truly means to be well.
God is wise. He justifies the Greater Good by allowing and permitting evil.

God is not the Creator of evil. He permits evil because it is inevitable in a physical universe in which there are autonomous creatures. Not to create us solely because evil is inevitable would be evil!

 

[tonyrey]

First, I’m very happy that you are hangin’ in there with the discussion. Aside from the fact that you began this, it appears that now your thoughts are grappling with Faith and its power. That in itself is a kind of quantum jump. especially your last remark about God’s omnipotence.

The first question you ask is about choice, the logical choice between the temporal and the eternal. My answer is that there is no one size fits all description of either. In as much as every body has a unique genetic finger print (as far as have observed), not every person is endowed with God attributes to the same level. How could logic strike a balance?
Your point about God’s omnipotence and its power to leverage abilities is a classic example of dilemmas in the political spectrum. These arise because not everyone is ready to pluck out his eye, cut off his hand, or give up his life for the truth. I personally believe that God does optimize the individual according to divine justice. God allows the temporal to run wild at times. There are many Saints who lived impure lives before becoming holy. Faith tells us that the optimization spoken of is a personal construct which we are free when we act on. Humans have no universal formula for it.
Jesus resolved the political dilemma with a pithy maxim: Give to Cesar what is due Cesar, and God what is due God.
Here is a (non rhetorical) question for you: Why didn’t God abolish Cesar? Are our laws logical?

Sure my house is in good shape, but I have to exert effort to keep it that way

Precisely. Sceptics want everything for nothing!

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t know if it’s logically necessary, but here’s an example from my own life where it was circumstantially necessary. Five years ago I was playing an online game, and I got to a pretty high level, and I had a lot of friends, and it was fun etc. But then I made a stupid decision to do something bad. I used a third party program, and then my account was terminated. That was rather heartbreaking, I was 13 at the time. But I had had another account, that I didn’t use, so I decided to come back with that one. I had to make new friends, so I went on a forum for that game and made a thread asking for friends. And then, I met the person who came to be my best friend for five years now, who has really changed my life for the better. He brought me closer to God in so many ways. This would not have happened if I had not made that thread looking for new friends, and I would not have made that thread for new friends had I not done that “happy fault” of cheating on a game. I wouldn’t have been able to become such great friends with that person had I not had to start over, because he helped me a lot in the game and then we got to know each other outside of it. I didn’t deserve this great thing to happen to me, but I am incredibly thankful that it did.

Of course we can’t expect **all **our misfortunes to change life for the better but that doesn’t alter the fact that **most **of them do in one way or another. To think otherwise is be unduly negative and pessimistic…

 

[tonyrey]

The question isn’t whether it’s necessary; it’s whether it violates your assertion that it should be optimal.

Again, the question isn’t whether another possibility exists; it’s whether that possibility is optimal.

Your question is phrased in a particular way that asks us to look at the big picture. However, it then demands that we ignore the big picture and look at individual states. In terms of mathematics, your question asks about the ‘area under a curve’, but then demands that we consider local maxima and minima.

If the function is monotonically decreasing, or if it crosses the y=0 line, then your demand is logical: local minima and maxima do affect the value of the area under the curve.

However, if the function value goes to infinity (i.e., the limit of f(x) as x goes to infinity → infinity), then local minima and maxima do not affect the value of the area under the curve.

From a mathematical perspective, the answer to your question is “no” – the ‘negative experience’ does not make for a lesser value in terms of the ‘function’ that you apply to life.

However, (and I think that this is the second time I’m mentioning this to you – I can’t recall, offhand, if it was this thread or another that I mentioned this), if your perspective is atheism, then you have a point. If all you can see is an x-axis that extends to a distinct, finite point and then ends, then yeah – you’re going to conclude that, since there’s a finite endpoint to your line, there’s a distinct maximum value you can attain, and any little experience that doesn’t maximize your life experiences vis-a-vis your ‘value function’ is going to be perceived as hindering the ultimate value of your ‘value function’.

In other words, from the atheist’s viewpoint, anything that doesn’t maximize personal pleasure is ‘bad’; anything that increases personal pleasure is unassailably ‘good’. It’s a viewpoint that’s antithetical to Christianity.

Notice that this analysis is one that’s bounded by human, physical existence, and does not take into consideration eternity. That’s why you’re perceiving things in the way that you do. Can you see this?

They taught you what is necessary to succeed. They reinforced your desire to succeed. And, perhaps, they made success taste that much sweeter.

If they didn’t it reveals a jaundiced outlook on life!

 

[Bahman]

An unsubstantiated assertion is worthless since it requires little intelligence…

What is your evidence? In fact evolution is an evidence which has conflict with the myth of Adam and Eve.

 

[tonyrey]

What is your evidence? In fact evolution is an evidence which has conflict with the myth of Adam and Eve.

A myth is a symbolic account of a historical event. If you believe in evil you must also believe that at some point in time a member of our species must have committed** the first crime **and then realised it was wrong. Apes don’t have a conscience!

 

[Bahman]

A myth is a symbolic account of a historical event. If you believe in evil you must also believe that at some point in time a member of our species must have committed** the first crime **and then realised it was wrong.

Our species realized many things which history can clearly justify them! A myth could be a symbolic account of what happened in the past but it needs a little intelligence to realize that the story of Adam and Eve is fake.

Apes don’t have a conscience!

Human have conscience.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The question isn’t whether it’s necessary; it’s whether it violates your assertion that it should be optimal.

Anything that is sub-optimal is logically unnecessary. For us, humans the optimal solution may be out of reach, even if can imagine or visualize an optimal method. But for an “omnipotent” being anything and everything can be actualized as long as it is not logically impossible. (At least that is how omnipotence is defined by the church. How do you define it, I have no idea.)

One of the defenses in the problem of evil is that sometimes the suffering is necessary (meaning logically necessary) for that “greater good” to materialize. I accept this principle, but I question its correct application, and I also gave an example in the “poisonous snake bite” scenario. It is not enough to reach a positive outcome (save the life), it is also important to use the optimal path to reach it. Otherwise to hack off the bitten leg, and using a poison antidote would be equally “good”. The optimal solution would be prevent that snake bite - obviously!

Your question is phrased in a particular way that asks us to look at the big picture. However, it then demands that we ignore the big picture and look at individual states. In terms of mathematics, your question asks about the ‘area under a curve’, but then demands that we consider local maxima and minima.

The “big picture” is the sum (integral) of the individual states.

If the function is monotonically decreasing, or if it crosses the y=0 line, then your demand is logical: local minima and maxima do affect the value of the area under the curve.

No, it is more complicated even then. Take the area under the straight line from [0, 1] to [pi/2, 0] and the area under cos(x) in the same interval. Same local minima and maxima, both are monotonically decreasing, and yet, the area is NOT the same.

However, if the function value goes to infinity (i.e., the limit of f(x) as x goes to infinity → infinity), then local minima and maxima do not affect the value of the area under the curve.

From a mathematical perspective, the answer to your question is “no” – the ‘negative experience’ does not make for a lesser value in terms of the ‘function’ that you apply to life.

Using your f(x) example, one may consider the area under an oscillating function, and if the overall area is positive, then the negative area was “worth it”, otherwise it was not. But as we propagate along the x-axis (representing time), we are only aware of the local values, and when the local value of the f(x) becomes too negative, then the person may very well want to “opt out”, regardless of the nonsensical assertion that “God never puts a too high burden on anyone”.

However, (and I think that this is the second time I’m mentioning this to you – I can’t recall, offhand, if it was this thread or another that I mentioned this), if your perspective is atheism, then you have a point.

Yes, you said that, and other people said it, too. The trouble came when instead of giving a rational argument for your side, it was simply asserted that it is a “mystery”. This “mystery” card is played all the time, when an obvious contradiction is pointed out. :tsktsk:

If all you can see is an x-axis that extends to a distinct, finite point and then ends, then yeah – you’re going to conclude that, since there’s a finite endpoint to your line, there’s a distinct maximum value you can attain, and any little experience that doesn’t maximize your life experiences vis-a-vis your ‘value function’ is going to be perceived as hindering the ultimate value of your ‘value function’.

If you wish to refer to mathematics, then do it correctly, please. The area under the curve of e[sup]-abs(x)[/sup]*sin(x) is finite and can be calculated from minus infinity to plus infinity. Just because one extends the interval to infinity, it does not make the method of finding the optimum more difficult. And the area under the function of e[sup]-abs(x)[/sup]*abs(sin(x)) is not just “better”, but it has no points under the x-axis.

In other words, from the atheist’s viewpoint, anything that doesn’t maximize personal pleasure is ‘bad’; anything that increases personal pleasure is unassailably ‘good’. It’s a viewpoint that’s antithetical to Christianity.

Actually, there is no difference in the method… the believers just use a different value system to decide what is “good” and what is “bad”. And it is a serious distortion that atheists are generally selfish, uncaring people who are only concerned with their own, personal well being and do not care about others. There are atheists like that, but there are also Christians. It is a bad idea to generalize.

Notice that this analysis is one that’s bounded by human, physical existence, and does not take into consideration eternity. That’s why you’re perceiving things in the way that you do. Can you see this?

No, for the reasons explained above. The plus side in the eternity cannot retroactively “justify” the negative side in the temporal existence - UNLESS that negative side was logically necessary to reach the eternal good. And that is what is impossible to prove.

They taught you what is necessary to succeed. They reinforced your desire to succeed. And, perhaps, they made success taste that much sweeter.

I already knew all that. The reason of the prior failures was due to random fluctuation of luck. My desire to succeed was unchanged. And the success would have been appreciated more if we did not have to wait 10 extra years for it to materialize. What you said was “rationalizing”.

 

[tonyrey]

A myth is a symbolic account of a historical event. If you believe in evil you must also believe that at some point in time

You are contradicting yourself! The story of Adam and Eve** is** a myth which implies that a member of our species committed** the first crime **and then realised it was wrong

Apes don’t have a conscience!

Human have conscience.

We are not apes.

 

[Bahman]

You are contradicting yourself! The story of Adam and Eve** is** a myth which implies that a member of our species committed** the first crime **and then realised it was wrongWe are not apes.

I just said it could!