Sour grapes... said the fox

[InJesusItrust]

Suffering is a gift. Without suffering we could not draw our eyes from worldly things. Unless we look above we will go to hell. I would have never have taken God seriously if I didn’t suffer much and cry out to Him. If I never experienced supernatural comfort I would not be able to have faith. Without faith I would have surely become a nihilist and condemn my soul to hell.

We either suffer now or later. It is the condition of our exile.

 

[inocente]

I already answered this.

Would you give the post number? I saw your thoughts about why pain is unnecessary, but not why you think it exists.

*Of course there would be difference. Why is that important? *

Pain and suffering exist in the real world and won’t disappear by dreaming of crystalline entities, designer gods and utopias.

Thought experiments are very useful to analyze the state of affairs.

In the way that fantasies which don’t in any way relate to reality are not.

 

[Gorgias]

It certainly is so in a world ungoverned by any benevolent deity who cares about sentient beings.

Hmm… did your parents teach you to ride a bike? Did that learning process involve you falling down? Did that falling down cause pain? If so, then by your standard, parents are malevolent beings who do not care about their children.

Sorry – your assertion, above, makes a few assumptions that you haven’t articulated… or perhaps even considered…

 

[inocente]

At the Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne, Australia, this weekend, Richard Dawkins floated the suggestion (as a suggestion, not something that yet has empirical support or challenge) that pain might actually be more useful to less intelligent organisms than, say, apes or whales. They might need stronger persuasion to avoid potentially dangerous situations, and thus might be more sensitive to pain than ourselves (even though many animals, such as dogs, are very stoic and instinctively avoid demonstrating their pain). Interesting - if somewhat unsettling - idea, and not implausible. Worth considering, too, when it comes to our treatment of other animals.

I don’t know much about it, but it seems that the brain doesn’t passively “feel” pain signals from the body as once thought. Instead, the sensation of pain is generated directly by the brain as the result of an unconscious decision that pain would encourage behavior that avoids further injury and promotes healing. This may explain the differences between species, as you say, dogs are very stoic.

 

[Serious]

Would you give the post number? I saw your thoughts about why pain is unnecessary, but not why you think it exists.

I agreed that some pain and suffering in certain circumstances does have survival value.

Pain and suffering exist in the real world and won’t disappear by dreaming of crystalline entities, designer gods and utopias.

The point is not that there are some instances where there is a legitimate use for pain. The question is: why would a benevolent God employ such an inferior solution, when much better solutions are readily available. And that can be done by analyzing alternate possibilities. God is assumed to be limited only by the laws of logic. As long as the “utopia” does not lead to logical absurdities, it is something that God could have done, and yet he did not do it. As such, how can God’s alleged benevolence be reconciled with inferior world. And that is the question, for which no one could offer a credible solution.

In the way that fantasies which don’t in any way relate to reality are not.

Well, no one forces you to participate. If you do, you are welcome. If you don’t, that is fine, too.

 

[inocente]

The point is not that there are some instances where there is a legitimate use for pain. The question is: why would a benevolent God employ such an inferior solution, when much better solutions are readily available. And that can be done by analyzing alternate possibilities. God is assumed to be limited only by the laws of logic. As long as the “utopia” does not lead to logical absurdities, it is something that God could have done, and yet he did not do it. As such, how can God’s alleged benevolence be reconciled with inferior world. And that is the question, for which no one could offer a credible solution.

Saying that this world is inferior when it’s the only reality we have is a rather subjective opinion. Reality is really complicated, implying that we could never guess how well a utopia would work out in practice.

Various folk say a lot of things about what they think God is (or should be) like, but my understanding is that He doesn’t have a PR department. Lawrence Krauss said the universe is the way it is whether we like it or not, and to me that’s a good maxim, God is also the way He is whether we like it or not. So if we can’t square what we think God is like with the real world, that’s our problem, not His. I don’t know whether or not we’re on the same hymn sheet here.

 

[Serious]

Saying that this world is inferior when it’s the only reality we have is a rather subjective opinion.

I disagree with good reason. We constantly observe changes, some for the better, others for the worse. As such the idea of possible improvement is grounded in reality not simply in personal musings in some ivory tower while conemplating one’s own bellybutton. Reality became much better once the black plague was eradicated, and there are no negative side effects. If cancer could be cured, the result would be positive. If the HIV virus could be “deleted”, who would complain? About 95% of all the microbes are either neutral, or beneficial in their symbiotic relationships with us (and the other living organisms). The remaining 5% are parasitic, and if they are really “successful”, then they kill their host, and consequently they die themselves. Their absence would be all beneficial. And this is just the microbes. What about the plethora of degenerative diseases (Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Lou Gehrig’s disease, progeria (premature aging), etc…)?

Reality is really complicated, implying that we could never guess how well a utopia would work out in practice.

Oh yes, we can. Thinking “outside the box” is essential, however. And I see enormous reluctance in that department.

Various folk say a lot of things about what they think God is (or should be) like, but my understanding is that He doesn’t have a PR department. Lawrence Krauss said the universe is the way it is whether we like it or not, and to me that’s a good maxim, God is also the way He is whether we like it or not. So if we can’t square what we think God is like with the real world, that’s our problem, not His. I don’t know whether or not we’re on the same hymn sheet here.

If your conclusion is that God is the strongest bully on the block, and as such whatever he says, goes, that is fine by me. Just don’t try to suggest that God is also a “good” being, someone who deserves worship or love or adoration. To be an unresponsive tyrant is not something that is worthy of anything except disdain.

 

[JDaniel]

I disagree with good reason. We constantly observe changes, some for the better, others for the worse. As such the idea of possible improvement is grounded in reality not simply in personal musings in some ivory tower while conemplating one’s own bellybutton. Reality became much better once the black plague was eradicated, and there are no negative side effects. If cancer could be cured, the result would be positive. If the HIV virus could be “deleted”, who would complain? About 95% of all the microbes are either neutral, or beneficial in their symbiotic relationships with us (and the other living organisms). The remaining 5% are parasitic, and if they are really “successful”, then they kill their host, and consequently they die themselves. Their absence would be all beneficial. And this is just the microbes. What about the plethora of degenerative diseases (Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Lou Gehrig’s disease, progeria (premature aging), etc…)?

Serious:

Now you see, I have a problem with that: the world population went from two to two hundred million in 150,000 years. Now, it’s growing at the rate of 1 billion every 12 to 13 years! It is thought, by scientists, the the world can sustain roughly 40 billion people. I don’t want all of those people around! I don’t want to kill them myself, nor would I ask you to do it for me, but, if nature is allowed to take its course, who could be upset with that! C’mon, let’s be serious here!

Oh yes, we can. Thinking “outside the box” is essential, however. And I see enormous reluctance in that department.

Stop encouraging people to think outside of the box!

If your conclusion is that God is the strongest bully on the block, and as such whatever he says, goes, that is fine by me. Just don’t try to suggest that God is also a “good” being, someone who deserves worship or love or adoration. To be an unresponsive tyrant is not something that is worthy of anything except disdain.

Nope: whether you consider my concerns or not, I find Him to be just perfect!

God bless,
jd

 

[inocente]

I disagree with good reason. We constantly observe changes, some for the better, others for the worse. As such the idea of possible improvement is grounded in reality not simply in personal musings in some ivory tower while conemplating one’s own bellybutton. Reality became much better once the black plague was eradicated, and there are no negative side effects. If cancer could be cured, the result would be positive. If the HIV virus could be “deleted”, who would complain? About 95% of all the microbes are either neutral, or beneficial in their symbiotic relationships with us (and the other living organisms). The remaining 5% are parasitic, and if they are really “successful”, then they kill their host, and consequently they die themselves. Their absence would be all beneficial. And this is just the microbes. What about the plethora of degenerative diseases (Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Lou Gehrig’s disease, progeria (premature aging), etc…)?

If I was beauty queen I too would use my three wishes to end disease, war and poverty, and there would be chocolate ice cream for all. So yes, agreed that hard work gets more results than pious hopes.

There was a movie, Pleasantville, about a utopia where everything is always pleasantly 1950’s small town America, but since nothing bad ever happens, nothing ever changes, each day is exactly like the one before. I wouldn’t like that at all - the kind of world we think is the best of all possible worlds is subjective.

Oh yes, we can. Thinking “outside the box” is essential, however. And I see enormous reluctance in that department.

Probably due to me not possessing your towering intellect.

If your conclusion is that God is the strongest bully on the block, and as such whatever he says, goes, that is fine by me. Just don’t try to suggest that God is also a “good” being, someone who deserves worship or love or adoration. To be an unresponsive tyrant is not something that is worthy of anything except disdain.

God is much, much bigger than all of that. There’s a saying I heard in North Africa:

There is no God but God
and God is unknowable.

 

[inocente]

Now you see, I have a problem with that: the world population went from two to two hundred million in 150,000 years. Now, it’s growing at the rate of 1 billion every 12 to 13 years! It is thought, by scientists, the the world can sustain roughly 40 billion people. I don’t want all of those people around! I don’t want to kill them myself, nor would I ask you to do it for me, but, if nature is allowed to take its course, who could be upset with that! C’mon, let’s be serious here!

As always, your love for your fellow beings shines magnificently through your every word.

 

[Serious]

Now you see, I have a problem with that: the world population went from two to two hundred million in 150,000 years. Now, it’s growing at the rate of 1 billion every 12 to 13 years! It is thought, by scientists, the the world can sustain roughly 40 billion people. I don’t want all of those people around! I don’t want to kill them myself, nor would I ask you to do it for me, but, if nature is allowed to take its course, who could be upset with that! C’mon, let’s be serious here!

The solution is again simple, but maybe somewhat anti-catholic: instead of unlimited procreation, people should use birth control.

Stop encouraging people to think outside of the box!

What is wrong with that? It is the first step toward freedom and innovation. But I suspect I see your motivation. If people will start to THINK for themselves, instead of blindly swallowing whatever some self-proclaimed authority dishes out for them… well, the process might be detrimental to the “authority-driven” establishments. Is that your motivation for the stern “command” you issued?

 

[Serious]

If I was beauty queen I too would use my three wishes to end disease, war and poverty, and there would be chocolate ice cream for all. So yes, agreed that hard work gets more results than pious hopes.

Fine, but that was not my point. You challenged me to show if there is a reasonable process of bettering the existing state of affairs. It seems to me that you considered my reply sufficient. We can make rational assessments how to make this world better - MUCH better.

There was a movie, Pleasantville, about a utopia where everything is always pleasantly 1950’s small town America, but since nothing bad ever happens, nothing ever changes, each day is exactly like the one before. I wouldn’t like that at all - the kind of world we think is the best of all possible worlds is subjective.

No one would “force” you to stay idle all day long. Even without diseases, crimes and natural disasters there is more than plenty to do to fill up a life (even if that life would last hundreds of years). I don’t know your preferences, but I can speak for myself. The measly 24 hours a day is much too short to engage in all the activites I would like perform. Considering the number of books I would like to read, the music I would like to listen to, the games I would like to play, the friends I would like to be together, the places I would like to visit… my life is awfully short. Maybe JD will issue another stern warning, but I still urge you to think outside the box.

Probably due to me not possessing your towering intellect.

I rather doubt it. It is not a matter of ability, it is a matter of habit and curiousity. I remember some co-workers who were actually proud of the fact that they have not read even book since finishing school, and looked at me like I was crazy when I told them that I read a book every day. When I was still working, I had a lot of fun to try and improve the programs I was developing. Don’t take anything for granted. To be bored is simply a sign intellectual laziness.

But we have strayed from the point of the thread.

 

[levinas12]

We can make rational assessments how to make this world better - MUCH better.

Well, “rational assessments” are a mixed bag. Science has produced wonder drugs and weapons of mass destruction.

And “rational assessments” cannot repair the wreckage of history. There’s no retroactive secular “salvation” for all those generations who preceded us.

Think of Walter Benjamin’s comments about Paul Klee’s Angelus Novus - that the angel is being blown backwards into the future, while staring into the past at the smoking ruins.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

Actually, I am clarifying them. Too many times people use “bad” and “evil” interchangably, and that only causes confusion. As if there would be no alternative to “good” and “bad” - and of course there is: “neutral”. The concept of “natural evil” is an oxymoron, or a sloppy choice of words.

No argument but the privation definition is over a thousand years old used by scholastics, so it meant something different to them and they expected people to know the difference in context.

Why would it apply? We are simply conducting a discussion about the possibility of a state of affairs where the agents have a certain amount of free will, and yet there is no pain or suffering in the world. I even gave examples of such possible worlds. I was hoping to see some arguments against those possible worlds, or an acceptance that those hypothetical worlds are possible. We could devote time and effort to discuss those articles. I read them and even at first glance there are some glaring errors and the lack of ability to think “outside the box”. To go into details about them would derail this conversation, so I suggest we postpone that.

Do you see any logical impossibility about the worlds I suggested? There are moral agents, they enjoy a certain amount of freedom (no one has total, absolute freedom to do anything and everything), there is no capacity to experience pain (one cannot “hurt” a rock), so you are presented with an example of a possible world and no suffering. If you see a logical problem, please say it.

Let me add, I am very much willing to discuss those articles, once we finish this particular exchange.

Because in the state of original justice, your demand of a non-painful existence did in fact existence in Catholic doctrine. But God is not held by any standard to maintain such an existence when moral agents no longer participation in His goodness, which is the only thing He necessarily wills (His goodness.) In context of divine freedom, His omnipotence and omnibenevolece is not challenged by not living in the best possible world. So you may prepose that other possible worlds exist without pain or suffering and show there is no logical contradiction, but has no bearing on God. The articles go into slight more depth but that’s the summary.

 

[Serious]

No argument but the privation definition is over a thousand years old used by scholastics, so it meant something different to them and they expected people to know the difference in context.

Sure, but the fact that something is “old” is not a sufficient reason to keep it. In mathematics they came up with the concept of “irrational” and “imaginary” numbers, and such bad nomenclature causes only confusion. But at least those definions are simply “dumb”, but not contain logical nonsense. The “privation” definition is not just confusing, it is outright illogical, since it does not take the concept of “neutral” into account.

Because in the state of original justice, your demand of a non-painful existence did in fact existence in Catholic doctrine. But God is not held by any standard to maintain such an existence when moral agents no longer participation in His goodness, which is the only thing He necessarily wills (His goodness.) In context of divine freedom, His omnipotence and omnibenevolece is not challenged by not living in the best possible world. So you may prepose that other possible worlds exist without pain or suffering and show there is no logical contradiction, but has no bearing on God. The articles go into slight more depth but that’s the summary.

Well, the articles are wrong and I am going to prove it. You admit that this world does contain gratuitous pain and suffering and you say that it does not detract from God’s benevolence, because God is not responsible for the free actions of free agents.

There are a few different apporaches to the problem of evil.

1. the defense that all the pains and sufferings are logically necessary to achieve come unspecified greater good, in other words, there is no gratuitous pain and suffering. Let’s make it clear: the pain and suffering is a logical prerequisite to some greater good. Without the pain and suffering the greater good cannot materialize. Even lessening the pain the good would not materialize. Keep in mind that excessive pain and suffering cannot be justified, if a lesser amount would suffice.
2. the defense that the pain and sufffering are an unfortunate result of giving free will to the agents, and that the “gift” of free will is so precious, that the ensuing suffering is something that God “must put up with it”, despite his omnipotence. Plantinga is one of those who “push” this defense.

I want to emphasize the difference between the two approaches. In the first one the pain and suffering are a logical prerequisite, in the second one they are a logical corollary. There are a few other “defenses”, but they are of no real consequence. Looks like it is time to examine those articles in depth. Of course it cannot be done in fell swoop, due to the posting limit of 6000 characters. So, I suggest we take “baby steps”. First quote:

Just as one cannot hold parents at fault for the free evil choices of their children, so one cannot reasonably fault God for the existence of the moral evil caused by his creatures.

This is already as incorrect as it comes. The analogy between the parents and God is wrong, since the human parents do not have the ability to foresee the actions of their offspring. God, on the other hand, does, according the classical theism. Since God is not obliged to create anything, he could have chosen not to create someone who will commit an act God does not approve of. As such he is fully responsible for the free actions of the created beings. The foreknowledge and the freedom not to create someone are pivotal points.

I will stop here. In a sense this is a crucial step. If you can bring up a rational argument against mine, let me see it. If you cannot, and accept this analysis, we can continue. If you can only mount an argument based upon some catholic doctrine, then we shall have to part. I am only interested in rational and logical arguments, but not interested in doctrines and dogmas. It is my fervent hope that we can continue.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

Sure, but the fact that something is “old” is not a sufficient reason to keep it. In mathematics they came up with the concept of “irrational” and “imaginary” numbers, and such bad nomenclature causes only confusion. But at least those definions are simply “dumb”, but not contain logical nonsense. The “privation” definition is not just confusing, it is outright illogical, since it does not take the concept of “neutral” into account.

Another thread, another time.

Well, the articles are wrong and I am going to prove it. You admit that this world does contain gratuitous pain and suffering and you say that it does not detract from God’s benevolence, because God is not responsible for the free actions of free agents.

He isn’t responsible for acts that are contrary to His goodness in moral agents.

1. the defense that all the pains and sufferings are logically necessary to achieve come unspecified greater good, in other words, there is no gratuitous pain and suffering. Let’s make it clear: the pain and suffering is a logical prerequisite to some greater good. Without the pain and suffering the greater good cannot materialize. Even lessening the pain the good would not materialize. Keep in mind that excessive pain and suffering cannot be justified, if a lesser amount would suffice.

If last ends are meta then any means that assist attaining last ends are acceptable, including physical suffering since physical is not last ends. You say there are more ways to learn goodness then by way of suffering, I agree but any and all ways should be employed but never placing suffering as the primary way but more of a beginning. This is why we strive to create the best possible society.

This is already as incorrect as it comes. The analogy between the parents and God is wrong, since the human parents do not have the ability to foresee the actions of their offspring. God, on the other hand, does, according the classical theism. Since God is not obliged to create anything, he could have chosen not to create someone who will commit an act God does not approve of. As such he is fully responsible for the free actions of the created beings. The foreknowledge and the freedom not to create someone are pivotal points.

I will stop here. In a sense this is a crucial step. If you can bring up a rational argument against mine, let me see it. If you cannot, and accept this analysis, we can continue. If you can only mount an argument based upon some catholic doctrine, then we shall have to part. I am only interested in rational and logical arguments, but not interested in doctrines and dogmas. It is my fervent hope that we can continue.

You bring up “The analogy between the parents and God is wrong, since the human parents do not have the ability to foresee the actions of their offspring. God, on the other hand, does, according the classical theism” then say “you can only mount an argument based upon some catholic doctrine, then we shall have to part.” Playing both sides and refusing me the same rights… interesting.

Regardless of the limitations set on me, I’m going to need you to explain why foresight has ramifications. Also, parents do not have the ability of foresight but they have offspring for last ends of the relationship, the children are taught and ordered to their last ends, which is God (who is the last end for all.) They do not contemplate whether or not if the child will go against their wishes or not, all they care about is raising the child in goodness, if the child rebels and runs away from a good home then the child is at fault. If the parents had foresight of this rebellion, the right inclination is to raise the child as best as they can. The wrong inclination is not to have the child. It’s no surprise modernist choose the latter, since being drenched in the culture of death.

Since God is not obliged to create anything, he could have chosen not to create someone who will commit an act God does not approve of.

Are you supposing that God should not have created at all, only have created selected agents or creating agents with absence of choice?

 

[Serious]

He isn’t responsible for acts that are contrary to His goodness in moral agents.

I say he is. And I gave the reason for it.

If last ends are meta then any means that assist attaining last ends are acceptable, including physical suffering since physical is not last ends. You say there are more ways to learn goodness then by way of suffering, I agree but any and all ways should be employed but never placing suffering as the primary way but more of a beginning. This is why we strive to create the best possible society.

This is premature. I just enumerated the two most frequent attempts to explain the “problem of evil”. I did not argue against them, as of yet. But I will say one sentence here: “if and only if the pain is logically necessary, and the ensuing greater good more than compensates for the pain, then and only then is pain an acceptable means”. (By the way it is interesting to see this kind of defense, because of the catholic doctrine that it is never acceptable to use evil so that good will come out of it. Just one of the contradicitions in the teachings.)

You bring up “The analogy between the parents and God is wrong, since the human parents do not have the ability to foresee the actions of their offspring. God, on the other hand, does, according the classical theism” then say “you can only mount an argument based upon some catholic doctrine, then we shall have to part.” Playing both sides and refusing me the same rights… interesting.

No, it is obvious. I want to make sure that I do not come up with an argument, which is contrary to the assumptions of classical theism. I try to “play” on your playing field, and I expect you yo play on mine. If your argument is rational, then you don’t need a doctrinal support for it. If your argument is irrational, then doctrinal support will not help.

Regardless of the limitations set on me, I’m going to need you to explain why foresight has ramifications. Also, parents do not have the ability of foresight but they have offspring for last ends of the relationship, the children are taught and ordered to their last ends, which is God (who is the last end for all.) They do not contemplate whether or not if the child will go against their wishes or not, all they care about is raising the child in goodness, if the child rebels and runs away from a good home then the child is at fault.

There is already a problem here, since God does “raise us”, and does not “teach us”. But I will let that pass.

If the parents had foresight of this rebellion, the right inclination is to raise the child as best as they can.

Knowingly raising a monster is not excused by the defense: “I had the best intentions, and did my best, but it did not work out… sorry”. If you knew (really knew) up front that despite your best efforts you will fail, then the only rational solution is not to embark on that particular endeavor. Humans have the excuse, they do not know. Poor God is painted into a corner by the assumption of omniscience. Knowledge makes all the difference.

The wrong inclination is not to have the child. It’s no surprise modernist choose the latter, since being drenched in the culture of death.

Oh, puhlese, gimme a break. To decide not to have a child is hardly a “culture of death”. I did not expect you make such an irrational nonsense.

Are you supposing that God should not have created at all, only have created selected agents or creating agents with absence of choice?

Obviously the second one. Selected agents, who have unlimited free will and who wish to use that freedom for good purposes. They may fail due to lack of full information, but never fail volitionally.

In a very good sense the idea that God knew up front if someone will act contrary his will, and thus that act will have only negative consequences on others and the whole creation (that is another catholic doctrine) and creates that person anyhow - presents God as an idiot. Only an idiot would act against his own best interest, and against the best interest of everyone else, moreover against the best interest of the one in question. After all the “reward” of the act is eternal punishment, and that is hardly in the best interest of the person involved. Only a total idiot would create a “lose-lose” situation, where no one wins and everyone loses.

 

[Serious]

He isn’t responsible for acts that are contrary to His goodness in moral agents.

Oops. I made a mistake. I gave the argument in a different thread, not here. Here it comes.

1. God’s omniscience means that God knew about the acts some of the created ones will commit, even before he created them.
2. God was under no obligation to create those particular beings.
3. As such he is fully responsible for the acts of those beings.

The key is here is “knowlege”. If one knows that his creation will work against his wishes, and still goes on with creating, it means full responsibilty for the creation. If God had a desk, it would carry the sign: “The buck stops here!”.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

This is premature. I just enumerated the two most frequent attempts to explain the “problem of evil”. I did not argue against them, as of yet. But I will say one sentence here: “if and only if the pain is logically necessary, and the ensuing greater good more than compensates for the pain, then and only then is pain an acceptable means”. (By the way it is interesting to see this kind of defense, because of the catholic doctrine that it is never acceptable to use evil so that good will come out of it. Just one of the contradicitions in the teachings.)

Which “Problem of evil” argument are we speaking of? Morally deficient agents acting contrary to natural law against other moral agents or agents experiencing pain from natural causing events? If it’s the second, how on earth are you assigning “evil” to natural events, I thought you were just arguing for neutrals? Wrong means not justifying good ends have no affect on my argument of pain experienced, not intentionality of harm.

No, it is obvious. I want to make sure that I do not come up with an argument, which is contrary to the assumptions of classical theism. I try to “play” on your playing field, and I expect you yo play on mine. If your argument is rational, then you don’t need a doctrinal support for it. If your argument is irrational, then doctrinal support will not help.

It’s rationally argued that God knows everything in the living moment as He is the prime mover of essentially ordered series, but I am not entirely sure if it’s purely a rational, without use of revelation, argument He knows before acting or an article of faith. I will have to pull out the Contra Gentiles and the Summa for that but if it’s an article of faith, you’re position is folly to accept one article of faith and dismiss another, context is key.

Knowingly raising a monster is not excused by the defense: “I had the best intentions, and did my best, but it did not work out… sorry”. If you knew (really knew) up front that despite your best efforts you will fail, then the only rational solution is not to embark on that particular endeavor. Humans have the excuse, they do not know. Poor God is painted into a corner by the assumption of omniscience. Knowledge makes all the difference.

You’re applying an observation of a single agent and linking that with humanity, multiple agents? This doesn’t follow since not everyone ends up like this.

Still need an explanation why foresight has ramifications, all I’m seeing is pure assertions without rational arguments.

Oh, puhlese, gimme a break. To decide not to have a child is hardly a “culture of death”. I did not expect you make such an irrational nonsense.

Ill side effects of it, but you’re pulling my comment out of context.

Obviously the second one. Selected agents, who have unlimited free will and who wish to use that freedom for good purposes. They may fail due to lack of full information, but never fail volitionally.

And what is your proposition of how this should have or should be carried out? I can see this turning into a eugenic explanation, hopefully I’m wrong.

In a very good sense the idea that God knew up front if someone will act contrary his will, and thus that act will have only negative consequences on others and the whole creation (that is another catholic doctrine) and creates that person anyhow - presents God as an idiot. Only an idiot would act against his own best interest, and against the best interest of everyone else, moreover against the best interest of the one in question. After all the “reward” of the act is eternal punishment, and that is hardly in the best interest of the person involved. Only a total idiot would create a “lose-lose” situation, where no one wins and everyone loses.

Whole of creation? What doctrine is that and what degree of assent does it require?

To the rest, since we’re dealing with foresight then it is obvious that teleology is key to this. You won’t get passed the fact moral agents fall and are responsible for their fall, it is the ends that are to be observed. You can’t get past this temporal moment we all live, aeviternity is the greater factor to observe. Since it is dogma “where offenses were abundant, grace was superabundant” (Rom 5:20), it follows that foresight observes the last end of agents in question. And since we’re speaking of this all-knowing agent who is the highest form of being and thus goodness, which is where the omni-benevolent doctrine comes from, He wills His goodness to agents in question, not by force. Agents that do not receive this are agents who do not will themselves to their natural last end and reject it willfully.

1. God’s omniscience means that God knew about the acts some of the created ones will commit, even before he created them.
2. God was under no obligation to create those particular beings.
3. As such he is fully responsible for the acts of those beings.

Demonstrate, rationally, 3. And, as I asked before, demonstrate why foresight implies ramifications to God in creating agents with rational souls.

 

[Serious]

Which “Problem of evil” argument are we speaking of? Morally deficient agents acting contrary to natural law against other moral agents or agents experiencing pain from natural causing events? If it’s the second, how on earth are you assigning “evil” to natural events, I thought you were just arguing for neutrals? Wrong means not justifying good ends have no affect on my argument of pain experienced, not intentionality of harm.

Both, of course. At this time we are still at the preliminary stages. Instead calling it the “problem of evil”, which is just a convenient, but an imprecise phrase it should be called the “problem of unnecessary pain and suffering” But this is maybe a bit wordy. (POUPAS could be an abbreviation.)

You’re applying an observation of a single agent and linking that with humanity, multiple agents? This doesn’t follow since not everyone ends up like this.

Even one instance is “damning”.

Still need an explanation why foresight has ramifications, all I’m seeing is pure assertions without rational arguments.

I don’t understand your problem. If you are

1. aware of the results of an action (omniscience), and
2. you have the freedom of either doing that action or not doing it (free will), then
3. you are fully responsible for the results of that action (whether those results are direct, or indirect - primary and secondary causes).

It is not simply the foreknowledge which implicates you, it is the knowledge and the action together which makes you responsible. If you reject this simple fact, then there is nothing to talk about. In other words, God is the “boss”, and as such he must take the responsibility for everything, be it good or bad. Later on, if we can get into the details, you will be more than welcome to try to show that the seemingly unnecessary instances of pain and suffering are somehow justifyable. We are not there yet. We are still wasting time on one sentence of your suggested article, namely: “Just as one cannot hold parents at fault for the free evil choices of their children, so one cannot reasonably fault God for the existence of the moral evil caused by his creatures.” I am not sure why the author wants to “whitewash” God of the responsibility, but it is an illiogical and irrational attempt.

And what is your proposition of how this should have or should be carried out? I can see this turning into a eugenic explanation, hopefully I’m wrong.

Simple. God foresees that agent “X” will perform an act, which is contrary to his wishes, and thus decides not to create that agent. Using some catholic terminology, this is not “abortion”, it is “natural family planning”.

Whole of creation? What doctrine is that and what degree of assent does it require?

I don’t have the text at my fingertips. In the threads dealing with consensual sex or masturbation (when the act does not hurt anyone else), the posters argued that an act, even it does not hurt anyone else, still has a “sin”, and sin has a detrimental effect of “everything else”. (newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) In other words, they asserted that there are no “isolated actions”. I think that is nonsense.

To the rest, since we’re dealing with foresight then it is obvious that teleology is key to this.

Again, premature.

And since we’re speaking of this all-knowing agent who is the highest form of being and thus goodness, which is where the omni-benevolent doctrine comes from, He wills His goodness to agents in question, not by force. Agents that do not receive this are agents who do not will themselves to their natural last end and reject it willfully.

No, we are most certainly not. We are only talking about a being, who has freedom to act or not to act (has free will), and who has the ability to foresee all the direct and indirect ramifications of his actions (omniscient) and who can perform any act that does not lead to a logical contradiction (omnipotent). No other purported features of this being are to be dragged into this - as a “premise”. It is God’s supposed benevolence which is in question, so you cannot stipulate this benevolence as a premise or axiom, at best as a hypothesis.

This needs to be clarified this here and now.