Sour grapes... said the fox

[inocente]

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.

Your world without suffering sounds like Disneyland, a twentieth century consumer paradise, 24/7 leisure, where every story has a happy ending and the worst possible pain is failing to solve 7-down in a word jumble. To me it would be dreadful, bland beyond bland, hell on earth. Interestingly though, you didn’t go so far as to banish death, perhaps that’s too far outside your box.

But consider that in a world without suffering there would be no survival of the fittest, and without that Homo sapiens could never have evolved, and so you and I could never exist in that perfect world. Which is fine by me, I’m really thankful for that small mercy.

 

[Serious]

Your world without suffering sounds like Disneyland, a twentieth century consumer paradise, 24/7 leisure, where every story has a happy ending and the worst possible pain is failing to solve 7-down in a word jumble.

I was under the impression that it looks like heaven. Well, better than heaven, where all you could do is sing praises to God and play the harp (by the way, do you practice how to play the harp?). At least in my world there would be variety - infinite variety.

To me it would be dreadful, bland beyond bland, hell on earth. Interestingly though, you didn’t go so far as to banish death, perhaps that’s too far outside your box.

Actually you would still be free to grab a hammer and pound your thumb if you are so inclined, or hang yourself if the boredom would get you. Somehow I never had the problem of boredom, but your milage may vary. For me life is just too interesting to get bored.

But consider that in a world without suffering there would be no survival of the fittest, and without that Homo sapiens could never have evolved, and so you and I could never exist in that perfect world. Which is fine by me, I’m really thankful for that small mercy.

God could create that world “right out of the box”, without the need to resort to “evolution”.

Let me summarize your proposition: “the good life without suffering is boring; the suffering is the spice of this world and makes this life worth living; utopia is worse than being tortured… etc”. I have a sneaky suspicion that you do not seek out that “spice”, when you have pain and suffering, you see professional help to alleviate it. So maybe you preach something and live its exactlt opposite… is that what the word “hypocrisy” means?

 

[inocente]

I was under the impression that it looks like heaven. Well, better than heaven, where all you could do is sing praises to God and play the harp (by the way, do you practice how to play the harp?). At least in my world there would be variety - infinite variety.

Fine, move to Disneyland if that’s your idea of heaven and your problems are solved.

*Actually you would still be free to grab a hammer and pound your thumb if you are so inclined, or hang yourself if the boredom would get you. Somehow I never had the problem of boredom, but your milage may vary. For me life is just too interesting to get bored. *

Yes, you already described your perfect lifestyle – “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”. Basically then, you’re born, you consume, you die. Just one question - what’s the point?

*God could create that world “right out of the box”, without the need to resort to “evolution”. *

By amazing coincidence, that’s exactly what God did in Genesis chapter 2, except that then Adam and Eve put their hand in the cookie jar and God got all “who’s been eating my porridge?” and things went a bit downhill.

So you’d like God to put us in the middle of a creation myth then.

Let me summarize your proposition: “the good life without suffering is boring; the suffering is the spice of this world and makes this life worth living; utopia is worse than being tortured… etc”. I have a sneaky suspicion that you do not seek out that “spice”, when you have pain and suffering, you see professional help to alleviate it. So maybe you preach something and live its exactlt opposite… is that what the word “hypocrisy” means?

Not even close, and we can do without any insults. I don’t like suffering any more than the next man, but having to live in a bubble-wrapped chocolate box consumer paradise would to me be suffering beyond suffering. I don’t think it’s true that whatever feels good must be good.

 

[Serious]

Fine, move to Disneyland if that’s your idea of heaven and your problems are solved.

I create my own Disneyland, as much as I can. There are circumstances outside my control. And for those I use the extended form of the serenity prayer:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference,
And the ability to hide the bodies of those idiots
Who pissed me off today,
And the foresight of not to step on the toes
Which are attached to the butts
I might have to kiss tomorrow.

Yes, you already described your perfect lifestyle – “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”. Basically then, you’re born, you consume, you die. Just one question - what’s the point?

The point is itself. I like the sign in the National forests: “Don’t take anything but pictures, and don’t leave anything but footprints”. It pertains to this life, too. Enjoy what you can and leave good memories behind. And I do not enjoy pain and suffering.

By amazing coincidence, that’s exactly what God did in Genesis chapter 2, except that then Adam and Eve put their hand in the cookie jar and God got all “who’s been eating my porridge?” and things went a bit downhill.

So you’d like God to put us in the middle of a creation myth then.

I think it is a myth, but it would be nice it existed. Without the booby-trapped “tree” of course.

Not even close, and we can do without any insults. I don’t like suffering any more than the next man, but having to live in a bubble-wrapped chocolate box consumer paradise would to me be suffering beyond suffering.

If you do not enjoy suffering, why do you wish to have it? For entertainment purposes? To break the boredom of happy life? Because that is what you have been advocating. At least you should admit it. As I said before: “boredom is the sign of intellectual laziness”.

I don’t think it’s true that whatever feels good must be good.

As long as it does not hurt others… what is the problem? Do you really think that the opposite is true: “whatever feels good, must be bad?”. That would be the slogan of Puritans. Do you recall the definition of a Puritanism? Here comes: “Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere might have fun”. And the other one: “Everything that is good is either illegal, immoral or fattening”.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

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.)

Like I said, if pain experienced from natural events have meta gains to them then there is no problem, cetainly nothing evil since we are dealing with nature. Agents inflicting pain with intentionality of harm to other agents are solely responsible for the evil actions they do. Also, the latter implies natural moral law if we are assigning evil to actions, of which the law is source from God. So, one cannot assign moral blame to God when there is law He created in the first place. The latter is also contingent on the former, making it a per accidens, and not knowable without the former.

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).

Yes, He is responsible for creating, primary causes. But I still haven’t seen a rational argument that demonstrates He is also responsible for secondary’s as well.

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”.

I doubt this is a possible world, everyone eventually stumbles and commits some degree of wrong; no one would be created in your world. Concerning moral agents with rational souls, positive and negative actions are rigid designators, in every single agent, if we are dealing with possible worlds. You would have a better defense choosing the first option.

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.

Sounds like fundamentalism, that nature was corrupted because of the Fall. Nonsensical hogwash. The argument of no isolated evil action pertains to humanity and God (as an observer), nothing else and is certainly not doctrine that sin affects the nature of the natural world.

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.

It’s called the henological argument, of which is purely rational. If you desire to control the debate to such a degree that I cannot even assign natural theology to the discussion and only permit attributes that assist your argument alone, then I am done.

 

[Serious]

Yes, He is responsible for creating, primary causes. But I still haven’t seen a rational argument that demonstrates He is also responsible for secondary’s as well.

It is obvious. But I will try to explain one more time. Suppose you have an explosive in your possession. You also know of someone who wishes to blow up something, but lacks the means. You are under no obligation to give that explosive to this person. If you give him the explosive then you make it possible for that person to blow up his target. If you do not give the explosive, he will be unable to perform that act. As such if you give the explosive to that person, you are fully responsible for his action, even if you did not perform the action yourself.

The desire to do something is not relevant if one does not have the ways and means to carry out that desire. If you are the one who supply the means, you are just as responsible for the act as the actual perpetrator.

If you do not understand the rationale of this simple line of arguments, I am really not interested any more.

I doubt this is a possible world, everyone eventually stumbles and commits some degree of wrong; no one would be created in your world. Concerning moral agents with rational souls, positive and negative actions are rigid designators, in every single agent, if we are dealing with possible worlds. You would have a better defense choosing the first option.

Nonsense. A possible world is one which contains no logical contradicion. And this world may be improbable, but not logically impossible. The definiton of “omnipotence” is that God can actualize any state of affairs, which is not logically contradictory.

It’s called the henological argument, of which is purely rational. If you desire to control the debate to such a degree that I cannot even assign natural theology to the discussion and only permit attributes that assist your argument alone, then I am done.

Oh well, I had no real hope anyway. It would have been nice to have a rational conversation, but I guess I will have to wait for one. To postulate the attribute which is being questioned as a premise is a logical absurdity.

I am sure it would be nice for you to have an “argument” like this:

Premise: God is all good.
Observation: There are events which cannot be reconciled with the premise.
Argument: Since the observation contradicts to the premise, the observation must be wrong.
Conclusion: God is all good, as it was stipulated in the premise. Q.E.D.

This reminds my of a Dilbert cartoon, where Dogbert is accused of circular reasoning. Dogbert says: “I prefer to think about it as having no loose ends”.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

It is obvious. But I will try to explain one more time. Suppose you have an explosive in your possession. You also know of someone who wishes to blow up something, but lacks the means. You are under no obligation to give that explosive to this person. If you give him the explosive then you make it possible for that person to blow up his target. If you do not give the explosive, he will be unable to perform that act. As such if you give the explosive to that person, you are fully responsible for his action, even if you did not perform the action yourself.

The desire to do something is not relevant if one does not have the ways and means to carry out that desire. If you are the one who supply the means, you are just as responsible for the act as the actual perpetrator.

And how exactly is this applicable to the relation between God and Man? God did not give us an explosive device, He gave us rational souls. The human being’s final cause is to procreate, rationalize, know and serve God, not blow up things like a bomb. He gave us rational souls for those intended ends, with the ability of rationality follows choice and the choices that are deprived of intended ends are per accidens.

Nonsense. A possible world is one which contains no logical contradicion. And this world may be improbable, but not logically impossible. The definiton of “omnipotence” is that God can actualize any state of affairs, which is not logically contradictory.

And goes back to the defense that He is under no obligation to continue to actualize the best possible world, or actualize it in the first place, when rational agents freely choose against Him. Implying that He should is an emotional argument, of which I have no time for.

Oh well, I had no real hope anyway. It would have been nice to have a rational conversation, but I guess I will have to wait for one. To postulate the attribute which is being questioned as a premise is a logical absurdity.

I am sure it would be nice for you to have an “argument” like this:

Premise: God is all good.
Observation: There are events which cannot be reconciled with the premise.
Argument: Since the observation contradicts to the premise, the observation must be wrong.
Conclusion: God is all good, as it was stipulated in the premise. Q.E.D.

This reminds my of a Dilbert cartoon, where Dogbert is accused of circular reasoning. Dogbert says: “I prefer to think about it as having no loose ends”.

You fall on your own sword though by using an objection that relies on revealed theology, foreknowledge. If you can’t argue against someone who is as stubborn as you are and won’t let the debate be controlled in your favor, then that’s your problem. I am perfectly willing to let the debate be free of biblical implications and solely use natural theology, but that would prevent some of your objections wouldn’t it? What can be rationally defined, without use of revealed theology, is the teleology of creation. Per accidens of free rational agents have no ramifications to God when they deprive themselves from their intended end.

 

[Serious]

And how exactly is this applicable to the relation between God and Man?

If you don’t see it, there is no point in continuing.

I will condense the problem int a few sentences:

When contemplating the “problem of evil”, the only “features” of God we take into account (as premises) are: “omniscience” (God knows about the actions), “omnipotence” (God has the power prevent the actions) - and of course the undeniable fact that “evil” actions and “harmful events” DO occur. The alleged “benevolence” is just a hypothesis, which you need to establish in the course of the discussion. You are not allowed to present it as a premise for the discussion. This is the point when the theist invariably starts to complain: “you wish to control the discussion, you wish to take away my freedom to resort to theology, the catechism, etc…”. What they actually should say (if they were intellectually honest) is: “In order to show God’s benevolence I need to present it as an axiom. Then I can say that evidence to the contrary is discarded since it contradicts the axiom. Thus finally I could establish God’s benevolence”
Do you actually understand why this line of “reasoning is not admissible”??

By the way, contrary to what you say, omnipotence and omniscience are not “revealed theology”, they are simply assumptions on the part of the believers, which are being entertained for the sake of discussion. And the point is that the third assumption, namely “benevolence” cannot be reconciled with the other two, and the actual state of affairs.

Of course we never reached the actual discussion at all. We are bogged down in the question of responsibility. Oh well, it was nice while there was hope.

 

[Gorgias]

I will condense the problem int a few sentences:

Do you actually understand why this line of “reasoning is not admissible”??

Since you tried this – verbatim – on me and I rejected it, it’ll be interesting to see what others do with this claim.

Of course we never reached the actual discussion at all. We are bogged down in the question of responsibility. Oh well, it was nice while there was hope.

But, this is a good thing! You wouldn’t want to engage in a debate in which one side’s definitions were intrinsically at odds with the other side’s definitions, would you? What kind of reasonable conclusion would that debate yield?!?

In any case, there’s a valuable take-away here: we have both learned that the reason that we can’t agree on this matter isn’t that one of us is necessarily being irrational, it’s that we don’t agree on definitions!

 

[Serious]

But, this is a good thing! You wouldn’t want to engage in a debate in which one side’s definitions were intrinsically at odds with the other side’s definitions, would you? What kind of reasonable conclusion would that debate yield?!?

If there is no common platform to start from, there is no way to conduct a meaningful conversation. I am an incurable optimist, I keep hoping to find a theist with whom there is a common platform to start from. Very rarely it happens. Even in those cases we usually come to different conclusions, but that is OK. But it is exceedingly rare.

 

[Gorgias]

If there is no common platform to start from, there is no way to conduct a meaningful conversation.

No… we start from disparate positions; the act of discussion, we hope, leads us to consider the rationality of our positions, such that perhaps we reconsider whether our definitions are reasonable.

I am an incurable optimist, I keep hoping to find a theist with whom there is a common platform to start from

LOL… why in the world does that look like “I keep hoping to find a theist who agrees with my definitions (so that I can destroy his arguments)”?

 

[TS_Aquinas]

If you don’t see it, there is no point in continuing.

I will condense the problem int a few sentences:

When contemplating the “problem of evil”, the only “features” of God we take into account (as premises) are: “omniscience” (God knows about the actions), “omnipotence” (God has the power prevent the actions) - and of course the undeniable fact that “evil” actions and “harmful events” DO occur. The alleged “benevolence” is just a hypothesis, which you need to establish in the course of the discussion. You are not allowed to present it as a premise for the discussion. This is the point when the theist invariably starts to complain: “you wish to control the discussion, you wish to take away my freedom to resort to theology, the catechism, etc…”. What they actually should say (if they were intellectually honest) is: “In order to show God’s benevolence I need to present it as an axiom. Then I can say that evidence to the contrary is discarded since it contradicts the axiom. Thus finally I could establish God’s benevolence”
Do you actually understand why this line of “reasoning is not admissible”??

Wrong, all premises that follow from systematic theology to this point are admissible and you involving “omnibenevolence” to created rational agents and foreknowledge to contingent things are axioms to the debate that excludes revealed theology. Axioms that heavily relies on revealed theology and is easily recounciled within revealed theology. By you presenting such premises and denying the context of the source is intellectual suicide and automatic dismissal from the debate.

By the way, contrary to what you say, omnipotence and omniscience are not “revealed theology”, they are simply assumptions on the part of the believers, which are being entertained for the sake of discussion. And the point is that the third assumption, namely “benevolence” cannot be reconciled with the other two, and the actual state of affairs.

By you stating this demonstrates to me you have not been paying attention to the debate. I never said omnipotence and omniscience are attributed to revealed theology, far from it. I said foreknowledge is, the demonstration of omniscience in natural theology pertains to all things known in essentially ordered series in the living moment and according to their intended ends, thus leaving contingent things foreknown out of the debate.

You have failed to rebuke my responses concerning: final cause of rational agents, intentionality of harm is per accidens of the meta gains of natural causing pain, no rational argument to defend the necessity of the best possible world and the logical fallacy of “omnibenevolence” in a purely rational debate. You have been tried, test and measured and found wanting, have a nice day.

 

[Serious]

LOL… why in the world does that look like “I keep hoping to find a theist who agrees with my definitions (so that I can destroy his arguments)”?

Because you don’t understand it. The fact that we may have a common starting ground does not ensure a final agreement. And that is perfectly fine (as I said before). We might even get a partial agreement, which is most gratifying. But it hardly ever happens.

 

[Gorgias]

Because you don’t understand it. The fact that we may have a common starting ground does not ensure a final agreement. And that is perfectly fine (as I said before). We might even get a partial agreement, which is most gratifying. But it hardly ever happens.

Lol… if your penchant for telling people what they think weren’t so amusing, it would have already become tedious…

Blessings,

G.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

But, this is a good thing! You wouldn’t want to engage in a debate in which one side’s definitions were intrinsically at odds with the other side’s definitions, would you? What kind of reasonable conclusion would that debate yield?!?

In any case, there’s a valuable take-away here: we have both learned that the reason that we can’t agree on this matter isn’t that one of us is necessarily being irrational, it’s that we don’t agree on definitions!

This is just another demonstration of what happened with the philosophical arena when air heads like Descartes, Kant, Locke, Hume, etc… all threw out Aristotelian philosophy and infected society with their diseasing ideas. They couldn’t settle on definitions because they never were educated on them and modern day garbage revolves off their uneducated garbage. Luckily the Church, once again, is preserving the intellect from damage in this 2nd Dark Ages.

 

[mwok]

Think outside the box. There are several possibilities. It is not mandatory that life or intelligence should biologically based, it could be crystalline based. Life is simply complex responses to complex stimuli. Even if it is biologically founded, it does not need to have pain receptor nerve endings. Touching a hot stove would burn your hand off, and just like a planaria, your hand would grow back. Just let your imagination wander and I bet you can come up with other solutions. As long as the solution does not lead to logically impossible state of affairs, it is a possible world, and as such God could instantiate it.

You mean, think outside of reality. I’m sure we could be like all those variables you threw out there, BUT we’re not. So how about we try to figure out why we are as we are now?

 

[Serious]

You mean, think outside of reality. I’m sure we could be like all those variables you threw out there, BUT we’re not. So how about we try to figure out why we are as we are now?

What is the point? If there would be an oak tree where there is a pine tree, that would be an alternate reality and a different possible world. Now that kind of an alternate reality would not help us much. But as long as there is no logical contradiction involved, any “fantastic alternate reality” could be actualized by God, and from contemplating those realities we can make useful deductions.

This reality (which is changing all the time) is a given. “Why” this one and not a different one? You say because God made it so and maybe you add: “because we humans messed it up”. I say because we evolved this way. Neither answer is particulary interesting. If there is no God, then the alternate realities are totally irrelevant. But if there is a God and he could have created a different reality - which is better than this one, then the ramifications are very dire. We could ask the really pertinent question: “WHY are we NOT different?” That is why the concept of possible world is a useful tool.

If you could prove that this particular reality is the “best of all the possible worlds” (even the smallest change would result in an inferior state of affairs), then God’s “goodness” would be established. Of course the opposite is true. If we can prove that this world is not the best of all the possible worlds (all things considered!) then God’s benevolence is disproven.

 

[mwok]

Because God never changes we know that this reality is the best of all possibilities because any change in the laws already in place would go against the nature of an Infinite God.

 

[Serious]

Because God never changes we know that this reality is the best of all possibilities because any change in the laws already in place would go against the nature of an Infinite God.

What a joke. A dynamic world cannot be the “best one”, because it keeps changing. Don’t you understand even that?

 

[inocente]

I create my own Disneyland, as much as I can. There are circumstances outside my control. And for those I use the extended form of the serenity prayer:

The point is itself. I like the sign in the National forests: “Don’t take anything but pictures, and don’t leave anything but footprints”. It pertains to this life, too. Enjoy what you can and leave good memories behind. And I do not enjoy pain and suffering.

Your theory seems to be that we should deal with the suffering of others by blotting them out of our thoughts with leisure activities and fantasies of a Shangri-La. Is your criticism of other approaches based on the time and effort you’ve personally devoted to helping those who are suffering, are you speaking from experience?

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference,
And the ability to hide the bodies of those idiots
Who pissed me off today,
And the foresight of not to step on the toes
Which are attached to the butts
I might have to kiss tomorrow.

btw, egocentric potty mouth poems don’t sound overly grown up on this side of the Pond.

*If you do not enjoy suffering, why do you wish to have it? For entertainment purposes? To break the boredom of happy life? Because that is what you have been advocating. At least you should admit it. As I said before: “boredom is the sign of intellectual laziness”. *

I just don’t see how pretending that suffering doesn’t exist will make it go away. That’s the second time you’ve referred to boredom out of the blue, what’s it got to do with this thread, do you reckon the worst possible suffering is being bored or something?

As long as it does not hurt others… what is the problem? Do you really think that the opposite is true: “whatever feels good, must be bad?”. That would be the slogan of Puritans. Do you recall the definition of a Puritanism? Here comes: “Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere might have fun”. And the other one: “Everything that is good is either illegal, immoral or fattening”.

Never mind, my remark was about instant gratification from instant judging of others. Could we raise the bar a bit? To get a better idea of how you think everyone should deal with the suffering of others, what advice would you give to (say) the wife of a soldier who got killed by an IED, or a man who lost his whole family in a road traffic accident?