The great hallucination

[ffg]

Hi Picky,

Sorry it’s been a while. I did not get a chance to read that book I mentioned yet. I’m still finishing a book by G.K. Chesterton on St. Thomas Aquinas.

So our key question being - why a seemingly ‘good / loving’ God would allow tragedy / suffering? ‘Problem of pain’

In order to address the low fruit of ‘well, God, if there is one, must not be that good or loving, to allow bad things to happen to good people’.

We first went through some reasoning that essentially boils down to, ‘I am here, because of this, He ( God) must want me’. Then defining that want, as love.

In defining God as Good / loving and understanding love does not force a reflection, we can conclude that man made acts of tragedy / suffering are free to be made because of God’s love for the person doing bad things.

Thus, the fact that we see man made tragedy / suffering is a sign of the freedom we have as humans by a loving God.

It would make more sense if we thought God was to control or disallow tragedy / suffering, to conclude God does not love! Because that would indicate less or no freedom for the human, more action by God.

Our ‘Why’ is still hanging out there, but i did want to take this one slow.

Thoughts?

Take care,

Mike

 

[Picky_Picky]

Hi Mike. Well, you are again separating out man-made acts as though they were special, allowed because of free will. The volcano does not have free will (acts of God!) and nor does the cheetah, we suppose. I decline to separate out the man-made acts. The truth is that viewed as part of creation they are not special. The world you tell me God made is replete with violence and tragedy. Perhaps God does not love? Perhaps creation has become as it is without him? You want to take a slice of these tragedies and blame them not on God who you believe created them but on man who suffers them. Why?

 

[Picky_Picky]

I’ll try to be clearer, Mike, if I may.

Every sentient creature on earth exists by devouring other living things. Every sentient creature on earth is either predator, or prey, or both. To restrict the debate to issues surrounding free will is to miss the scope of the problem. All sentient life on earth is powered by suffering. Who would create a world run on such a mechanism?

 

[ffg]

Excellent. Thanks Picky!

If we have 2 apples in front of us and we choose to analyze one, there is nothing in the choice that automatically disqualifies the other from eventually being analyzed. Perhaps the first one we choose is easiest to pick apart, or is most interesting with a worm making a home, or the one we picked from the tree, where the other was given to us.

Remember those buckets I tried to make earlier? The world’s nature and action vs the human action?

So the answer to your ‘why focus here?’, is because it’s the first apple. What better thing to analyze than ourselves? We surely aren’t the ones who created this place, but we can relate to the thoughts and actions of those most similar in being to us. Then maybe we can take analysis from that to help with the second apple.

So to start to analyze that second apple, the volcano’s and the weather damage, etc… We must first remind ourselves of who God is per our earlier evaluation.

If there is a God, and he made us, surely it was out of some kind of desire…want / Love…Love can’t force…creation’s choice to love back, or not.

If God created this natural world, surely it was out of some kind of desire, what he made must have been what he wanted…it is good.

In a similar way with God blowing life into humans and loving them, why would we think this would be any different with his other creations?

If he was to stop a volcano on his own, he would be acting contra to his first action of creation. Surely God is smart enough to create exactly what he wants the first time, never needing to correct on his own.

So we have natural and human created disasters, both of which happen due to the freedom God has provided to that which he creates. Winds blow freely, humans have choice.

‘On His own’ analysis: People pray for different outcomes from that which science might assume. How many times do we see on the news ‘nobody could have survived that horrific Tsunami’ only to see someone get pulled from the rubble breathing?

The key as mentioned above - God won’t go against his creation ‘on his own’, but if we open that door we might be surprised at his willingness to help. Though many times it seems God’s answers are not necessarily equivalent to our expectations.

So, what seems to be the next step now that we have taken all tragedy and linked it is understanding if there is importance (or lack thereof) of the results of disasters / tragedy.

Namely, is there importance / value to suffering?

Take care,

Mike

 

[Picky_Picky]

Excellent. Thanks Picky!

If we have 2 apples in front of us and we choose to analyze one, there is nothing in the choice that automatically disqualifies the other from eventually being analyzed. Perhaps the first one we choose is easiest to pick apart, or is most interesting with a worm making a home, or the one we picked from the tree, where the other was given to us.

Remember those buckets I tried to make earlier? The world’s nature and action vs the human action?

So the answer to your ‘why focus here?’, is because it’s the first apple. What better thing to analyze than ourselves? We surely aren’t the ones who created this place, but we can relate to the thoughts and actions of those most similar in being to us. Then maybe we can take analysis from that to help with the second apple.

So to start to analyze that second apple, the volcano’s and the weather damage, etc… We must first remind ourselves of who God is per our earlier evaluation.

If there is a God, and he made us, surely it was out of some kind of desire…want / Love…Love can’t force…creation’s choice to love back, or not.

If God created this natural world, surely it was out of some kind of desire, what he made must have been what he wanted…it is good.

In a similar way with God blowing life into humans and loving them, why would we think this would be any different with his other creations?

If he was to stop a volcano on his own, he would be acting contra to his first action of creation. Surely God is smart enough to create exactly what he wants the first time, never needing to correct on his own.

So we have natural and human created disasters, both of which happen due to the freedom God has provided to that which he creates. Winds blow freely, humans have choice.

‘On His own’ analysis: People pray for different outcomes from that which science might assume. How many times do we see on the news ‘nobody could have survived that horrific Tsunami’ only to see someone get pulled from the rubble breathing?

The key as mentioned above - God won’t go against his creation ‘on his own’, but if we open that door we might be surprised at his willingness to help. Though many times it seems God’s answers are not necessarily equivalent to our expectations.

So, what seems to be the next step now that we have taken all tragedy and linked it is understanding if there is importance (or lack thereof) of the results of disasters / tragedy.

Namely, is there importance / value to suffering?

Take care,

Mike

Yes, I am not asking God to intervene to counter the effects of his original creation. I am asking what sort of being would have created such an awful system in the first place. That is what you are about to tell me in “the importance / value to suffering”. I trust it will show me the value of suffering to the gazelle brought down by the cheetah. And that it will show not only that this suffering has a value for the cheetah and for the gazelle, but that it outweighs the value that would be conferred by a system lacking this suffering.

 

[ffg]

Thanks Picky.

Awful (or any adjective)? There is not a second system of our nature.

If there was another system of our nature without suffering, could we even argue it had life? As you’ve pointed out, it seems suffering can be attached to ‘All sentient life on earth’. (probably a reason to evaluate value in suffering)

Perhaps there is a different system outside of our current nature. Maybe even linked to our current one. But, all I can evaluate is this one for now.

We’ve analyzed ‘what sort of being’: I’ve laid out the logic where we can define that being as:
a) giving (life and created things),
b) loving (lack of force in the worship of / freedom to the creation).

That ‘being’ does not change regardless of the effects (triumphs or tragedies) we see.

So I guess, is there a different definition of a creator ‘being’ that would jive with logic in wanting what is created?

I think we would agree that a creator not wanting it’s creation probably doesn’t exist.

We may need to define value for the sake of the discussion next.

Take care,

mike

 

[Picky_Picky]

Thanks Picky.

Awful (or any adjective)? There is not a second system of our nature.

If there was another system of our nature without suffering, could we even argue it had life? As you’ve pointed out, it seems suffering can be attached to ‘All sentient life on earth’. (probably a reason to evaluate value in suffering)

Perhaps there is a different system outside of our current nature. Maybe even linked to our current one. But, all I can evaluate is this one for now.

We’ve analyzed ‘what sort of being’: I’ve laid out the logic where we can define that being as:
a) giving (life and created things),
b) loving (lack of force in the worship of / freedom to the creation).

That ‘being’ does not change regardless of the effects (triumphs or tragedies) we see.

So I guess, is there a different definition of a creator ‘being’ that would jive with logic in wanting what is created?

I think we would agree that a creator not wanting it’s creation probably doesn’t exist.

We may need to define value for the sake of the discussion next.

Take care,

mike

“Of our nature”? Are you arguing that the Creator is constrained as to the kind of creation that is possible to him?

 

[ffg]

“Of our nature”? Are you arguing that the Creator is constrained as to the kind of creation that is possible to him?

I think you could read through it, but…

How about this - …‘of our nature, that we know of.’ (unless you know something and want to share it)

Does that help us move forward?

 

[Picky_Picky]

I think you could read through it, but…

How about this - …‘of our nature, that we know of.’ (unless you know something and want to share it)

Does that help us move forward?

Well, not forward, perhaps. It may have brought us up with a round turn, or at least made us veer!

If you are arguing “this is the only nature we know so discussing any different shapes that God’s creation might take is impossible” then we do hit the rocks. If you are arguing that for some reason it would be impossible for God to people a planet with herbivores, then we are off on a different tack.

 

[ffg]

Let’s see if we can move forward from the point where we left.

I must apologize, I thought you were being sarcastic last night, but it looks like that’s not the case.

So after evaluating who God may be in relation to human creation and the rest of creation, giving and loving, for the reasons set out above.

Is there another definition that jives with a creator’s desire to want what it creates that we should consider? Or are we good with giving and loving?

 

[Picky_Picky]

Let’s see if we can move forward from the point where we left.

I must apologize, I thought you were being sarcastic last night, but it looks like that’s not the case.

So after evaluating who God may be in relation to human creation and the rest of creation, giving and loving, for the reasons set out above.

Is there another definition that jives with a creator’s desire to want what it creates that we should consider? Or are we good with giving and loving?

Are you up rather early?

There is a danger that we are engaging in parallel arguments. With your permission, Mike, I will take some time to go back over what you have said in the past million or so posts before I reply. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I do detect an unwillingness on your behalf to face up to the cruelty of earthly creation. But I need to get back on your track, too. If I’m not careful I will find I’ve signed off on a giving and loving God when I believe nothing of the kind!

And we still face the prospect of discussing the value of suffering. My ears and whiskers, Mike, I hope we don’t get into a discussion about whether it’s a good thing to be in pain so that we can nobly rise above it! I warn you now, I find that argument not in the best of taste.

Hey ho. Allow me a little time, Mike, and I’ll be back.

 

[ffg]

Hi Picky,

No problem, take your time. Perhaps this post can summarize and clarify to save you from all that verbiage up there.

I was up early today, but I’d say my sleeping is not exactly consistent. That and these darn tiny computers are just too accessible.

With regard to finding a good thing to be in pain, fear not!

I actually deleted a piece of one of the last posts which went something like…

‘Though we have an example of extreme giving through what we could say is painful with the crucifixion of Jesus (assuming the Christian believed sacrifice vs execution), that’s the middle of the story.

The account we have, is Jesus sweating blood asking his Father to ‘let this cup pass me by’ in the knowledge of the pain which was about to beset him.’

So you are safe and in good company with who Christian’s declare is God.

If Jesus didn’t want the pain, I will surely try to not get twisted into making us think that pain is a good in and of itself.

But, where we will be headed, is if we can make a good out of it, which is where value comes into play.

Money doesn’t have value if there is not a thing for which to exchange it.

Pain would not have value, if there was not something for which to exchange it.

Both have the ability to be wasted when value is unknown.

With regard to the cruelty with earthly creation, I’m not concerned about facing it, but one step at a time here. If I have a good idea of who God is first, then I can analyze that cruelty in light of that foundation.

Creation doesn’t create God, so determining who God is by looking at the effects of creations actions (which might flow freely or have some form of freedom) will surely lead me in the wrong direction when our ultimate goal is simply to learn what is true.

We have to fit creation into creator, not the other way around.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Do you know, Mike, I think your last sentence, which seems innocent enough, is at the root of the problem. (What do you mean, you didn’t think you had a problem? ) I’m quite sure you are wrong. We can see creation. We cannot see the creator. The only way of finding out about the creator (if such there be) is through looking at creation. But anyway …

You were suggesting we might try to understand why the Creator created the universe. Difficult, eh? If we assume for the sake of this exercise that there is a God, that he is the only god, and that he is almighty (and I believe none of that, of course) then we will have difficulty getting anywhere near understanding his mind (if mind he has), so different must it be from ours. The only way we can approach anywhere near it is to use your method: to extrapolate from the only minds we have any real understanding of – our own.

So we might ask: Why would a man create a thing? I suggest three types of possibility.

1 It might be a creation focussing on someone else: a man might be paid or told to make something; or might make something as a gift. Since God is by our definition alone before creation, this cannot be his motivation.

2 It might be a creation focussing on the things that will live within the creation: a man might make something to contain creatures he expects to love, or at least be fond of; or he might make a theatre in which he can spite the creatures contained (“as flies to wanton boys are we to the gods – they kill us for their sport”). But if he made it from love, God would not have incorporated the cruel systems by which life is regulated; if he made it from spite he would not have incorporated music, or poetry, or the beauty of England. So love or spite cannot be his motivation, either.

3 It might be a creation relevant only to his own concerns: a hobby or pastime; a test or experiment or dummy run; a means to some other end. Only in this area, I think can we find a motivation that might fit God.

 

[Randy_Carson]

2 It might be a creation focussing on the things that will live within the creation: a man might make something to contain creatures he expects to love, or at least be fond of; or he might make a theatre in which he can spite the creatures contained (“as flies to wanton boys are we to the gods – they kill us for their sport”). But if he made it from love, God would not have incorporated the cruel systems by which life is regulated; if he made it from spite he would not have incorporated music, or poetry, or the beauty of England. So love or spite cannot be his motivation, either.

Ah…here is the error in your logic:

God did not “incorporate the cruel systems”.

Those were a result of man’s decision to disobey God. Cruelty results from our weaknesses, not His design. But why are we able to disobey God? Because out of love He gave us free will so that we could choose to obey and love Him in return.

Thus, God can and did create us with free will out of love, and out of love, He has chosen to rescue us from the cruel systems that we ourselves have set up.

 

[Randy_Carson]

3 It might be a creation relevant only to his own concerns: a hobby or pastime; a test or experiment or dummy run; a means to some other end. Only in this area, I think can we find a motivation that might fit God.

Unlike humans, God does not get bored, has no needs, and requires no recreation.

Since He has infinite wisdom and knowledge, He did not need a test run to see if His ideas for creation would work or not. He knew all that would happen before anything was made.

Therefore, God did not need a hobby to occupy Himself or to take His mind off of other things.

God is love. He chose to create so that He could share His great love with others.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Ah…here is the error in your logic:

God did not “incorporate the cruel systems”.

Those were a result of man’s decision to disobey God. Cruelty results from our weaknesses, not His design. But why are we able to disobey God? Because out of love He gave us free will so that we could choose to obey and love Him in return.

Thus, God can and did create us with free will out of love, and out of love, He has chosen to rescue us from the cruel systems that we ourselves have set up.

We have set up carnivorousness? When did we do that?

 

[Picky_Picky]

Unlike humans, God does not get bored, has no needs, and requires no recreation.

Since He has infinite wisdom and knowledge, He did not need a test run to see if His ideas for creation would work or not. He knew all that would happen before anything was made.

Therefore, God did not need a hobby to occupy Himself or to take His mind off of other things.

God is love. He chose to create so that He could share His great love with others.

Yes, there’s a problem for some of us with this. He knew all that would happen, and yet he set up a universe that would progress in all the dreadful ways it did. And yet he didn’t change his plans. Incidentally, everything – everything – you say in this post is unproven – quite unproven – assertion. I’m glad you’re happy with that sort of stuff, but you will understand that there is zero reason for me to take your assertions seriously.

 

[ffg]

Awesome, Great stuff Picky.

Though I do think you are right that there are creations we see where we can relate to God. Like say, ‘wow, only God would provide such beauty, isn’t God Great!’.

I would defend my or the ‘problem’ simply by going back to my logic above.

The steps I took did not require ‘things to see’ to create the thought. But I’ll try and refine…

God, if there is one, created.

The act of doing so regardless of what it was, was a giving act, in and of itself, first and foremost.

If there was nothing, then something, we could say he gave… to himself.

Then considering our differences in thought alone on the matter, we could say that, if there is a God, he must Love because you and I differ in thought.

If he did not love, I don’t see how you and I could vary in thought about him, as it would seem we would not have the freedom to differ which would be sourced from a not forced act. Which we summarize as love.

Thus, giving and loving.

Ha! I was going to touch on what Randy hit a bit. But this is good.

I do think there is a bit of #3 that is worthy of thought…a means to some other end. I do ask God a lot, what am I doing here, what should I be doing?

Then I think God and I always conclude, keep doing what you are doing and feed the kids get them up out of your house!

Take care,

Mike

 

[Picky_Picky]

Awesome, Great stuff Picky.

Though I do think you are right that there are creations we see where we can relate to God. Like say, ‘wow, only God would provide such beauty, isn’t God Great!’.

I would defend my or the ‘problem’ simply by going back to my logic above.

The steps I took did not require ‘things to see’ to create the thought. But I’ll try and refine…

God, if there is one, created.

The act of doing so regardless of what it was, was a giving act, in and of itself, first and foremost.

If there was nothing, then something, we could say he gave… to himself.

Then considering our differences in thought alone on the matter, we could say that, if there is a God, he must Love because you and I differ in thought.

If he did not love, I don’t see how you and I could vary in thought about him, as it would seem we would not have the freedom to differ which would be sourced from a not forced act. Which we summarize as love.

Thus, giving and loving.

Ha! I was going to touch on what Randy hit a bit. But this is good.

I do think there is a bit of #3 that is worthy of thought…a means to some other end. I do ask God a lot, what am I doing here, what should I be doing?

Then I think God and I always conclude, keep doing what you are doing and feed the kids get them up out of your house!

Take care,

Mike

With me it’s usually just feed the cats, the kids having grown and gone. Although the grandchildren, when they turn up, seem to require an incredible amount of feeding.

I’m not disposed to disagree with the idea that each act of creation is in a sense an act of giving (regardless, as you say, of the intrinsic value of the gift).

And our different opinions a sign of God’s love? I don’t quite swallow that. Why does he get all the credit for the good things and none of the blame for the bad?

 

[ffg]

Your last is a great next after a little more analysis on the cruelty. Or in the least - In context of.

I’ll catch up next week.

Have a great weekend!

Take care,

Mike