The "Problem Of Evil" does not exist

[Oreoracle]

And yet you claimed you knew that a divine protector doesn’t care about us. Kind of a weird dogmatic statement to make, considering your an agnostic. Usually agnostics have the humility to admit they don’t know about this.

Tell me: Would it be arrogant for a father to tell his children that fairies don’t exist? I mean, he has no proof, right? Should he let their minds dabble in fantasy for years so that they may never come to terms with the obvious?

I see suffering, a profound lack of “miracles,” and very little design in the universe (what’s with the superfluous planets, space, destructive asteroids, etc.?) These observations alone seem to discredit God’s omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and intelligence, respectively. I could elaborate, but I’m sure you’ve heard the arguments for each.

But it would interest me in hearing how you reason that a being with the omni- qualities, intelligence, and sentience exists. The first cause argument and its variations aren’t enough, because we can’t make the leap from “necessary being” to “God,” at least not as he is traditionally defined. Usually, theists will couple that argument with the argument from design, but I simply don’t see “intelligent design.”

Really? You must be well-read in philosophy to make such a general statement about this. Aristotle certainly didn’t say that emotional love was the only love that existed. Plato wouldn’t have said that either. In fact, the only Pre-Socratic I can think of that talked at all about love (Empodocles) said the main kind of love was not emotional either (he used it in the physical or even “gravitational” sense).

In other words, I contradicted a few ancient philosophers and you’re upset about it. People place far too much trust in the Greeks’ archaic usage of words. If you want to use archaic definitions, then that’s perfectly fine, but when someone next to you says, “I hate…” you can be certain that they’re speaking of emotional activity. (And since words gain their meaning after repeated usage from the general population, guess what that means?)

Philosophers, though interesting, tend to think they can twist a word into having an entirely different meaning and then claim the exclusive right to the definition of that word. Did all people adopt Empodocles’ version of “love?” I imagine not. Did his version attain widespread usage? I imagine not. I’m not well-read on this, of course, but it’s hard for me to believe that everyone started to use these definitions just because a few philosophers (who were typically unpopular in that time, as you know) devised them.

Modern definitions for modern contexts, if you please.

It depends what you mean by “isolated from emotions” and “influencing the will.” The emotions simply make it easier or harder for the will to choose something. This is because the emotions incline the body one way, and in order to avoid giving into that inclination, one’s will must be strong enough to do so.

So the will also inclines one to act a certain way? Why can’t the will be emotional as well, then? It just seems that you’re talking about multiple inclinations combating one another and then labeling one inclination “the will” for no apparent reason. When someone refuses to act on impulse, I assume it was because a more powerful inclination counterbalanced the initial impulse.

I would say this is common sense (but you are free to reject it of course). And I’m not sure what you mean by “That’s almost as bad a being causing its own existence.”

I’m asking how your will can motivate itself to act. We can’t motivate it if we are our wills. That would make as much sense as an object moving itself (or causing its own existence). See what I mean?

Well, in short, I would ask the question how could material things be capable of immaterial understanding?

The best answer is “I don’t know.”

How could concrete reality be the only instruments for understanding things abstract? It seems a contradiction.

What do you mean by “understanding” abstract things? If I invented the concept of a ‘porcupus’ in my mind (a hybrid animal made by crossing a porcupine and an octupus), would that count as “understanding?” In that case, I’m just taking two animals I’ve experienced and crossing them by using imagination.

Personally, I don’t see why axiomatic logical principles, such as A=A, can’t just be instinctive. These principles are probably what you were referring to, correct?

So, someone could rape another person if he thought it was good for him?

You don’t know much about relativism, do you?

 

[Areopagite]

Tell me: Would it be arrogant for a father to tell his children that fairies don’t exist? I mean, he has no proof, right? Should he let their minds dabble in fantasy for years so that they may never come to terms with the obvious?

Personally, I kind of think it would (now various Catholics would disagree with me). This is because there is no evidence that they don’t exist. I’ve met people who have see bizarre glowing things in the forest (with other witnesses) that they said resembled fairies. Now, the father could say, “Fairies probably don’t exist” … in which case it’s more of an opinion than a dogmatic statement. I’m curious why you didn’t use this phraseology when making those bold statements about God … just considering you’re an agnostic.

I see suffering, a profound lack of “miracles,” and very little design in the universe (what’s with the superfluous planets, space, destructive asteroids, etc.?) These observations alone seem to discredit God’s omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and intelligence, respectively. I could elaborate, but I’m sure you’ve heard the arguments for each.

Do you deny the profound quantity of reports of alleged miracles? There are a lot of those. I suppose you could deny the millions that have been reported. In fact, that’s what a lot of people do. I would recommend reading about the Tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. That’s some crazy stuff.

What’s with the very little design in the universe? Superfluous stuff? Well, perhaps you’re not very artistic. The artists I’ve hung around with love adding details (whether it be to paintings or films or whatever) that stop their works from being mathematically symmetrical … but more wild. And yet the wildness is intended. I suppose it make symbolize the freedom of the artist … or creator. If everything had Nazi-like symmetry … it would have a lifeless quality to it. That’s one of the things I would say. And what artists commonly say.

But it would interest me in hearing how you reason that a being with the omni- qualities, intelligence, and sentience exists. The first cause argument and its variations aren’t enough, because we can’t make the leap from “necessary being” to “God,” at least not as he is traditionally defined. Usually, theists will couple that argument with the argument from design, but I simply don’t see “intelligent design.”

You just see chaos?

In other words, I contradicted a few ancient philosophers and you’re upset about it.

Not just a few. Nearly all of them.

People place far too much trust in the Greeks’ archaic usage of words. If you want to use archaic definitions, then that’s perfectly fine, but when someone next to you says, “I hate…” you can be certain that they’re speaking of emotional activity. (And since words gain their meaning after repeated usage from the general population, guess what that means?)

Once again, it’s a very universal idea (except among a few people) that “true love” is not just emotional but something that involves choice. It’s definitely something of the will. So, I’m not siding with what “a few ancient philosophers said” … I’m also, of course, saying what most of the Scholastics said, and what even many modern philosophers said. You can’t just say “we have to use the modern understanding of 'love and ‘hate,’” because, believe it or not, the modern philosophers have differing opinions on the subject (as with all subjects). There is no unity among their thoughts. In fact, there were modern existentialists who believe that everything – the whole universe – was made out of “will.” They thought that since things physical forces exist … it proved that everything things was made out little bits of volition … otherwise why would a wall resist when you push on it? Pretty stupid, eh? They are the opposite extreme of the common ancient and scholastic understandings of love and hate (that is, the ancients/scholastics would say will is a rational love, then there is an emotional love, and then there is a physical love or magnetic/gravitational/etc love).

Philosophers, though interesting, tend to think they can twist a word into having an entirely different meaning and then claim the exclusive right to the definition of that word.

It’s true that philosophers often times do this (and that’s bad). However, it’s evident that the ancient/scholastic use of “love” and the various distinctions they mentioned was based on pre-existing common usages of the word.

 

[Areopagite]

Did all people adopt Empodocles’ version of “love?” I imagine not. Did his version attain widespread usage? I imagine not. I’m not well-read on this, of course, but it’s hard for me to believe that everyone started to use these definitions just because a few philosophers (who were typically unpopular in that time, as you know) devised them.

It was very widespread. It is possible that Empedocles didn’t make that up but simply articulated a pre-existing ideas and usage of the word. Correct me if I’m wrong, anyone.

We also see Empedocles’ usage of “love” trickle down into scientific terms, such as the word “hydrophilic” (love of water).

Modern definitions for modern contexts, if you please.

But which modern definitions? There are many and sometimes they contradict each other.

So the will also inclines one to act a certain way? Why can’t the will be emotional as well, then? It just seems that you’re talking about multiple inclinations combating one another and then labeling one inclination “the will” for no apparent reason. When someone refuses to act on impulse, I assume it was because a more powerful inclination counterbalanced the initial impulse.

You seem to be equating “inclination” with “emotion.” There are other inclinations besides emotion. There are brute physical ones, and, according to most people (so I claim at least), also rational ones (i.e. the will). Emotions are bodily passions. The will is not.

I’m asking how your will can motivate itself to act. We can’t motivate it if we are our wills. That would make as much sense as an object moving itself (or causing its own existence). See what I mean?

We are not wills, we have wills. It’s a rational power. And … no, I still don’t know what you mean.

The best answer is “I don’t know.”

Good answer.

What do you mean by “understanding” abstract things? If I invented the concept of a ‘porcupus’ in my mind (a hybrid animal made by crossing a porcupine and an octupus), would that count as “understanding?” In that case, I’m just taking two animals I’ve experienced and crossing them by using imagination.

The mental image of the thing is certainly just something in the imagination, but the understanding that “this thing has characteristics of both a porcupine and a octopus” is an immaterial concept in the intellect.

Personally, I don’t see why axiomatic logical principles, such as A=A, can’t just be instinctive.

Would you say that a logical principle such as this is abstract? If so, and if instincts are things that must deal with physically existing things, how could they deal with logical principles, which are not physically existing?

You don’t know much about relativism, do you?

There are many kinds. I was asking a question to see which one you subscribe to. So … what is your answer?

 

[Oreoracle]

Personally, I kind of think it would (now various Catholics would disagree with me). This is because there is no evidence that they don’t exist. I’ve met people who have see bizarre glowing things in the forest (with other witnesses) that they said resembled fairies. Now, the father could say, “Fairies probably don’t exist” … in which case it’s more of an opinion than a dogmatic statement.

I forget; isn’t there a saying about people who are too open-minded? I appreciate your honesty, but would you really allow your children to base their hobbies, interests, and, perhaps most importantly, time, on something that probably doesn’t exist? I don’t know about you, but to me, it seems probable that this is the only life we have, and to base one’s actions, thoughts, and feelings on a guess seems to be a colossal waste of that one life. Priorities–that is, the things valued that are known to exist–first, eh?

I’m curious why you didn’t use this phraseology when making those bold statements about God … just considering you’re an agnostic.

Alright, fine: God might exist, but based on what we know, there is an infinitely slim chance of that being the case. Why? Because if we posit a “transcendent realm of reality” or “supernature” that we know nothing of, your guess is as good as mine. If we can claim transcendence so that no rules apply, any speculation is fair game, and so God is just one possibility among infinite others.

Do you deny the profound quantity of reports of alleged miracles?

…“Alleged” being the key word. Surely you aren’t this gullible? People make up things for their denominations all the time, just as politicians do for their parties. Anything to convert you and instill their own confidence is fair game to these people.

There are a lot of those. I suppose you could deny the millions that have been reported. In fact, that’s what a lot of people do. I would recommend reading about the Tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. That’s some crazy stuff.

Every religion seems to have miracles to cling to. What’s more, every religion seems to either deny the miracles of other religions or claim that they were caused by their god. In fact, one could say that the clash of these religions is similar to two (or more) kids arguing on the playground over whose dad could beat the other’s/others’ up.

What’s with the very little design in the universe? Superfluous stuff? Well, perhaps you’re not very artistic. The artists I’ve hung around with love adding details (whether it be to paintings or films or whatever) that stop their works from being mathematically symmetrical … but more wild. And yet the wildness is intended. I suppose it make symbolize the freedom of the artist … or creator. If everything had Nazi-like symmetry … it would have a lifeless quality to it. That’s one of the things I would say. And what artists commonly say.

So how do we tell the difference between intended wildness and randomness? I see your point, but this just sounds like a cop-out unless you’re just being defensive. If you are, then don’t worry: I don’t believe I can prove God doesn’t exist, hence my agnosticism. I’m just saying that design isn’t apparent, and even if it were, “ordered” is a subjective notion to begin with.

You just see chaos?

What do you mean by “chaos,” exactly?

Once again, it’s a very universal idea (except among a few people) that “true love” is not just emotional but something that involves choice. It’s definitely something of the will.

I think the problem is that we have different conceptions of “emotion.” I would say that an emotion is any compulsory feeling or impetus to some action. (You may notice that this definition can be circular, because the next action might very well be feeling another emotion. But perhaps we feel inclined to think a certain way so as to provoke the next emotion. I’m not sure, but you get the point.)

Anyway, you must remember that I regard the will as emotional, and so I would still consider chosen love (as you say, “true love”) to be emotional. If it helps, I should say that I think common understandings of love are mostly nonsense.

More later…

 

[Areopagite]

I forget; isn’t there a saying about people who are too open-minded? I appreciate your honesty, but would you really allow your children to base their hobbies, interests, and, perhaps most importantly, time, on something that probably doesn’t exist? I don’t know about you, but to me, it seems probable that this is the only life we have, and to base one’s actions, thoughts, and feelings on a guess seems to be a colossal waste of that one life. Priorities–that is, the things valued that are known to exist–first, eh?

I’m tempted to invoke Pascal’s wager … but I don’t really like it. Still, I’m tempted.

In any case, my claim is that God doesn’t “probably not exist.” I think it’s likely He does exist. In fact, I would say that (forgive me) “I know He exists.” I think God’s existence can be proved through natural reason (with the Cosmological proofs, among other things … but we don’t have to go there if you don’t want to). But that’s not my main point … my point is that you seem to think you know what other people know and don’t know. You may not know that God exists … but how do you know that other people are as ignorant? If God exists, it’s possible that some people know that … right?

Alright, fine: God might exist, but based on what we know, there is an infinitely slim chance of that being the case. Why? Because if we posit a “transcendent realm of reality” or “supernature” that we know nothing of, your guess is as good as mine. If we can claim transcendence so that no rules apply, any speculation is fair game, and so God is just one possibility among infinite others.

I’m not sure what you mean by saying “we can claim transcendence so that no rules apply.” Certainly, at least throughout Catholic theology, it has always been held that God cannot go against logic. Logical rules apply to all things, even God and all “transcendence.”

I’m still not sure why you think there is an infinitely slim chance of God existing.

Also, I don’t know why you’re certain that we know nothing of “supernature.”

…“Alleged” being the key word. Surely you aren’t this gullible? People make up things for their denominations all the time, just as politicians do for their parties. Anything to convert you and instill their own confidence is fair game to these people.

Sure. But a lot of times the witnesses are unbelievers … who, oftentimes, become believers. Just because some miracles were made-up certainly does not prove they all are. In fact, the multiplicity of them, combined with the diversity of witnesses, suggest the good possibility that some miracles are real.

Every religion seems to have miracles to cling to. What’s more, every religion seems to either deny the miracles of other religions or claim that they were caused by their god. In fact, one could say that the clash of these religions is similar to two (or more) kids arguing on the playground over whose dad could beat the other’s/others’ up.

I don’t deny that there are other supernatural things that have happened in the context of other religions. God can work there too. It doesn’t mean He favors that religion. But also, I believe that demons can cause things to happen. It is often the case, I don’t doubt, that many alleged miracles in other religions are because of demons.

In any case, just because competing religions claim that supernatural events happen in their society doesn’t disprove that the supernatural events occur. Right?

So how do we tell the difference between intended wildness and randomness? I see your point, but this just sounds like a cop-out unless you’re just being defensive. If you are, then don’t worry: I don’t believe I can prove God doesn’t exist, hence my agnosticism. I’m just saying that design isn’t apparent, and even if it were, “ordered” is a subjective notion to begin with.

Since it’s subjective then, it’s not a very good argument for or against God, right?

I think the problem is that we have different conceptions of “emotion.” I would say that an emotion is any compulsory feeling or impetus to some action. (You may notice that this definition can be circular, because the next action might very well be feeling another emotion. But perhaps we feel inclined to think a certain way so as to provoke the next emotion. I’m not sure, but you get the point.)

Anyway, you must remember that I regard the will as emotional, and so I would still consider chosen love (as you say, “true love”) to be emotional. If it helps, I should say that I think common understandings of love are mostly nonsense.

My point was the the common notion of the will doesn’t have to do with emotion (or at least bodily passions).

Anyway, if that’s how you define emotion (“compulsory feeling or impetus to some action”), then I suppose the will would fall under emotion (I think). I just think that’s not how most people would define it. There are always phrases like, “Get control of your emotions?” … does this entail using emotion to control emotion? Maybe? Does that make sense? Hmm … perhaps. But … maybe not? But also there is an understanding that people can do thing very unemotionally. And yet they do it nonetheless. Just food for thought.

 

[Oreoracle]

About your earlier definition of “true love” being “chosen”: Are you sure that’s how most people use “true love?” In my experience, the factor that separates true love from mere love is the thing that is loved; that is, if the thing being loved is considered to be a reasonable foundation for love, then a person will say that the love is true (conversely, if the foundation is considered to be insignificant, inconstant, etc., it will be “demoted” to a lower form of love). If love is the emotional tendency to be pleased by the presence of a given entity (whatever it be), then true love and mere love have no inherent difference insofar as they are the same emotions. They simply have different targets, which seems to be their differentiator. I’m just speaking from experience though.

It was very widespread. It is possible that Empedocles didn’t make that up but simply articulated a pre-existing ideas and usage of the word. Correct me if I’m wrong, anyone.

We also see Empedocles’ usage of “love” trickle down into scientific terms, such as the word “hydrophilic” (love of water).

Fair enough. I don’t know enough about the topic to contradict you.

But which modern definitions? There are many and sometimes they contradict each other.

I would just say, “The ones that are most popular,” but I should qualify that by saying some definitions make no sense in themselves, it seems. So I would prefer that we use the most common definitions that are coherent. But since we have different world-views, we may also have different ideas of “coherent.”

You seem to be equating “inclination” with “emotion.” There are other inclinations besides emotion. There are brute physical ones, and, according to most people (so I claim at least), also rational ones (i.e. the will). Emotions are bodily passions. The will is not.

You’ll notice that I defined emotions as being felt (“conceived” may be a better word), so a physical inclination isn’t an emotion according to my given definition.

We are not wills, we have wills.

Okay, that makes a little more sense.

And … no, I still don’t know what you mean.

You have a different understanding of “will” than I expected, so my point was moot.

The mental image of the thing is certainly just something in the imagination, but the understanding that “this thing has characteristics of both a porcupine and a octopus” is an immaterial concept in the intellect.

I can agree with that.

Would you say that a logical principle such as this is abstract? If so, and if instincts are things that must deal with physically existing things, how could they deal with logical principles, which are not physically existing?

Let’s use the law of identity, for example. It makes sense that our brains would develop to identify objects and concepts as they are, since this would obviously increase our chances of survival. And on a personal level, everything we experience seems to be as it is perceived, and so the axiom seems to make sense in that regard as well. So I would say that axioms are generalizations we make based on our observations–everything we see is as it is, so the law of identity is assumed to generalize this notion. Though abstract, I wouldn’t toss out a physical foundation as a possible explanation of a concept.

There are many kinds. I was asking a question to see which one you subscribe to. So … what is your answer?

Okay: It’s not a question of whether someone “could” rape another but whether they “should” rape another. To me, they should not, because that’s how I feel based on my core values and how they cooperate. To another, this may not be the case. Now, I’m sure that both myself and the rapist would be more than willing to impose our most fundamental ethical views, which obviously differ, on everyone (that’s the nature of humanity, is it not?). But I don’t see how the moral objectivist jumps from “everyone crafts their own morality” to “morality would then be valueless.”

Relativism, from how it’s defined, seems to combine moral subjectivism (which I subscribe to) and the notion that morality shouldn’t be rule-based (this would be the rejection of moral absolutism). I would say that rules inevitably contradict one another, and this wouldn’t be a problem if we make rules hierarchal so that we know which to uphold if we have to choose between two or more. The problem with holding rules as absolute and objective is that the value of morals would then be based on their very existence, and so it seems to follow that rules are all fixed at the same level of importance (after all, we don’t claim that one law of nature is more important than another, so why would this be the case with morals when they’re regarded as objective and absolute as these laws of nature are?). This would make it impossible to settle issues where two rules contradict one another.

As a utilitarian, I would say that we should instead follow a guiding principle, essentially a much more general rule. I think all of morality can be reduced to the greatest happiness principle if it must be systematized, as this principle seems to prompt most rules to begin with.

 

[Oreoracle]

I’m tempted to invoke Pascal’s wager … but I don’t really like it. Still, I’m tempted.

Good thing you didn’t. Pascal’s Wager isn’t only weak and extremely vague, it’s irrelevant. It argues that believing in God is the most rational of two options (false dichotomy), but rationality has nothing to do with truth. At times, it might be rational for us to believe a lie because a person who is usually trustworthy said it. Again: rational belief =/= truth.

But that’s not my main point … my point is that you seem to think you know what other people know and don’t know. You may not know that God exists … but how do you know that other people are as ignorant? If God exists, it’s possible that some people know that … right?

That depends on what you mean by “God.” As he is traditionally defined, God has at least three (and sometimes four) major omni- qualities: omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and sometimes omnibenevolence. Now, assuming that we can define “potency,” “knowledge,” “presence,” and “love” so that they’re applicable to God, we would still be hard-pressed to prove that God has such qualities; in fact, I would say such a feat is impossible. Any display God could provide us would only be a finite sample of any given infinite quality, and as I’m sure you know, no amount of finite units will ever add up to infinity. Saying that God must be infinitely powerful because he performed miracles would be like saying there must be an infinite number of leaves in a forest because, frankly, we don’t have the time to count them. At most, we could say that God has a lot of power, but there is no ground for assuming he has infinite power. The same goes for the other omni- qualities.

If this standard of evidence is accepted, then we can’t prove there is an infinite amount of anything, so we wouldn’t be justified in believing in God. As you know, “knowledge” is “true, justified belief.” I don’t think there is a justification for belief in God, so I don’t think God or any other gods can be known.

I’m not sure what you mean by saying “we can claim transcendence so that no rules apply.” Certainly, at least throughout Catholic theology, it has always been held that God cannot go against logic. Logical rules apply to all things, even God and all “transcendence.”

I’ve never heard that. In fact, some on this very forum speak out against that line of thinking. They claim God created the laws of logic. Indeed, how can God be without bounds if he is bounded by logic? Don’t you think this presents a problem to God’s supposed omnipotence?

Also, I don’t know why you’re certain that we know nothing of “supernature.”

Again, we need justification.

Sure. But a lot of times the witnesses are unbelievers … who, oftentimes, become believers. Just because some miracles were made-up certainly does not prove they all are. In fact, the multiplicity of them, combined with the diversity of witnesses, suggest the good possibility that some miracles are real.

How do we know they are miracles? I mean, how do we know that they can’t be explained in naturalistic terms? Could you offer examples? Make them recent and documented examples, if you could.

In any case, just because competing religions claim that supernatural events happen in their society doesn’t disprove that the supernatural events occur. Right?

Right., but it sure makes those religions, including yours, look a lot like businesses competing with each other to sell similar products. And I do mean sell.

Since it’s subjective then, it’s not a very good argument for or against God, right?

Correct. I was just pointing out why ID arguments are to be avoided.

My point was the the common notion of the will doesn’t have to do with emotion (or at least bodily passions).

I concede that the will is not related to bodily passions in its common usage. However, I’ve heard willpower spoken of plenty of times in the emotional sense, like “I willed my team to victory.” Or perhaps even “I lost the will to live.”

But also there is an understanding that people can do thing very unemotionally. And yet they do it nonetheless. Just food for thought.

This is getting interesting, and I’ll think it over a bit. Could you give examples of actions we do “unemotionally?”

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That depends on what you mean by “God.” As he is traditionally defined, God has at least three (and sometimes four) major omni- qualities: omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and sometimes omnibenevolence. Now, assuming that we can define “potency,” “knowledge,” “presence,” and “love” so that they’re applicable to God, we would still be hard-pressed to prove that God has such qualities; in fact, I would say such a feat is impossible. …

If this standard of evidence is accepted, then we can’t prove there is an infinite amount of anything, so we wouldn’t be justified in believing in God.

Just because I haven’t seen a rocket fly at every different possible trajectory does not imply that I do not know it can do so. Your standard for knowledge seems to disallow inductive inference. If so, it follows that we know nothing about the external world.

Furthermore, knowing a person is not knowing his properties. Even by your admission, I might know God, but not know that He is God. But certainly there is an amount of evidence I might have that would inductively justify me in believing He is God?

 

[Areopagite]

About your earlier definition of “true love” being “chosen”: Are you sure that’s how most people use “true love?” In my experience, the factor that separates true love from mere love is the thing that is loved; that is, if the thing being loved is considered to be a reasonable foundation for love, then a person will say that the love is true (conversely, if the foundation is considered to be insignificant, inconstant, etc., it will be “demoted” to a lower form of love). If love is the emotional tendency to be pleased by the presence of a given entity (whatever it be), then true love and mere love have no inherent difference insofar as they are the same emotions. They simply have different targets, which seems to be their differentiator. I’m just speaking from experience though.

I will agree that “true love” is (at least in part) constituted by the thing being loved. A common understanding would be that one cannot have true love for a donut. True love requires a certain connection/compatibility/fittingness/foundation between the lover and the beloved. Yes, I agree with that. However, I also think that, in addition to this, there is the understanding that true love is chosen and not just felt. A lover and a beloved could have an adequate foundation for true love, but choose to relate to each other superficially, on a mere emotional level, without (for example) any commitment. It is fairly common to view such relationships as ones lacking “true love.” They can nonetheless be emotional involved, even to varying degrees, but there are no decisions being made to take the relationship on a deeper level (a level that involves the will).

Do you think this conflicts with the general/common view of true love?

Though abstract, I wouldn’t toss out a physical foundation as a possible explanation of a concept.

Of course it depends what you mean by this. For what it’s worth, Aristotle and Aquinas (and several moderns, I would say) said that the human mind works in this way: for every thought we have, it requires a mental image (a physical phenomenon in our brain), but those images are not concepts. Our intellect (which is purely immaterial and not in our brain) abstracts concepts from those images. We need material images to symbolize immaterial concepts, but the concepts themselves are not physical. You can, I think, see why this is at least an understandable claim. Many atheists are curiously in agreement with Aristotle and Aquinas on this point. Concepts are immaterial and thus not in the brain … not in any material thing … such is the necessity something being abstract.

But perhaps you know of a possible physical foundation for concepts … I would be curious to see it.

Okay: It’s not a question of whether someone “could” rape another but whether they “should” rape another. To me, they should not, because that’s how I feel based on my core values and how they cooperate. To another, this may not be the case. Now, I’m sure that both myself and the rapist would be more than willing to impose our most fundamental ethical views, which obviously differ, on everyone (that’s the nature of humanity, is it not?). But I don’t see how the moral objectivist jumps from “everyone crafts their own morality” to “morality would then be valueless.”

Before I respond to this and the other things you said about morality, what do you mean by “core values and how they cooperate?” Is this something different from emotion?

Also, is it a good thing that human nature, as you say, imposes our ethical views on others? Or is this simply an irrational inclination of ours (though perhaps unavoidable)?

Good thing you didn’t. Pascal’s Wager isn’t only weak and extremely vague, it’s irrelevant. It argues that believing in God is the most rational of two options (false dichotomy), but rationality has nothing to do with truth. At times, it might be rational for us to believe a lie because a person who is usually trustworthy said it. Again: rational belief =/= truth.

Well, the reason why I was tempted to bring it up was that you said “Why should one spend their whole life believing in something that might be false.” And of course, naturally, I thought, “Well, if God doesn’t exist, you don’t really lose anything, and if He does exist, well, you potentially gain everything.” But, once again … I won’t bring it up.

Also, are you saying that sometimes rationality and truth conflict? That’s certainly something rationalists accuse Christians of believing. But are you really saying this as well? Don’t you think there is some intimate connection with rationality and truth? I see what you’re saying by your example, so I want you to clarify the relation between rationality and truth.

But that’s not my main point … my point is that you seem to think you know what other people know and don’t know. You may not know that God exists … but how do you know that other people are as ignorant? If God exists, it’s possible that some people know that … right?

What I (and the Scholastics) mean by God is the thing that possesses all being. If you want me to go into that, I will. If you want to read a bunch of previous posts where I tried to explain it, you can start here (roughly):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=383772&page=8

As you know, “knowledge” is “true, justified belief.” I don’t think there is a justification for belief in God, so I don’t think God or any other gods can be known.

Would you discount the possibility that God could implant knowledge into someone? Just out of curiosity.

 

[Areopagite]

I’ve never heard that. In fact, some on this very forum speak out against that line of thinking. They claim God created the laws of logic. Indeed, how can God be without bounds if he is bounded by logic? Don’t you think this presents a problem to God’s supposed omnipotence?

I have, as well, encountered some Catholics here who claim that God can contradict logic (but I think they are the minority … in my experience … fortunately). This idea, however, goes against all Church accepted Catholic theology, and was really perpetuated by Protestantism, as far as I can see (though not all Protestants believe it).

Did God invent the laws of logic? Depends what you mean. Logic could refer to the particular way we conceive of being (in which case, I believe, you could say logic was invented), or it could refer to the necessary way being is (in which case, God did not invent it … because “the way being is” is how “God is” … and God did not invent Himself). ** Logic, in this latter sense, is based on God’s nature.** And God’s nature is really the only thing that “limits” God.

If something needs more explanation, please say so. Also, I’ll shamelessly quote myself here when I explained what is meant by “omnipotence”:

The definition of omnipotence being “the power to do anything and everything” has never been abandoned.

The thing to be defined clearly in that definition is the word … “thing.” Surprisingly enough Aristotle and the Scholastics use it to mean any possible real being (this would be the formal philosophical use of the word. Although sometimes it’s used more broadly to include purely logical beings like “nothing” or even “square circle.” Technically (as the Scholastics have said) “nothing” is not a “thing” … and a “square circle” is not a “thing” … at least in the technical way they used it. All “things” are beings that have the intrinsic possibility of existence … that is, real beings that do not have a contradictory essence. Any being that does result in a contradiction would not be a “thing” and hence it cannot be accomplished by God. In this traditional use of the term “thing,” God’s omnipotence can be defined as “the power to do anything and everything” … but in the broader and less formal use of the term (such that “thing” includes absurd beings), then that definition of omnipotence does not work.

Now, depending what you mean, there are indeed some “things” humans do that God cannot. Humans can sin (and even though this is bad … it’s not a logical contradiction). But God cannot sin … for that would be contradicting Himself. There are other examples. But I’ll just mention that for now.

Just keep in mind that when omnipotence is defined as “power to do anything and everything” … the “-things” are referring to real possible being, excluding absurd being that leads to logical contradictions.

How do we know they are miracles? I mean, how do we know that they can’t be explained in naturalistic terms? Could you offer examples? Make them recent and documented examples, if you could.

The example I recommend looking at is The Tilma of Our Lady of Guadelupe. That’s a good one, and the thing still exists. I think it’s more impressive that the Shroud of Turin. Here are some links:

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16789
2secondsfaster.com/2008/12/our-lady-of-guadalupe-the-tilma/
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16789

Also, list of miracles (some of which happened in the 20th century):
listverse.com/2008/07/14/top-10-astonishing-miracles/

I constantly hear of miracles happening today … but I don’t know of any sources offhand. If someone does, please jump in.

Right., but it sure makes those religions, including yours, look a lot like businesses competing with each other to sell similar products. And I do mean sell.

Undoubtedly there are some people who use religion (even Christianity) for commercial reasons. But this does not disprove Christianity, nor does it disprove that there are people who honestly want to spread the faith for the salvation of souls.

Also, the “competition” between religions is not necessarily motivated by money (though it sometimes is). Presuming Christianity is true, however, such competition would be called for … for the belief is that if Christianity triumphs over other religions, salvation will be more accessible to all people. One testament, I think, to this is that Christians have died for the faith … especially the Church leader … even Popes (making their religion seem to be something more than a business enterprise)

For what it’s worth, the Church forbids the selling of holy things (i.e. relics and objects blessed by priests). That practice is called Simony, and it’s been condemned since the time of the apostles (it’s even recorded in the Bible, but it’s been reaffirmed in big events throughout the middle ages).

I concede that the will is not related to bodily passions in its common usage. However, I’ve heard willpower spoken of plenty of times in the emotional sense, like “I willed my team to victory.” Or perhaps even “I lost the will to live.”

Well, I’m not sure why those phrases would imply bodily passions. One can chose to incline one’s will to bring about a team victory, and one can chose to no longer work for the maintenance of one’s life.

 

[Areopagite]

This is getting interesting, and I’ll think it over a bit. Could you give examples of actions we do “unemotionally?”

First of all, as a general note, I would also say that we are most able to choose something when our emotions are not speaking out. When we have emotion, our mind is clouded, and decisions cannot be made … and any action we do is perhaps more because of emotion than our actual decision. No?

Now some specific examples … Well, let’s see … (these are actions that are oftentimes unemotional)

• Choosing to brush one’s teeth
• Choosing to answer the phone
• Choosing to take out the garbage

I don’t know if these help. But I would say that these actions can be very unemotional. No?

 

[tonyrey]

Enjoyment is usually an indication that a person is fulfilling purposes necessary for a full life.

So your decision to torture a child is natural because it gives you pleasure?

What the heck isn’t natural about abusing another person? It might be wrong, but it isn’t “unnatural.”

Why is it wrong?

Is it natural to enjoy living?

Yes, and so is everything else.

Is it natural to be unnatural?!

Perhaps it is “natural” to cause ourselves to suffer, and your interference would be against nature (and would therefore, by your logic, be immoral).

Sometimes we have to make ourselves suffer for our own good and that of others, e.g. if we are drug addicts. It is the lesser of two evils.

What tells you that suffering is bad, other than your emotions?

It is the result of interference with the basic functions of life which prevents an animal or person from living successfully.

My position is simply that you can’t care for unknown qualities.

We know others are fundamentally the same as ourselves and need to be liked, respected, loved and treated as persons with a right to life.

Why does it please you to please others?
I’d guess that natural selection did away with humans who were uncooperative, and so this instinctual empathy persisted over the years.

If the desire for pleasure is the result of instinctual empathy it is not simply a subjective feeling. It depends on the way the individual is made.

So you never do anything you would prefer not to do?

When given options, I choose what I most prefer to do.

But, according to you, all your choices have physical causes and are determined by the way you are made.

Why is happiness valuable?

We all pursue it unconditionally.

We **always **put our own happiness before everything and everyone else?

So life is instrumentally valuable?

Yes, but not inherently.

An artificial distinction to evade the fact that life is valuable.

If you lie in a deep coma you are not in any emotional state…

But then I wouldn’t be in grief.

You would be **non-functional **because you had behaved unreasonably.

Why would you want to improve our lives?

Because it is reasonable to seek the life which is the most fulfilling intellectually, emotionally, morally and socially.

The fundamental purpose of communication is to communicate the truth.

Keeping promises can get people killed.

That is one of the exceptions which proves the rule! Are you saying understanding and communicating are not valuable?

If our thoughts are objectively valueless why should true ones be more successful than false ones?

The value of something does not affect its successfulness in any way. Does a boulder fail to roll down a hill because it isn’t valuable?

A boulder is not a human activity. So a true belief is not more successful than a false belief?

If you deny the truth is objectively valuable you are wasting your time trying to persuade yourself and others certain propositions are true.

“If what I believe isn’t the case then the world will be dark and scary!”

Do you deny that the success of science is based on knowledge and understanding of the truth about physical reality?

You still fail to realize that value assessments aren’t descriptive.

Are your value assessments infallible?

You believe we always do what gives us pleasure…

…or prevents pain, which serves the same end.

What about unpleasant acts of loyalty?

So you agree that DNA is instrumentally valuable?

Yes.

If DNA is instrumentally valuable it is valuable even if we don’t think it is valuable.

So you are entitled to do anything whatsoever in order to obtain pleasure!

No, the pleasure you cause for yourself isn’t calculated, so if you harm others to obtain pleasure for yourself, the action is considered evil (the pain would outweigh the pleasure because the pleasure isn’t calculated).

You make it sound as if we are hedonistic calculating machines! Why isn’t the pleasure you cause for yourself not calculated? Don’t you choose that which gives you the most pleasure regardless of other people’s feelings?

If so, we agree. Happiness is the end.

It is arbitrary to separate existence from happiness. It does not make sense to speak of happiness if we do not exist. Nothing makes sense if we dispense with existence! (cont.)

 

[Oreoracle]

Just because I haven’t seen a rocket fly at every different possible trajectory does not imply that I do not know it can do so. Your standard for knowledge seems to disallow inductive inference. If so, it follows that we know nothing about the external world.

Your finite example really doesn’t compare with an infinite example, does it? If we can jump from “there are a lot of X” to “there are infinite X” then we’re setting ourselves up for some wild inductions. We can become reasonably certain that something is the case and use an induction, but we never get close to infinity, so we can’t be reasonably certain.

Furthermore, knowing a person is not knowing his properties. Even by your admission, I might know God, but not know that He is God.

Well, you would know some of God’s properties. If he had a conversation with you, you would know he is intelligent. The point is that you would only have a finite understanding of his properties; we can’t comprehend infinity, therefore we can’t know infinity.

But certainly there is an amount of evidence I might have that would inductively justify me in believing He is God?

Like what?

 

[Oreoracle]

So your decision to torture a child is natural because it gives you pleasure?

I’m not sure what you mean here. The torture occurs in the natural world, can be explained in naturalistic terms, etc. Nothing outside of nature is occurring during the torture. I suspect that we have different definitions of “natural.” Mine isn’t ethics-based.

Why is it wrong?

Because pain is evil. It’s not because it’s “unnatural” or any of that nonsense, it’s just that we all avoid suffering by default.

It is the result of interference with the basic functions of life which prevents an animal or person from living successfully.

So suffering isn’t evil, it’s just a symptom of an evil lifestyle?

We know others are fundamentally the same as ourselves and need to be liked, respected, loved and treated as persons with a right to life.

My problem with your usage of “natural” is that it seems arbitrary. If I said that others should instead be scorned, undermined, hated, and treated as foes how would you prove that these are all unnatural? I think this depends on your idea of “living successfully,” but that’s subjective. Someone might think the lifestyle I described makes for success. How would you prove them wrong?

If the desire for pleasure is the result of instinctual empathy it is not simply a subjective feeling. It depends on the way the individual is made.

Even if it’s a programmed feeling, what does this change?

But, according to you, all your choices have physical causes and are determined by the way you are made.

I’m not seeing the contradiction I’ve supposedly made.

We **always **put our own happiness before everything and everyone else?

No, you’re just running in circles. Our happiness sometimes depends on others. “Seeking one’s own happiness” doesn’t mean “only caring about oneself,” it just means that someone’s satisfying their preferences, whatever they may be. Some preferences are altruistic, and some aren’t.

An artificial distinction to evade the fact that life is valuable.

Well no, it’s a necessary detail. Life is only good insofar as it leads to happiness in some way. If all life was subjected to unimaginable suffering, then life would be instrumentally evil. For most people this isn’t the case, but this tells us that it might not be worth it to allow a severely deformed fetus to mature. If the life is just a gateway for suffering, it’s best to cut it off.

Because it is reasonable to seek the life which is the most fulfilling intellectually, emotionally, morally and socially.

Again, other than your aptitude for liking those things, how do we prove this is the case? Maybe the opposite is truly “natural” and you would never know. Maybe hatred and death are the true natural ends, and your stubborn insistence that life and happiness ought to prevail is contrary to the Natural Law. How could you prove to me that this isn’t the case? Your “Natural Law” is invisible in the naturalistic sense, ironically.

That is one of the exceptions which proves the rule!

I’ve never understood that phrase, really. You’d never hear a scientist say that an object’s failure to act according to our understanding of gravity is “one of the exceptions that proves the law!” In fact, that’s the reason for using “law” or “rule” in the first place; there are no exceptions, period. If there are exceptions, the term isn’t applicable. We instead say “general rule” or “guideline.”

Are you saying understanding and communicating are not valuable?

I’m saying that telling the truth isn’t always the right thing to do. Understanding and communicating are not always valuable.

A boulder is not a human activity. So a true belief is not more successful than a false belief?

Depends on what your arbitrary idea of “successful” is. Mine’s probably different.

Do you deny that the success of science is based on knowledge and understanding of the truth about physical reality?

No. Why?

Are your value assessments infallible?

“Infallibility” is the inability to err. It means that someone will always speak the truth. But what is valuable isn’t a matter of objective verifiable truth, it’s a matter of preference. “This is valuable” means “I feel that this is important.”

What about unpleasant acts of loyalty?

If someone willingly suffers so that they can be loyal, then we know that their preference to remain loyal provides them with ample happiness to continue the process. You’re trying to make this cut and dry, but it’s not.

 

[tonyrey]

So your decision to torture a child is natural because it gives you pleasure?

The torture occurs in the natural world, can be explained in naturalistic terms, etc. Nothing outside of nature is occurring during the torture.

You are assuming all human behaviour is explicable naturalistically. How would you prove that?

… pain is evil. It’s not because it’s “unnatural” or any of that nonsense, it’s just that we all avoid suffering by default.

If we all avoid suffering by default it is an objective natural evil.

So suffering isn’t evil, it’s just a symptom of an evil lifestyle?

Suffering is evil because it interferes with the ability to lead a normal life, e.g. the pain caused by the accidental or deliberate fracture of a limb.

We know others are fundamentally the same as ourselves and need to be liked, respected, loved and treated as persons with a right to life.

My problem with your usage of “natural” is that it seems arbitrary. If I said that others should instead be scorned, undermined, hated, and treated as foes how would you prove that these are all unnatural?

Hatred, scorn and enmity prevent human beings living in peace, security and harmony which are essential for developing our full potential for physical, intellectual, scientific and personal development. If you had grown up during a world war you would be acutely aware of how enmity destroys people’s lives in many different ways…

If the desire for pleasure is the result of instinctual empathy it is not simply a subjective feeling. It depends on the way the individual is made.

Even if it’s a programmed feeling, what does this change?

It becomes an objective physical fact.

But, according to you, all your choices have physical causes and are determined by the way you are made.

I’m not seeing the contradiction I’ve supposedly made.

You regard a feeling or choice as subjective but, being a physicalist, you also regard it as an objective fact.

Our happiness sometimes depends on others. “Seeking one’s own happiness” doesn’t mean “only caring about oneself,” it just means that someone’s satisfying their preferences, whatever they may be. Some preferences are altruistic, and some aren’t.

But you believe even altruism is ultimately egoistic… that we are dominated by the desire for our own satisfaction and happiness…

Life is only good insofar as it leads to happiness in some way. If all life was subjected to unimaginable suffering, then life would be instrumentally evil. For most people this isn’t the case, but this tells us that it might not be worth it to allow a severely deformed fetus to mature.

The key phrase is “For most people”… Life is not only good insofar as it leads to happiness but because it leads to other activities which are intrinsically valuable but not always productive of happiness. The discovery of the truth often makes us sad but it is more valuable than living in ignorance… than being in a fool’s paradise…

Because it is reasonable to seek the life which is the most fulfilling intellectually, emotionally, morally and socially.

Again, other than your aptitude for liking those things, how do we prove this is the case? Maybe the opposite is truly “natural” and you would never know.

You are confusing “natural” with “reasonable”. I have pointed out several times that personal fulfilment does not always entail pleasure or enjoyment. If you prize pleasure above everything else you will soon discover that the pursuit of pleasure leads to frustration and disillusionment. There are other important goals in life besides happiness…

Maybe hatred and death are the true natural ends, and your stubborn insistence that life and happiness ought to prevail is contrary to the Natural Law. How could you prove to me that this isn’t the case?

Do you really believe hatred is the true natural end? How do you reconcile it with your belief that human beings have evolved to feel empathy? It is also ironic that you ask me that question when you believe happiness is the sole good!

Are you saying understanding and communicating are not valuable?

I’m saying that telling the truth isn’t always the right thing to do. Understanding and communicating are not always valuable.

Communicating is always valuable even when it is used to deceive others. Telling the truth may be the greater of two evils but it does not follow that communicating is normally valueless. You are constantly citing exceptional cases in a vain attempt to evade the truth…

A boulder is not a human activity. So a true belief is not more successful than a false belief?

Depends on what your arbitrary idea of “successful” is.

Is the success of science an arbitrary idea? Is the success of science based on true or false beliefs?

But what is valuable isn’t a matter of objective verifiable truth, it’s a matter of preference. “This is valuable” means “I feel that this is important.”

You are equating a choice with a preference - which is clearly a mistake. We often choose an alternative not because we like it but because it is logical or reasonable. If you argue that we prefer to be logical you imply that logic is based on emotion rather than reason.

What about unpleasant acts of loyalty?

If someone willingly suffers so that they can be loyal, then we know that their preference to remain loyal provides them with ample happiness to continue the process.

In your scheme of things when the act of loyalty leads to death the “process” is not continued nor is there “ample happiness”…

 

[MindOverMatter]

I am not sure if i have already posted a reply to this. But i am ready for a debate and i think that the following amounts to the entirity of your arguement.

Well…here we go again.

Ohhh…Confident! Your friend MoM was confident, too, but he no longer debates with me. Perhaps he ran out of ammo?

Nope; just got tired of reading your poor attempts at debating honestly. But I feel better now.

you would feel that it is intellectually dishonest to be Christian since you can’t say with any degree of certainty that God is good. Are you willing to pack up your bags and lose your Christian faith? If not, why should I be persuaded?

While it may be dishonest to claim that one has certain knowledge of Gods goodness; this arguement doesn’t apply in regards to having faith in Gods goodness since we do not know that God does not have good reasons for permiting evil, especailly if one has other good reasons for beliving in the existence of God. For an atheist to suggest that we do know that God doesn’t have good reasons, only goes to show the poor degree of thinking that some people are willing to employ. And yet they don’t seem to think that potential suffering is a problem when they participate in the creation of more people Like you; instead they are boastful of their rationality but have little to show for it. Perhaps a world of potential suffering is the only world in which the greatest good can be achieved. That you have no value for faith is not proof that it ought not to be valued.

 

[Oreoracle]

Areopagite, I haven’t forgotten about you. I’ll be responding soon (it’s been a busy week). In the meantime, I’ll check out the Tilma and the Shroud of Turin. Thanks.

 

[tonyrey]

…Correction…

… what is valuable isn’t a matter of objective verifiable truth, it’s a matter of preference.

If you argue that we **prefer **to be logical you imply that being logical is based on emotion rather than reason. Do you believe all our choices are motivated by emotion?

BTW The Problem Of Evil does not exist if evil is subjective…

 

[MindOverMatter]

Good thing you didn’t. Pascal’s Wager isn’t only weak and extremely vague, it’s irrelevant. It argues that believing in God is the most rational of two options (false dichotomy), but rationality has nothing to do with truth. At times, it might be rational for us to believe a lie because a person who is usually trustworthy said it. Again: rational belief =/= truth.

I am not sure that you understand the point of the arguement. There is such a thing as “practical reason”. For instance, when it comes to epistomological certitude, it might be logical to discount the existence of an objective universe because you cannot prove that it exists emprically outside of your head, but it is not a product of “practical rationality” to do so. It would be irrational to jump to your death if in fact you want to live. It is practically irrational not to seek that which fullfils your existence.

The qeustion of God is not just a question of proving that some enitity exists. The question of Gods existence is a question of human fullfilment in regards to life and death, purpose and meaning. The apostles of Jesus Christ claimed to be witness to supernatural events, the historical death and ressurection of Jesus Christ whom made a promise of spiritual existential and moral fullfilment 2000 years ago. This Christian movement developed only because of the belief that Jesus Christ trully rose from the dead and fulfiled the Prophesy. **St. Peter, a witness, deciple of Jesus, and leader of the apostles by the authority of Jesus…

"John Vidmar writes:
“Both Catholic and Protestant scholars agree that Peter had an authority that superseded that of the other apostles. Peter is their spokesman at several events, he conducts the election of Matthias, his opinion in the debate over converting Gentiles was crucial, etc.”**

…was crucified upside down based upon the conviction that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and is in fact the Son of the living God. This is the promise that we have been presented with.

One might argue that we cannot prove Gods existence or the ressurection of Jesus empirically, but if there is no absolute evidence to the contrary, if God is that which “ultimately” fullfills humanity (existentially spiritually and morally; the three conditions of a perfectly fullfiled life), if there is even a small possibility that such a thing is true, then it would be practically irrational not to put ones faith in such a being. What good rational reason is there to embrace the alternative of living an objectively meaningless life in an unfullfiled insercure state pending the prospect of an eternal death; even more irational is the act of bringing another person into such an existence to share the same fate.

In other words; while it might be emprically rational to be an agnostic, there is nothing pratically rational about being an agnostic when it comes down to being a personal entity in real life; especailly in regards to bringing more people in to the world. We cannot deny the fact that we are people since this is what we are trying to fullfill, when we existentially act. Empirical certainity has a particular place reserved for the knowing of material realities; nothing more. It has nothing to do with metaphysical justifications concerning knowledge. If you place empirical certainty in an area of life where it is not warrented, i.e personal fullfiment, then you will never be fullfiled as a person. Empricism its self is based upon faith and belief, the belief that our minds are telling us the truth about reality. That one must place empirical certainty above faith is an illusion built out of a prideful and negative reaction to religious claims, and its as ridiuculous as much as it is dishonest since nobody places empirical scepticism above other areas of life concerning the fullfilment of personal desire. We all have hopes for the future; hopes of human fullfilment, and while we might use empirical methods to acheive those ends, we don’t use empricism to justify “hope” . Atheism and agnosticism is a reaction rooted in desire, the desire to be ones own God; and because a person seeks this to such an extent as to be willing to sacrifice objective moral truth, objective meaning, and that which would eternally fullfill him or her (heaven), the atheist and agnostic are both practically irrational and might as well have never existed in the first place.

 

[Sair]

1. even if G-d were not omniscient, he would only need to know the information you dont, so omniscience isnt the issue. the lack of information on peoples part is.

Acting on secret information sounds like a pretty underhanded trick on the part of a supposedly benevolent God. Considering the theist’s belief in divine revelation, would it have been too much of a stretch for said benevolent God to reveal his/her/its purpose even to just a few people, just to provide a modicum of comfort amongst the moral contradictions of life?

omnipotence doesnt mean that the best way to govern the universe doesnt include suffering, thats the kind of assumption im talking about. it may be better than a universe in which no suffering occurs for reasons which we dont know.

and since we dont know if there are perfectly good reasons for the creation of a universe where suffering occurs that we dont know about, then we are left in the same position as above, we dont have enough information to make valid judgements about the morality of G-d.

so when you say G-d could have created a better universe thats an assumption that is insupportable, this may be the best universe.

This all sounds to me like special pleading on the part of one who is determined to believe in a morally good god, despite any perceptible evidence to the contrary.

Ultimately, if your God’s ways are not human ways, why is the existence of a god even relevant to humankind? If our collective abilities have so far been unable to understand the purpose of this supposedly omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and benevolent god - if, indeed (as seems the most rational conclusion) such a god appears impossible according to human understanding - how can we be faulted by said god (if such a being is truly benevolent) for doing the best we can with our limited perceptions?