The problem of evil

[EricFilmer]

That is nonsense. Love in this relationship is an emotion - which is not subject to volitional control. Not loving God is simply a lack of this emotion - and it does not imply “hate” or “rejection”. Obviously atheists do not “love” God, since they do not believe that such a being exists. But that is not a rejection of “life”. By definition atheists are simply not capable to “hating” or “rejecting” God - only believers can do that. Atheists are of course able of hating or rejecting the concept of God - but that is totally different (even though I met many idiots who did not see that difference).

Now, if God would declare this lack of emotion as a “sin” (actually as a mortal sin) then God is simply “crazy”.

It is a curious thing that you mentioned the distinction between eros and agape at least twice in this thread, and now suddenly you make the statement “Love in this relationship is an emotion.” The emotional aspect of love is just that, an aspect, and therefore not the defining dimension. The emotional aspect may or may not even be present within the context of a loving relationship. For example, a doctor doing medical work as a missionary may love his patients from the standpoint of agape but without eros (in other words, loving deeds without the emotions usually associated with love).

Your statement, “Love in this relationship is an emotion – which is not subject to volitional control” contains an inherent contradiction. It suggests that there can be a “relationship” without the decision being made to be in a relationship in the first place. A man and woman may have emotional love for one another, but this does not mean that they are automatically in a relationship. After all, does the presence of this emotion automatically make them boyfriend and girlfriend? Does it automatically mean that they are husband and wife? No, in order for there to be an actual relationship, they need to mutually agree to be coupled with one another. Therefore, it is a willful decision (which is to say, a volitional one).

As I have stated numerous times in this thread, within a true loving relationship the lover offers himself to the beloved, and the beloved must be free to accept or reject that offer. Hence, there is a willful decision one makes in order to be in loving relationship or not. I will go into more detail on this a bit later because this topic comes up again.

The truth is that you (the apologists in general) describe God as an egotistical and narcisstic megalomaniac, who wants to be worshipped and glorifed, while giving nothing in return. God is described as the ultimate tyrant, who wants to be “loved”, but who does nothing to earn that love. And the funny thing is that you refuse to accept this fact. (The usual answer is that God did all he needed to do by creating us - which is also nonsense. A parent cannot drop the responsibility for the child until the point when the child becomes an adult. And since we humans can never become God, therefore God’s responsibility never ends.)

All I can say to this is that the apologists you have been talking to must have belonged to a religion other than Christianity. Christians believe that Jesus is God in the flesh, and our description of Jesus is the opposite of what you just outlined. And seeing as I am typing this on Holy Thursday, and tomorrow is Good Friday, I can readily say that Jesus most certainly did do something “to earn that love.” But this is getting off-topic. Suffice to say that there is at least one thing we both have in common: neither of us believes that an egotistical, narcissistic and megalomaniacal god actually exists.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

It is fatal only if God considers it “fatal”, if God “rewards” it with eternal suffering. There is nothing “fatal” about a lack of emotion. And I must reiterate that “love” is not a volitional act. Now, if God wants us to participate in some worshipping ritual, that is a different story. Rituals are under volitional control. True, they are pretty meaningless if there is not honest devotion behind them, but one is not able to “whip up” devotion. It is either there or it is not.

As I explained in my last post, this is not about the lack of the emotion of love. Being in a loving relationship with God is a volitional act just as a marriage proposal (and the acceptance or rejection of the proposal) between a couple is a volitional act. The man decides to propose to a woman, and the woman decides to accept or reject that proposal. The presence of the emotion of love may influence the decision, but does not force the decision one way or another. Therefore, a relationship is ultimately defined by a decision, and not by emotion.

Moreover, in the context of our relationship with God, the decision to reject God has to be fatal because of logical necessity. There are two parts to my explanation as to why. First of all, consider what I have repeatedly stated over the past several days: in a true loving relationship the beloved must have the freedom to accept or reject the lover.

Secondly, when we examine loving relationships, we can see that they can be disrupted in different ways, and to different degrees. For an example, a problem may erupt between a husband and wife which causes a degree of disunity, but ultimately their relationship is still intact. They are still in a relationship with one another. Nevertheless, the possibility still exists that they will decide to end their relationship with one another. The degree of disunity could end up at the point that their relationship becomes completely severed.

In light of everything I’ve said, within a relationship there can be instances of minor rejection which do not completely sever the relationship, and instances of total rejection which do. We likewise have the freedom to reject God in minor ways (i.e., venial sin) and in total ways (i.e., mortal sin). The total rejection of God is the same thing as a total rejection of life, because God is Life Itself. The only realistic consequence of a total rejection of life is death. Therefore, the decision to totally reject God is a fatal one. If God gives us the freedom to totally reject him, and the consequence was not actually death, then we were not given the freedom to totally reject him in the first place. If life is still present then God is still present.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

EricFilmer;7783011:

So based on all this, let us now let us outline your concept of the world God should

have created in order to address the problem of evil to your satisfaction:

**1) A benevolent God cannot brainwash people into worshipping him. Therefore, he must give people at least the freedom to love him or not.

1. The choice to not** love God is basically the forbidden fruit of the Garden of Eden. It is the “loaded gun” that would lead to a fatal experience if children chose to play with it.
2. Because you say that “A benevolent God would have made that tree inaccessible”, and that a loving father would not allow his child to have access to a loaded gun, God now has to actually prevent each and every person from choosing not to love him. If God allows the decision to not love him to be accessible then he does not meet your standards of what a loving parent is supposed to do for the sake of his children.
3. Now that God has made the choice to not love him inaccessible (as per #3), he has now violated the condition you set down in #1. After all, you said people must have at least the freedom to love or not love God, but now they only have one choice to make, which is to love God.

#1 is correct.

So we both agree that a benevolent God does not brainwash people into loving him.

#2 is not true. A lack of emotion is just a lack of emotion. As I said above, if God is P.O.-ed about the lack of an emotion, then he is dire need of phsychiatric help.

In my last two posts I have demonstrated that a relationship does not simply arise from emotions, but rather on the people involved making the willful decision to be in that relationship. Therefore, God is not disturbed over the lack of an emotion. What is being examined, rather, is the choice that God presents to accept or reject him, and we make that choice regardless of any emotional components we may have. Moreover, as I explained in my last post, God has to give us the freedom to totally reject him, otherwise we are forced to be in a relationship with him, at least to some degree. This would be a violation of love. Taking all this into consideration, life in the Garden of Eden had to allow the possibility of totally rejecting God, and Adam & Eve had to have the freedom and ability to act on such a decision. Therefore, what I initially stated in #2 (in the above quote) is correct.

#3 is also incorrect for the same reason. You keep confusing “love” with “caring”. If a parent feels no emotion toward his children, but gives all the necessary care - then there is no problem at all. However, if the parent keeps on insisting that he loves those children - while doing nothing to show that love, then that parent is a lying hypocrite.

The hypocrisy is the idea that God gives people the freedom to totally reject him, but then prevents (in one way or another) anyone from actually totally rejecting him. Therefore, I do not confuse “love” with “caring”. It is a simple matter of whether or not a benevolent God would force people to love him. We both agree that he would not. But in your idea of a better world, that is exactly what God has to do. Keep in mind that in this example, the “forbidden fruit” and the “loaded gun” are simply symbolic expressions of the choice to totally reject God. Consequently, if your vision is of a world where there this forbidden fruit or loaded gun does not exist (or is made inaccessible) then that is the exact same thing as saying that God would not permit anyone from totally rejecting him. And therefore we are once again right back to my love potion example from Post 11.

There is no contradiction at all. Especially since that is not the world I envision that a benevolent God should make. Here is my suggested world.

Let’s say that God creates the Garden of Eden - without planting that tree. Without knowing the difference between “good and evil”, humans are truly and really “children”, who are not moral agents. Whatever they do is not a morally charged decision. They are nevertheless capable of unconditional love, just like a child can love. There is no force involved at all. There is plentiful of fruits to eat, nice weather so no need for clothing, no hate, no envy, no property, no diseases, just a nice Utopistic society. No commandments to break. There is plenty of love around.

And therefore your suggested world has no opportunity for someone to reject God, either in little ways or in total ways. After all, it is by sin (evil) that someone rejects God, and it is by doing good that someone accepts God. But because evil is not an option in the world you envision, everyone automatically loves God and there is no possibility or opportunity to make any choice accept good ones (i.e., all choices result an acceptance of God). How is this not brainwashing? And how does this suggested world not contradict what you said earlier about a benevolent God not brainwashing people?

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Next remark about your idea that God wants us to be the “champions of virtue”. The story of genesis flatly contradicts that assertion. God did not want us to become moral agents in the first place.

You presume that before eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong. They did. Morality was expressed in terms of obedience to God and trusting that he knew what was best for them. They were given freedom in the garden and given commandments in how to exercise that freedom. The temptation to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil represented the temptation for a person to arbitrarily decide for oneself what is permissible and what is not. It is the desire to experience what is in violation of God’s law in order to decide for oneself whether or not it is truly good or evil. So within the Garden of Eden there was the temptation to succumb to the sin of pride (to be like God apart from participating in the will of God) and the temptation not to trust what God revealed. In this sense, Adam and Eve were most certainly supposed to act as moral agents in Eden, and they failed. Had they consistently resisted the temptation of pride and the belief in the devil’s assertion that God was a liar, they would have been champions of the virtues of faith and trust in God.

Hilarious. But not what you think. What is funny is that you use a lot of time and energy on composing a post that you should know will be unacceptable. Going back to the exchange, I asked if you have an example of God visibly interfering with some evil. Now, your proper answer (as many apologists actually did before) should have been: “No example that you would accept”. And after this you could have included your quote from the Bible. The funny thing is this: the way you composed your response indicated that you might think that I will reply: “Ah, yes, indeed. I see now that there was an instance when God interfered”.

Oh no, I had no expectations of such a reply from you. That would have been nice, but certainly not my expectation. But presenting a passage from the Bible was not a waste of time for the simple fact that other people are reading this thread. At the time that I am typing this, this thread has been viewed 1909 times. Also, as you can see, other people have been recently participating in it as well.

It was a waste of your time to write it, and a waste of my time to read it.

As I stated, it was not a waste of my time to write it. And it was not a waste of your time to read it, if for no other reason that it provided you with some amusement. And FWIW, when I posted that material I immediately made it known that I was going to cite the Bible. The decision to continue reading was yours.

Been there, done it, have a t-shirt to prove it. The reason I hopped into this one is that I hate to see the misconceptions about the “problem of evil”.

Well, here is another thing we have in common. We both hopped into this thread for the exact same reason. Of course, we just disagree as to what the misconceptions are.

During the centuries this problem has been considered, no one could offer a valid theodicy to resolve the question. Indeed it is obvious that the “problem of evil” is the ultimate thorn in the side of Christianity.

If it is so obvious then why, after 25 days of posting, have you been unable to refute the free will position that I initially presented in Post #4? Do I really seem to you like someone who considers this topic a thorn in the side? Many of the other Catholics posting herein don’t seem to consider it very thorny either.

 

[Keeler]

Now you are on the right track when you say you are open . Do you still go to Mass ?

Of course not. I was a Presbyterian, not a Catholic. But as I said I lost my faith a very long time ago. Being open simply means what is says. I think that it is extremely unlikely that there would be a deity, but not impossible. If there is one, and wishes to contact me, I am here, willing to pick up this end of the communication line. As I said, the ball is in his court.

 

[Keeler]

It is a curious thing that you mentioned the distinction between eros and agape at least twice in this thread, and now suddenly you make the statement “Love in this relationship is an emotion.” The emotional aspect of love is just that, an aspect, and therefore not the defining dimension. The emotional aspect may or may not even be present within the context of a loving relationship. For example, a doctor doing medical work as a missionary may love his patients from the standpoint of agape but without eros (in other words, loving deeds without the emotions usually associated with love).

Now we might get somewhere (though I am not hopeful). First of all, the God-human relationship is “lopsided” - God’s “love” for us cannot be the same as our “love” toward God. Keep this in mind. I have yet to meet an apologist who does not mindlessly parrot: “love is an act of will”, which is complete nonsense.

I will use your example both in a literal fashion and as an analogy (God being the doctor). It is an excellent analogy. A doctor may or may not feel any emotion toward the patient. It is not necessary that he should feel the emotion. What is necessary is that he does the necessary steps to help the patient. What about the patient’s side? He cannot do anything for the doctor, only be grateful for the help.

If the doctor (God) does nothing for the patient, then why should the patient be grateful? The “agape” side belongs to the doctor (God) and the emotional side (gratefulness) happens on the patient side. We (patients) cannot do anything that benefits God - since God lacks nothing. In the relationship we can only offer our worship (which is volitional) - and I agree that to be genuine, it must be unforced. But unforced also means that it must come by itself - it is NOT volitional! That is what is being missed by all the apologists. Our side toward God is purely emotional (maybe expressed in some action) and it is not volitional.

What about the “agape” side - the emotionally unattached, unselfish acting on the behalf of the other? Does it need to be volitional? The answer is obviously: NO!. It does not matter if the doctor “emotionally loves” the patient or not. It does not matter if the doctor “volitionally wants” to help the patient of not. As far as the patient is concerned, the doctor could be a very sophisticated machine without any “free will” whatsoever.

Your statement, “Love in this relationship is an emotion – which is not subject to volitional control” contains an inherent contradiction.

Not at all. Love has multiple meanings as I explained above. Whether the doctor has volition or not is irrelevant. As long as he goes through the motions of helping, his possible emotions and volition do not count. The patient cannot do anything for the doctor, except offer up is gratitude. Yes, the act of offering the gratitude is volitional, but the genuine feeling of gratefulness is not volitional. Of course if the doctor represents God, then he already knows about the genuine emotion within the patient - and that emotion is not volitional. So the “free will” is totally out of the picture.

And seeing as I am typing this on Holy Thursday, and tomorrow is Good Friday, I can readily say that Jesus most certainly did do something “to earn that love.”

And these remarks make me feel unhopeful. You only claim an unsupported myth as you argument. I am not interested in your myths, I am only interested in verifyable facts - and there are simply NONE of those. Of course I know what you genuinely believe - and I could quote Rhett Butler (from Gone with the Wind) to express my feelings about it. Your sincere beliefs shared by millions of Catholics do not mean anything to others. You keep wasting both my and your time by repeating them.

 

[Keeler]

In my last two posts I have demonstrated that a relationship does not simply arise from emotions, but rather on the people involved making the willful decision to be in that relationship.

Relationship is an empty word here. I have absolutely no relationship with God, and moreover I would be unable to build a relationship, even if I wanted to do so. The first step in any relationship is the knowledge (not a belief!) that there is another party, with whom a relationship can be built. A while ago some poster quoted a saying, approximately along these lines: “With humans you must know them, before you can love them. With God first you must love him before you can know him”. I cannot recall the details, but it struck me as a complete nonsense.

Therefore, God is not disturbed over the lack of an emotion. What is being examined, rather, is the choice that God presents to accept or reject him, and we make that choice regardless of any emotional components we may have.

I do not accept nor reject God. It is impossible for me to do either “act”. So your analysis is faulty unless you can account for this fact.

The hypocrisy is the idea that God gives people the freedom to totally reject him, but then prevents (in one way or another) anyone from actually totally rejecting him. Therefore, I do not confuse “love” with “caring”. It is a simple matter of whether or not a benevolent God would force people to love him. We both agree that he would not. But in your idea of a better world, that is exactly what God has to do. Keep in mind that in this example, the “forbidden fruit” and the “loaded gun” are simply symbolic expressions of the choice to totally reject God.

No, the loaded gun is not symbolic at all. It is not an analogy, and I made sure that I offer it in the literal sense. You cannot “twist” it into an analogy. Answer it as it was intended. How is it an expression of love for a father (who knows better) to allow a child to have access to a loaded weapon. The father knows that the child will grab it, point it to someone and pull the trigger. The only thing the father does is: tells the child: “don’t do it”.

And therefore your suggested world has no opportunity for someone to reject God, either in little ways or in total ways. After all, it is by sin (evil) that someone rejects God, and it is by doing good that someone accepts God.

Another nonsense. I try to do good and try not to do evil. (The word sin is meaningless for me). Yet, as I said above I do not accept God, since I do not believe that God exists. I do not reject God for the very same reason. But in your analysis, by attempting to do “good things” I already accepted God (implicitly, maybe?). And you think you make sense here? No, my friend, you do not. Your sentence highlighted above is totally irrational. One accepts or rejects God by declaring this fact.

But because evil is not an option in the world you envision, everyone automatically loves God and there is no possibility or opportunity to make any choice accept good ones (i.e., all choices result an acceptance of God). How is this not brainwashing? And how does this suggested world not contradict what you said earlier about a benevolent God not brainwashing people?

In the world I suggeted, everyone is free to be grateful to God, or be indifferent to God, or even hate God. I see no reason for hating, but the opportunity is there. Maybe no one will actually choose that option, but there is no logical necessity with would disallow it. God does not even have to show himself.

 

[thirddec]

Of course not. I was a Presbyterian, not a Catholic. But as I said I lost my faith a very long time ago. Being open simply means what is says. I think that it is extremely unlikely that there would be a deity, but not impossible. If there is one, and wishes to contact me, I am here, willing to pick up this end of the communication line. As I said, the ball is in his court.

Apologies for making the error that you are comming at this from a lost Catholic perspective. As I didn’t waste time reading all the long and complicated posts that are just in my humble opinion just an opportunity for soap boxing as tbh anyone who thinks they can prove God through rational arguement is a fool so rational arguement is the natural safe ground for an athiest. God is found in Faith and Faith is based on experience. Rationality comes in after that point. An indian in the middle of the Amazon will have faith that if he drops an fruit from a tree it will fall ; he doesn’t need to know the theory of gravity. But once he learns more about the theory of Gravity he can start to make better use of the knowledge.

Have you ever considered if you ever had Faith to loose to begin with and if you did ; what was the process that caused you to loose it?

 

[Keeler]

You presume that before eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong.

It is the only logical conclusion. Until that moment there was no death, there was no discomfort, there were no diseases, there was no hunger - in one word: there was nothing “wrong”. So they could not have had any idea about “right and wrong”. Just like a child before the age of reason, it is all innocence, even if a child would do something that we consider “wrong”. A child may not heed a warning, but that is not “wrong”, it is ignorance. Obedience is not “right” and disobedience is not “wrong” until one knows the difference between right and wrong - and even then it is not always “right” to obey.

The fact is that by eating the forbidden fruit did they become moral agents. God did not want that to happen. So your whole assertion that God wanted us to become “champions of virtue” collapses into nonsense. You cannot wiggle out, no matter how hard you try. By the way, you asked me to collect examples about the deficient arguments by theists. There is no need. Just look into the mirror and read your own “arguments”.

 

[EricFilmer]

Now we might get somewhere (though I am not hopeful). First of all, the God-human relationship is “lopsided” - God’s “love” for us cannot be the same as our “love” toward God. Keep this in mind. I have yet to meet an apologist who does not mindlessly parrot: “love is an act of will”, which is complete nonsense.

It is not complete nonsense because agape cannot be performed unless someone wills to do it. Likewise, a person cannot give or accept a marriage proposal unless someone wills to do it.

I will use your example both in a literal fashion and as an analogy (God being the doctor). It is an excellent analogy. A doctor may or may not feel any emotion toward the patient. It is not necessary that he should feel the emotion. What is necessary is that he does the necessary steps to help the patient. What about the patient’s side? He cannot do anything for the doctor, only be grateful for the help.

Take a look at the section I emphasized in the above quote and explain to be how this is not an act of the will.

If the doctor (God) does nothing for the patient, then why should the patient be grateful? The “agape” side belongs to the doctor (God) and the emotional side (gratefulness) happens on the patient side. We (patients) cannot do anything that benefits God - since God lacks nothing.

It is a relationship of love. Once more, you are focusing on what you perceive to be logically necessary. For example, you said that if God lacks nothing then we cannot do anything to benefit him. This implies that loving acts must have some sort of practical application. In light of this I will ask you the same question I asked in Post #97 and repeated in Post #103:

“I ask you to determine what freedoms are ‘logically necessary’ for the loving relationship between a husband and wife. I imagine that once we narrow down the field as to what a husband and wife should do for one another in terms of what is ‘logically necessary’ it won’t be a relationship really worth having. The same could be said of a relationship between God and people.”

In other words, if you continue to make statements about what people have to do and don’t have to do then I want a straight answer to my question. This is the third time I have presented it. The first time you dodged it with one of your “eros & apage” statements and the second time you cherry picked around it.

In the relationship we can only offer our worship (which is volitional) - and I agree that to be genuine, it must be unforced.

First of all, going back to your earlier statement that the concept of love being an act of the will “is complete nonsense”, explain to me how what you just said is not an act of the will.

Secondly, we can also offer God our obedience to his commandments, our free time spent with him in prayer, and expressions of contrition over our sins. Also, as Jesus pointed out in the Beattitudes, by doing charitable acts to those in need, we likewise do them for him. These are all things that we can give to God within the context of a loving relationship with him. Moreover, these are all done as acts of the will.

But unforced also means that it must come by itself - it is NOT volitional! That is what is being missed by all the apologists. Our side toward God is purely emotional (maybe expressed in some action) and it is not volitional.

Explain how any of the examples I just gave are “purely emotional”. Explain how they are not volitional.

What about the “agape” side - the emotionally unattached, unselfish acting on the behalf of the other? Does it need to be volitional? The answer is obviously: NO!. It does not matter if the doctor “emotionally loves” the patient or not. It does not matter if the doctor “volitionally wants” to help the patient of not. As far as the patient is concerned, the doctor could be a very sophisticated machine without any “free will” whatsoever.

How does this make any sense? The doctor’s performance of agape is volitional if he has a choice to do it or not to do it. The person in need who receives the help should be grateful regardless of the mindset of the doctor.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Not at all. Love has multiple meanings as I explained above. Whether the doctor has volition or not is irrelevant. As long as he goes through the motions of helping, his possible emotions and volition do not count. The patient cannot do anything for the doctor, except offer up is gratitude. Yes, the act of offering the gratitude is volitional, but the genuine feeling of gratefulness is not volitional. Of course if the doctor represents God, then he already knows about the genuine emotion within the patient - and that emotion is not volitional. So the “free will” is totally out of the picture.

Gratitude has both an intellectual component and an emotional one. As an intellectual component, I recognize that I was in need and someone else helped me, so (depending on the circumstances) that person should be given an expression of gratitude. In this case, the expression of gratitude acknowledges the reality of the situation: that I was in need and consequently benefited by the efforts of my helper. The emotional component involves the feelings of gratitude. It is hard to imagine being in need, receiving assistance, and not having at least some sort of emotional gratitude as a result. But even if such emotions are lacking, this does not mean that an expression of gratitude lacks sincerity, because it still is an expression of the intellectual component.

Consider all this in light of the following passage from Gratitude by Fred R. Berger (and this is a philosophical examination of the topic, not a theological one):

“A sincere expression of gratitude thus involves at least the recognition of the other’s having done something which indicates he values us. Clearly, more than just this is involved, however. It seems to me that all of the following are accomplished by sincere, adequate expressions of gratitude: (*a/]) the recipient shows he recognizes the value of the donor’s act – that is, that is was an act benefiting him and done *in order to ** benefit him; (b) the recipient shows that he does not regard the actor as having value only as an instrument of his own welfare; and (c) a relationship of moral community is established, maintained, or recognized, consisting of mutual respect and regard. Reciprocation makes the relationship two-way.”

(Source: uta.edu/philosophy/faculty/burgess-jackson/Berger.pdf, page 302 of original document, page 5 of the PDF file)

Note that in this elaboration there is no mention of an emotional component.

And these remarks make me feel unhopeful. You only claim an unsupported myth as you argument. I am not interested in your myths, I am only interested in verifyable facts - and there are simply NONE of those. Of course I know what you genuinely believe - and I could quote Rhett Butler (from Gone with the Wind) to express my feelings about it. Your sincere beliefs shared by millions of Catholics do not mean anything to others. You keep wasting both my and your time by repeating them.

Not so fast. Consider what you said here: “You only claim an unsupported myth as your argument.” So let us take the time to recall exactly what my argument was and what it was in response to. So here is the correspondence, and I will add some emphasis on certain words and phrases:

In Post #114, you stated:

“The truth is that you (the apologists in general) describe God as an egotistical and narcisstic megalomaniac, who wants to be worshipped and glorifed, while giving nothing in return. God is described as the ultimate tyrant, who wants to be “loved”, but who does nothing to earn that love.”

To this I responded (in Post #120):

“Christians believe that Jesus is God in the flesh, and our description of Jesus is the opposite of what you just outlined. And seeing as I am typing this on Holy Thursday, and tomorrow is Good Friday, I can readily say that Jesus most certainly did do something ‘to earn that love’.”

In other words, what you claimed to be “the truth” about what Christian apologists say is in fact the opposite of what Christian apologists say. Our respective views on the validity of the gospels had nothing to do with it. So in light of how this conversation actually took place, explain to me how it was a waste of my time and yours pointing this out.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Relationship is an empty word here. I have absolutely no relationship with God, and moreover I would be unable to build a relationship, even if I wanted to do so. The first step in any relationship is the knowledge (not a belief!) that there is another party, with whom a relationship can be built. A while ago some poster quoted a saying, approximately along these lines: “With humans you must know them, before you can love them. With God first you must love him before you can know him”. I cannot recall the details, but it struck me as a complete nonsense.

Relationship is not an empty word here because it is the basis of my free will defense from Post #4, which you are supposed to be attempting to refute. And this is now the twentieth time I have pointed this out to you in this thread. I believe that a relationship with God is possible. You don’t. As far as I am concerned, the existence of faith in this life allows for the possibility of both belief and unbelief, but that’s getting off-topic. Therefore, I ask you to explain what this has to do with refuting my free will defense. Obviously, I don’t expect you, as an atheist, to believe in God, so any critique you give of my free will defense is strictly along the lines of possibilities. If my free will defense does not contain any contradictions then it can be considered a possible theory (in the least) of how a benevolent God can give us free will, and the presence of evil does not contradict either God’s benevolence or our free will. Now, if you can demonstrate from an objective basis that a relationship between a human and a Creator God is flat out impossible then that would be relevant to a critique of my free will position.

I do not accept nor reject God. It is impossible for me to do either “act”. So your analysis is faulty unless you can account for this fact.

Your rejection of God most certainly is an act, it’s just a question of how the act is performed. A person may say, “I do not claim that God does not exist; I merely withhold my belief in such a God until I see satisfactory evidence of his existence.” Does that sound like a fair definition of what many consider atheism today? But if this same person lives his life as if God does not, indeed, exist then he has expressed disbelief in God. He has rejected God, even if he made no verbal declaration.

No, the loaded gun is not symbolic at all. It is not an analogy, and I made sure that I offer it in the literal sense. You cannot “twist” it into an analogy.

Fine, and I will treat it literally in a moment. But I would also like you to tell me what is the total rejection of God in the world you envision. In order for people to be in a loving relationship with God, they have to have the freedom to totally reject being in this relationship. So tell me what that act would be in the world you envision.

Answer it as it was intended. How is it an expression of love for a father (who knows better) to allow a child to have access to a loaded weapon. The father knows that the child will grab it, point it to someone and pull the trigger. The only thing the father does is: tells the child: “don’t do it”.

So I am not supposed to answer this as an analogy regarding the possibility of choosing evil? I am supposed to treat it “in the literal sense”? That we are talking about a literal loaded gun? Ok. You say that a loving parent would not leave a loaded gun lying around because the children would play with it and someone could get shot and possibly killed. I agree. But if a parent leaves a loaded gun out in the open (either by accident, intention or negligence), are you saying that God has a moral obligation to put the gun away? And does this mean that it is also God’s moral obligation to “baby proof” the kitchen cabinets that contain the steak knives? And the cabinet that has the rat poison? And the tool box that has the hammer and box cutter? And the medicine cabinet that has all the potentially harmful drugs? And the bottles of bleach and ammonia?

Or, are you suggesting that God should have intervened to prevent the creation of guns, knives, poison, hammers, drugs and so forth? In other words, if we are not to discuss this as an analogy, then I’m not sure where you’re going with all this. At this point, you need to provide a more complete example. In other words, because a loving & caring parent would not leave a loaded gun where his children could get to it, a loving and caring God… (fill in the blank).”

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Another nonsense. I try to do good and try not to do evil. (The word sin is meaningless for me).

Out of curiosity, define for me exactly what you mean by doing good and avoiding evil. We can then further examine this aspect of the conversation.

Yet, as I said above I do not accept God, since I do not believe that God exists. I do not reject God for the very same reason.

As I explained above, if you live your life as if God does not exist, then you have, indeed, rejected God. I am making an objective statement applicable to anyone; how you actually live your personal life is unknown to me.

But in your analysis, by attempting to do “good things” I already accepted God (implicitly, maybe?).

Generally speaking it can be considered so, according to Catholic teaching, and this comes under what we call “Baptism by desire” (which is not doctrinal but a theological opinion). Such things need to be examined in a case-by-case basis (and God is the one who ultimately does the examination). But Baptism by desire has a stipulation that the person in question morally cooperates with his God-given conscience, that his lack of knowledge of the Christian teachings of salvation is of no fault of his own, and that he would have desired baptism had he a fair chance of knowing about it. In light of this assessment, an implicit acceptance of certain aspects of God (such as virtue and moral living) probably does not over rule an explicit rejection of a relationship with God.

And you think you make sense here? No, my friend, you do not. Your sentence highlighted above is totally irrational. One accepts or rejects God by declaring this fact.

And one accepts or rejects God in how they live their lives. As the old saying goes, “Actions speak louder than words.” In terms of human relationships, we reject one another in thought, word and deed, don’t we? Why should ones rejection of God be limited by word alone?

EricFilmer;7785964:

And therefore your suggested world has no opportunity for someone to reject God, either in little ways or in total ways. After all, it is by sin (evil) that someone rejects God, and it is by doing good that someone accepts God. But because evil is not an option in the world you envision, everyone automatically loves God and there is no possibility or opportunity to make any choice accept good ones (i.e., all choices result an acceptance of God). How is this not brainwashing? And how does this suggested world not contradict what you said earlier about a benevolent God not brainwashing people?

In the world I suggeted, everyone is free to be grateful to God, or be indifferent to God, or even hate God. I see no reason for hating, but the opportunity is there. Maybe no one will actually choose that option, but there is no logical necessity with would disallow it. God does not even have to show himself.

At this point I ask you to clarify the following:
In your suggested world, how does one commit the willful act of totally rejecting God? (I’m not sure if it is by hatred, or how that is applied in this context)
What are the consequences for this total rejection?

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

It is the only logical conclusion. Until that moment there was no death, there was no discomfort, there were no diseases, there was no hunger - in one word: there was nothing “wrong”. So they could not have had any idea about “right and wrong”. Just like a child before the age of reason, it is all innocence, even if a child would do something that we consider “wrong”. A child may not heed a warning, but that is not “wrong”, it is ignorance. Obedience is not “right” and disobedience is not “wrong” until one knows the difference between right and wrong - and even then it is not always “right” to obey.

In the case of Eden, they knew that God was the source of their lives and took care of their necessities. For example, when Adam desired a mate, God created Eve. When they were hungry, God provided fruit. God gave them freedom and instructed them in terms of the boundaries of this freedom. God also told them that there would be consequences if they placed themselves in opposition to his will, because opposition to him would also be opposition to the things that he provides. In this sense they knew right from wrong.

The fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil symbolized the possibility of a creature made in the image and likeness of God of being susceptible to the temptation to become ones own moral authority. In other words, to declare for oneself what is permissible and what is not permissible, to declare what the boundaries of human freedom are, to basically claim for oneself the role that God played in the garden. To put this another way, if God did not want Adam and Eve to have access to a tree of knowledge of good and evil, he would have to make humans in the image and likeness of something other than himself. This would consequently limit their ability to be in a loving relationship with him.

The fact is that by eating the forbidden fruit did they become moral agents. God did not want that to happen. So your whole assertion that God wanted us to become “champions of virtue” collapses into nonsense.

In this thread you use the term “nonsense” a lot, and not once have you been able to back that up. For Adam and Eve, their ability to become champions of virtue did, indeed, exist, even if many of the moral struggles in our world did not exist in Eden, at least during the primordial time-frame described in Genesis. For example, there was no temptation of the sin of avarice. Nevertheless, as I described before, there was the temptation of other sins, such as pride (to be like God without God) and the temptation to not trust in God’s revelation. Had they consistently resisted these temptations, they would have been champions of the virtues of humility and faith in God. Or does consistently winning a battle over temptation not count as one being a champion of virtue?

Also, even though God did not want Adam & Eve to sin, they did. The consequences for having sinned resulted, Eden was lost, and our world resulted. In our world, the struggle between virtue and sin takes place in greater variation and capacity, and therefore the concept of being a champion of virtue takes place on a whole new level. But the fact remains that God desired humanity to be champions of virtue according to temptations of sin that are present. This was true in Eden, and this is true on earth.

You cannot wiggle out, no matter how hard you try.

How is this “wiggling?” I have given a plausible, rational defense in response to every single attempt you have launched against the material I presented in Post #4.

By the way, you asked me to collect examples about the deficient arguments by theists. There is no need. Just look into the mirror and read your own “arguments”.

No, I asked you for links to the threads, and I’m still waiting.

And after about a month of correspondence, you have yet to sufficiently refute even one point I made in this thread. In light of this, I think you need to look up the word “deficient” because I don’t think you really know what it means. And while you’re at it, look up the word “nonsense”, also.

 

[Keeler]

Apologies for making the error that you are comming at this from a lost Catholic perspective.

No need to apologize.

As I didn’t waste time reading all the long and complicated posts that are just in my humble opinion just an opportunity for soap boxing as tbh anyone who thinks they can prove God through rational arguement is a fool so rational arguement is the natural safe ground for an athiest.

I very much agree with you.

God is found in Faith…

So far agreed.

and Faith is based on experience.

I don’t think so. Many believers assert that faith is a gift from God. As for myself (and many like me) faith came as childhood indoctrination - and I do NOT use this word in a pejorative manner. It is a fact of life. I believe that some people believe that they had a direct experience of God, and it changed their life. My opinion is that very probably they were mistaken.

Have you ever considered if you ever had Faith to loose to begin with and if you did ; what was the process that caused you to loose it?

My faith was as solid as child’s belief could be. Indeed I started to question it, when my prayers were never answered. Eventually I grew out of it, even though I only had good experiences in the churches I attended.

 

[Liquid47]

I’m sorry if you don’t believe me, but I’m just going to have to accept that, I guess.

I don’t want a god. I want God. I just want to be able to know that the God that I am worshiping is good. I don’t think that wanting that is wrong. Right now, I’m just not sure about the goodness of God.

I know that you said that in the end, we have no way of knowing, but that goes against so much of what I’ve always been told–that the proof of God is everywhere. If that is the case, that we cannot know if God is good, I have a real problem with that. I want to know that what I believe is true. I’m really trying to reconcile my desire to believe that I am worshiping a good God and your idea that we can’t know.

Maybe a feeling is enough for most people to ignore logic. I think that you are right in your assessment. But feelings can be wrong. And again, when it comes to worshiping a being, I want to make sure that it goes beyond a fallible feeling, but is backed up by proof.

Again, thank you so much for giving me so much to think about.

Hey sadiebelle

What I’ve noticed in your posts, and maybe you’ve picked this up, is that you’re attempting to be the ultimate judge on what is ‘good’ and what is ‘cruel’. Apparently, there is no one else on this earth, not even God himself, that can define true goodness, compassion, and love, except for yourself. Following from this, God apparently must bow down to your ruling on good and evil, in order so that you can feel good about worshipping him. You’re not the first to question God — that dubious honour goes to the Devil himself — and you certainly won’t be the last. I hope you’re praying constantly for guidance.

You’ve implied that the arguments presented to you are illogical. Actually, arguing the case for non-existence, or an automaton existence (an existence without free will, where we automatically do good); an existence which is unlike the one we are presently living, is irredeemably illogical. Why? Because you are arguing the ‘what if?’. What if there was no evil in the world? What if we couldn’t choose evil? What if five plus five equals two?

Comparing a non-existent state of being ('Can’t God just remove evil? It’s bad!) to an existent state of being (‘There is evil due to our very nature’) is not only completely illogical, but completely irrelevant. Following on from this, you need to understand why evil exists in our current state of being. Simply put, evil exists only as a product of turning away from God. When we freely turn away from God, it crops up, because all goodness comes from God. Nothing that is good is evil, and thus acts in the absence of God are therefore evil.

I believe your problem, however, is not discovering the truth of the matter, but accepting it. The onus would be on you to accept this truth, as difficult as it may be. It will be very tempting to ignore, reject, or even spite the truth, but in the end, it is truth itself, and the most noble thing to do would be to align yourself to it. While Truth wishes to be in mutual love with you, Truth certainly won’t sway from it’s position just so you can feel good about it. Lies love swaying, though

 

[thirddec]

No need to apologize.

I don’t think so. Many believers assert that faith is a gift from God. As for myself (and many like me) faith came as childhood indoctrination - and I do NOT use this word in a pejorative manner. It is a fact of life. I believe that some people believe that they had a direct experience of God, and it changed their life. My opinion is that very probably they were mistaken.

My faith was as solid as child’s belief could be. Indeed I started to question it, when my prayers were never answered. Eventually I grew out of it, even though I only had good experiences in the churches I attended.

Mmmmh this whole scenario begins to remind me of a great film called “The Ninth Configuration” Stacy Keach. If you haven’t seen it you’d like it

there are 2 types of faith blind faith which you can’t have now and experiental Faith which you could have provided you can have enough experience to convince you.

Now this is where only You and God can srt this out all I can do is try to facilitate this but I don’t know how as what worked for me ; may not work for you; also I am a Catholic so on my return to God ( though I have to be honest I didn’t not believe I just thought I was destined to always be exiled due to my life ) I availed of Catholic prayer and worship. So I am at a loss as to how to proceed in the conversation. You can watch the film while I have time to pray and get back to you. If you have any pointers that me be helpfull by all means post them

 

[Keeler]

It is not complete nonsense because agape cannot be performed unless someone wills to do it.

You don’t understand me. Picking up a gun and killing someone is also an “act of will”. Is it “love”? The phrase “love is an act of will” has two errors: one is that it assumes that “agape” is only meaning of “love”, and two, that it lacks the qualifiers, and thus it means two things: 1) “every act of love is an act of will” and 2) “every act of will is an act of love”. It puts an “equal sign” between “love” and “acts of will”. Sheer baloney. At best one could say that “some acts of love are an act of will” and “some acts of will are an act of love” - which would be true but so vague that it would be meaningless. But the lack of qualifier indicates the first one. An act of murder is an act of will and it is not love. Emotional love is not an act of will. A shy person can feel head-over-heels in love with someone else, and never expresses that emotion in actions. Yet he is very much in love - and no volition is involved. Moreover, for agape the volition is not needed. More on that later.

Once more, you are focusing on what you perceive to be logically necessary.

Of course I do. That is the point of this exercise. If you don’t even see that, then I am really wasting my time here. You wanted to show that free will is the necessary and sufficient reason for having evil acts. That requires a logical necessity. This is one scenario:

1. A doctor performs a helping act.
2. It is an act of will.

But the presence of the “will” in not logically necessary! An extremely sophisticated “robotic” doctor can perform the same acts, without any volition involved. What is the “valuable” part? The “helping”, or the “volition” behind it? The helping act is just as good, useful and appreciated if a robot performs it. The volition is simply not logically necessary. In other words, the definition of “agape” is simply to “act on behalf of someone else” and NOT “volitionally act on behalf of someone else”. Whether the being is acting volitionally or “preprogrammed” is not relevant.

For example, you said that if God lacks nothing then we cannot do anything to benefit him. This implies that loving acts must have some sort of practical application.

No, it implies nothing of the kind. I was talking ONLY about agape there - not love in general. Observe, what you just did. Either you did not understand what I said, or you deliberately twisted it. I merely said that our love toward God can never be “agape”, because we cannot act in God’s best interest. God does not need anything - at least that is the assumption.

“I ask you to determine what freedoms are ‘logically necessary’ for the loving relationship between a husband and wife. I imagine that once we narrow down the field as to what a husband and wife should do for one another in terms of what is ‘logically necessary’ it won’t be a relationship really worth having. The same could be said of a relationship between God and people.”

No, it cannot be said. The analogy of husband-wife is totally inapplicable to human-God. There is no need to waste more time on an irrelevant topic. A short summary is sufficient. It is not logically necessary for the relationship to be meaningful that the husband could strangle his wife or the wife could poison the husband. Their love toward each other would still be meaningful and the relationship would be worth having even if they would not be free to slaughter each other. To claim that the meaningful aspect of the relationship is logically contingent upon their ability to cause harm to each other is just another complete BS.

Also, as Jesus pointed out in the Beatitudes, by doing charitable acts to those in need, we likewise do them for him.

Mythology again. When I give to a homeless, I do nothing for Jesus. I do not “love” the homeless, I feel pity for him. Pity is not love. And Jesus gives nothing to the homeless. So in case of Jesus there is no act expressing that “love” he allegedly feels for the homeless.

How does this make any sense? The doctor’s performance of agape is volitional if he has a choice to do it or not to do it. The person in need who receives the help should be grateful regardless of the mindset of the doctor.

And this is the point. The doctor’s mindset (volition) is not important. In a very good sense the doctor abandoned his claim of “free will” when he took the Hippocratic oath. In the oath to doctor swears that he will treat anyone and everyone. The doctor - as long as he keeps his oath - has no choice any more. He must treat everyone. If you actually understand this, you should stop bringing up “volition”.

 

[Keeler]

Out of curiosity, define for me exactly what you mean by doing good and avoiding evil. We can then further examine this aspect of the conversation.

It should be obvious. Being helpful, being considerate toward others, really loving my family and enjoying the company of my friends are under the category of “doing good”. Avoiding “evil” means that I do not take advantage of others, do not kill or maim or torture.

As I explained above, if you live your life as if God does not exist, then you have, indeed, rejected God. I am making an objective statement applicable to anyone; how you actually live your personal life is unknown to me.

No, you did nor “explain”, you stated your view, or opinion, and I flatly reject your opinion - even if you quote the scripture or the cathecism or the pope. An illogical statement will stay illogical, no matter who says it.

I live my life as if God did not exist, but that does not mean that I am sociopath. I respect other humans, and I actually love quite a few of them - and God possible existence plays absolutely no part in this. The truth is that your usage of “rejecting God” is just a meaningless utterance. An atheist, who does not believe in God’s existence is LOGICALLY incapable of accepting or rejecting God. There are three options here (not two): “accepting God” - which means worshipping or loving God, “rejecting God” - which means despising or hating God and finally “being indifferent to God”. You said, if I live my life as if no God existed, then I “reject” God. You also said, if I feed the hungry, then I “accept” God. So which one will it be? I do both.

Generally speaking it can be considered so, according to Catholic teaching, and this comes under what we call “Baptism by desire” (which is not doctrinal but a theological opinion).

It is called “conversion by redefinition”. No, I do not desire “baptism by desire” since I have been baptized. My way of conducting my life has nothing to do with a desire to get closer to God. I base my behavior on secular grounds, basically on the direct and inverse “golden rule”. There are some issues where I agree with what the Church says. But I do not follow the Church’s teachings on many (so-called) moral issues. So your “baptism by desire” is inapplicable.

And one accepts or rejects God in how they live their lives.

No matter how many times you repeat it, I will not agree. The third option is there, being indifferent to God. If God wants a relationship with me, he needs to show his face. Once I learn that God really exists, and not just a figment of your imagination, then and only then can we start to build a relationship.

As the old saying goes, “Actions speak louder than words.”

On this we agree, 100 percent. That is why I say that God does not “love” us, because there are no deeds, no actions indicating that he does. There is not one example of God feeding the hungry, healing the sick, protecting the victims, preventing genocides. Not one. So, where are the actions?

In terms of human relationships, we reject one another in thought, word and deed, don’t we? Why should ones rejection of God be limited by word alone?

Simple. Because when it comes to other humans, we are 100% aware of their existence! I have said a few times now that the first and fundamental necessity of building a relationship, of accepting or rejecting someone is that we MUST know that the other party exists.

At this point I ask you to clarify the following:
In your suggested world, how does one commit the willful act of totally rejecting God? (I’m not sure if it is by hatred, or how that is applied in this context)
What are the consequences for this total rejection?

By not worshipping God. What are the consequences? God would take a “hint” and leave him alone. “Leben und leben lassen.”

That is another weird assertion on the theists’ part, that “distancing” ourselves from God somehow has “disastrous” consequences. Guess what, buddy. In this existence we are totally separated of God’s presence. We are “distanced” from God. If hell is the total and complete separation from God, then this existence is “hell”, and it ain’t too bad. (Of course, this is just the new, politically correct concept of hell. The “good” old hell was eternal, physical torture. How very indicative to a “loving” and “caring” God. In this existence God does not come to our aid, God does not care about us (in any way we can discern).

 

[Keeler]

Well, time to wrap up a bit.

Your stance is pretty simple: you say that God wants a meaningful relationship with us. God cannot force us to love, or adore or worship him, because such a forceful act would render the result meaningless. If you are right and God really wants a meaningful relationship with us, then your assertion is logical. Let’s examine God’s actions in the light of what you said.

The first thing that is required for any relationship is the knowledge that the other party actually exists. This is not a given. God’s existence is very much in doubt. So, if God wants a relationship, he should make certain that his existence is KNOWN - not just believed. He needs to come out from the closet.

The second thing that is needed for a positive relationship is some actions. If God wishes to be worshipped and loved, he needs to do something to deserve it. He cannot force us to love him, but can “bribe” us, he can “buy” our love and gratitude. There is nothing pejorative in the usage of “bribe” here. That is what we do to each other. We give and receieve. We treat each other properly and we receive similar treatment. If one party only wishes to receive and not give, he or she will be surpirsed very soon. God definitely does not participate. We are left totally alone.

Based upon that God does a “lousy” job of winning our gratitude.

Let’s look at our world as it is. The majority of the people would never dream of hurting others. A small minority of psychopaths and sociopaths does. When they do, we separate them from the society and do everything we can to take away their freedom to hurt others again! Unfortunately we lack the ability to PREVENT such actions. We must wait until they happen. But that does not apply to God. (You guys painted yourselves into a tight corner with these omnimax attributes. Time to drop them ) God knows about “evil” acts before they are committed. God could PREVENT them if he chose.

You guys keep on bringing up the wrong question. You ask me: “People do all sorts of evil acts, and you want God to interfere and fix our errors?”. Hell, no. I say that God could do perfectly what we can do imperfectly: “prevent” the occurrence of evil acts. There is nothing wrong is curtailing someone’s freedom preemptively - if that freedom leads to evil acts. (Of course I use the word “evil” in the correct sense, senselessly hurting others. Not the Catholic sense, which would declare the love between humans “evil” if it does not conform the Church’s standards.)

So, summing up: all those people who do not wish to commit evil actions can be left alone. They can have all the freedom of the world, since they use their freedom properly. Those people, who sometimes want to perform evil acts, can be “slapped” down by God in those cases. Of course even these people are not “evil” all the time. Whenever they do not want to commit evil acts, they can be left alone.

The solution is simple: God can prevent those acts which would be “evil” - which is probably just a miniscule precentage of the cases. In the overwhelming majority of the cases God can leave our freedom alone. If even a temporary prevention of free will is somehow not not palatable for you (we engage in this practice all the time with criminals), then God has one more option. Since he allegedly “knows” the future, and “knows” who will commit evil acts, he can decide not to create those people. If these people would not even be born, they would have no “will” at all, so there would be no need to interfere with it. Simple and elegant solution.