The "right" to... whatever!

[davidv]

I never mentioned a “perfect” world, only one without human violence. Why don’t you argue against what I actually said?

How can a world without violence exist without perfection? What is your definition of perfection in this context?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

How can a world without violence exist without perfection?

By eliminating certain kinds of action, while leaving the rest in place.

We, poor impotent humans TRY to do what we can. We can only act Reactively, not Proactively. We try to take the violent people and separate them where they cannot do more harm (prisons). We can even try to educate them, so they will change their ways. Some of the different religions participate in this process and their endeavor is commendable. But no matter how hard we try, we can only have a small success.

Maybe, sometime in the future we shall be able to detect the INTENT of violent actions, and maybe we shall be able to develop a technology to prevent these violent actions. I am afraid that some people will resist such a solution.

Larry Niven, a great science fiction writer “invented” a wonderful weapon, which would induce huge happiness, euphoria in the person who wishes to attack someone. No one can be violent when they experience ecstasy.

What is your definition of perfection in this context?

I don’t have any. And I never mentioned “perfection”.

 

[Aloysium]

Bunch of random thoughts:

In a fallen world, one in which we have chosen ourselves over love, violence is integral to creation.
What one seeks to build and maintain, another destroys.
We will die, and fearing death, we are controlled, if we choose.

An absence of violence, whatever the operational definition might be, would make this a better place?
I doubt it. In the face of violence, we can act with courage, bravery; we can care for one another.
Listen to all this jabber; it would not otherwise exist.

Engaging in fanciful reveries, the mind simply drifts off . . . off into never, never land.
However, this is the reality! What are you going to do with your part in it?
One life; what will it be in eternity?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

An absence of violence, whatever the operational definition might be, would make this a better place?
I doubt it. In the face of violence, we can act with courage, bravery; we can care for one another.

Really? Who needs it? The victims of the violence most certainly would choose NOT to raped and tortured. But rest assured, even if the violence would be eliminated, there would be plenty of possibility to help others. Famine would still be there (due to the lack of rain, which God could provide, but does not). Natural disasters would still cripple untold millions of people. Diseases would still ravage children and adults alike.

Do you really think that ADDING violence to this already horrible picture is a “good idea”? That the naturally caused pain and suffering is still NOT ENOUGH? Are you serious?

 

[PRmerger]

Really? Who needs it? The victims of the violence most certainly would choose NOT to raped and tortured. But rest assured, even if the violence would be eliminated, there would be plenty of possibility to help others. Famine would still be there (due to the lack of rain, which God could provide, but does not). Natural disasters would still cripple untold millions of people. Diseases would still ravage children and adults alike.

Do you really think that ADDING violence to this already horrible picture is a “good idea”? That the naturally caused pain and suffering is still NOT ENOUGH? Are you serious?

You need to think about your objection a little more clearly, PA.

What’s the atheistic answer to this?

What does the atheist tell his 10 yr old son who asks, “Daddy, why did that little girl die of cancer?”

The atheist answer is woefully inadequate.

Atheism doesn’t provide any answers to the Problem of Evil.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Bunch of random thoughts:

In a fallen world, one in which we have chosen ourselves over love, violence is integral to creation.
What one seeks to build and maintain, another destroys.
We will die, and fearing death, we are controlled, if we choose.

An absence of violence, whatever the operational definition might be, would make this a better place?
I doubt it. In the face of violence, we can act with courage, bravery; we can care for one another.
Listen to all this jabber; it would not otherwise exist.

Engaging in fanciful reveries, the mind simply drifts off . . . off into never, never land.
However, this is the reality! What are you going to do with your part in it?
One life; what will it be in eternity?

The above is worth reposting.

One love
One blood
One life
You’ve got to do
what you should
U2

Fran

 

[zyzz]

What does the atheist tell his 10 yr old son who asks, “Daddy, why did that little girl die of cancer?”

The atheist answer is woefully inadequate.

So you DON’T know what the atheist answer is, but you already DO know that it is “woefully inadequate”… strange. Besides, who decides what is “adequate”?

My answer would be something like this: “It is very sad that she suffered from this disease. The doctors try to find a cure for it, but so far they did not succeed.” And then I might add: “Of course God could have prevented or could have cured that disease, but did not”. And then allow him to think about it. Hopefully, he will come to the right conclusion on his own.

Atheism doesn’t provide any answers to the Problem of Evil.

In the atheist worldview there is no PROBLEM of evil. There are many evil acts but there is no “problem”. The “problem” only occurs when you believe that there is a loving, caring, benevolent and also omnipotent deity and you try to reconcile the inaction of this deity with its stipulated “loving” nature.

According to the catholic definition: “love is an act of will”, and when there is “no act”, there is “no love” either.

The above is worth reposting.

The question is worth repeating: “Is the amount of pain and suffering due to natural causes not ENOUGH”? Do we also “need” the added “icing on the cake” due to human violence? How much misery do you need before you stop and ask the “potter”: “When will you be satisfied with the amount of pain and suffering”?

 

[frangiuliano115]

FOR ZYZZ:

The question is worth repeating: “Is the amount of pain and suffering due to natural causes not ENOUGH”? Do we also “need” the added “icing on the cake” due to human violence? How much misery do you need before you stop and ask the “potter”: “When will you be satisfied with the amount of pain and suffering”?

The above is directed at me because I reposted Aloysium’s post regarding a fallen world.
My post no. 153.

You’re too darn quick…

I do believe you don’t understand his post.
It’s worth reading and understanding.
But not all will.

Fran

 

[PRmerger]

So you DON’T know what the atheist answer is, but you already DO know that it is “woefully inadequate”… strange.

Fair enough.

Besides, who decides what is “adequate”?

I think we can all use our reason to determine such things.

My answer would be something like this: “It is very sad that she suffered from this disease. The doctors try to find a cure for it, but so far they did not succeed.” And then I might add: “Of course God could have prevented or could have cured that disease, but did not”. And then allow him to think about it. Hopefully, he will come to the right conclusion on his own.

I am looking for the atheistic response to the problem of pain.

So the above is a nonsequitur.

In the atheist worldview there is no PROBLEM of evil.

LOL!

Really?

Ok.

So when the 10 yr old asks his dad why did my little cousin die of cancer? The response is: this is not a problem, son!

 

[PRmerger]

According to the catholic definition: “love is an act of will”, and when there is “no act”, there is “no love” either.

Really? So are you an anti-vaxxer?

Or do you refuse to intervene (that is, not act) when a big mean lady is holding down your 5 yr old son to stab him with 5 really, really painful instruments of torture?

(And please try to think in the abstract here, zy. If you are only 18 and don’t have a 5 yr old son, please simply be charitable to the analogy, ok? Or if you have a daughter and not a son, please try to apply the concept and not the irrelevant details. Thanks.)

The question is worth repeating: “Is the amount of pain and suffering due to natural causes not ENOUGH”? Do we also “need” the added “icing on the cake” due to human violence? How much misery do you need before you stop and ask the “potter”: “When will you be satisfied with the amount of pain and suffering”?

This demonstrates an impoverished understanding of basic math.

A lifetime (let’s say, 90 years) of suffering plus an infinite amount of eternal bliss is indistinguishable from 2 hours of suffering plus an infinite amount of eternal bliss.

#dothemath

 

[CHRISTINE77]

My answer would be something like this: “It is very sad that she suffered from this disease. The doctors try to find a cure for it, but so far they did not succeed.” And then I might add: “Of course God could have prevented or could have cured that disease, but did not”. And then allow him to think about it. Hopefully, he will come to the right conclusion on his own.

Why would an atheist say “of course God could have prevented it” if there is no such thing as God?

 

[zyzz]

Fair enough.

So you misspoke when you said that the atheist answer is “woefully inadequate” before you even had the opportunity to hear the answer. Would this be a correct interpretation of “fair enough”?? Is it possible that you spoke too soon and made a mistake?

I think we can all use our reason to determine such things.

For example? In this case? What would be the “adequate” response to an adult?

I am looking for the atheistic response to the problem of pain.

As I said, there is no “problem” of pain… There are tsunamis, there are hurricanes, tornadoes, Earthquakes, devastating diseases. Meteor strikes, overabundance of rain, or lack of rain. As the old saying goes: “Stuff” happens.

So when the 10 yr old asks his dad why did my little cousin die of cancer? The response is: this is not a problem, son!

I already gave the answer. It is a personal tragedy, but not a “philosophical problem”. I consider you an adult, and not kid. Is this unacceptable? Would you prefer to be taken for a kid?

Or do you refuse to intervene (that is, not act) when a big mean lady is holding down your 5 yr old son to stab him with 5 really, really painful instruments of torture?

You are gravely mistaken. I am not talking about the “meany”, who gives the painful injection, I am talking about the “nice, loving and caring” lady, who **refuses **to give the good, sweet syrup with the tasteless antidote inside, and thus condemns the child to a painful death. You keep forgetting that for God there is no obstacle, nothing can could hinder his helping hand to make a painless cure. That comes from omnipotence. With God everything is possible (except for creating married bachelors and other logical impossibilities).

It is rather strange that all your “answers” speak of kids. We are not kids. Kids are mostly driven by their emotions. They don’t have sufficient knowledge to be accepted as equal, philosophically competent discussion partners.

This demonstrates an impoverished understanding of basic math.

A lifetime (let’s say, 90 years) of suffering plus an infinite amount of eternal bliss is indistinguishable from 2 hours of suffering plus an infinite amount of eternal bliss.

Neither of them can be justified. Life is not a simple linear endeavor where you add up the pluses and minuses and draw a conclusion. “99 doses of lies and one dose of truth” equals a “lie”… and “one dose of lies and 99 doses of truth” also equals a “lie”. If a drunkard father beats his kid to a bloody pulp, then no amount of popsicles or Lamborghinis can “undo” the beating. Not in a million years, and not in a whole eternity. (Even if there is one).

 

[PRmerger]

So you misspoke when you said that the atheist answer is “woefully inadequate” before you even had the opportunity to hear the answer. Would this be a correct interpretation of “fair enough”?? Is it possible that you spoke too soon and made a mistake?

Nah. It was a rhetorical question that you took literally, and I didn’t feel like pointing that out.

You might want to do some research here, first, zy, to note that this is a question that I have posed many a time, and have received some woefully inadequate answers.

I didn’t wish to pursue that line of thinking yet so simply conceded with a “fair enough”.

 

[PRmerger]

For example? In this case? What would be the “adequate” response to an adult?

I’m still waiting to hear one.

So far what I’ve heard to explain why bad things happen in the world from atheists is: “Stuff happens”.

Do you consider that to be an adequate answer, zy?

Do you think that is a better answer than the Catholic one?

As I said, there is no “problem” of pain… There are tsunamis, there are hurricanes, tornadoes, Earthquakes, devastating diseases. Meteor strikes, overabundance of rain, or lack of rain. As the old saying goes: “Stuff” happens.

See?

“Stuff happens”.

Stuff happens?



I think that your answer would not satisfy a 10 yr old. Nor does it satisfy an adult.

 

[PRmerger]

I already gave the answer. It is a personal tragedy, but not a “philosophical problem”. I consider you an adult, and not kid. Is this unacceptable? Would you prefer to be taken for a kid?

You still haven’t given the answer to this question, which I find quite telling, zy.

You would tell your 10 year old, what, exactly, when he asks why his dear little cousin died of cancer?

You are gravely mistaken. I am not talking about the “meany”, who gives the painful injection,

Neither am I.

I am talking about the daddy who doesn’t intervene when the mean lady tortures him.

Why don’t you do something and stop the horrible pain, zy?

What do you tell your 5 yr old when he says, “You just watched when she hurt me! You had your arms crossed! You could have tackled her! Why didn’t you stop her?”

Think about this, zy…

 

[PRmerger]

Neither of them can be justified.

Of course they can.

You can’t think of a single good thing that comes from pain and suffering in this world?

Really?

Incidentally, even one good thing that comes from pain and suffering would refute your statement above.

Life is not a simple linear endeavor where you add up the pluses and minuses and draw a conclusion. “99 doses of lies and one dose of truth” equals a “lie”… and “one dose of lies and 99 doses of truth” also equals a “lie”.

You are very Catholic when you say this.

If a drunkard father beats his kid to a bloody pulp, then no amount of popsicles or Lamborghinis can “undo” the beating.

You are correct.

Not in a million years, and not in a whole eternity. (Even if there is one).

Now, this…this…

Again, this demonstrates an impoverished understanding of basic math.

 

[PRmerger]

It is rather strange that all your “answers” speak of kids.

I think, again, if you do the math you will see what a foolish comment this is.

If even 1000 of my posts “speak of kids”, and I have posted over 34,000 times here…

well, do the math and you will see.

Of course, you’d have to show that there are 1000 posts which I have authored which “speak of kids”.

We are not kids. Kids are mostly driven by their emotions. They don’t have sufficient knowledge to be accepted as equal, philosophically competent discussion partners.

Here you need to use analogous thinking.

Kids : Parents :: human creature : God.

Now, do you see how I am being very, very generous when I compare your thinking vs God’s thinking to that of a child vs his parent?

The difference between a kid and a parent is finite…and the difference between a human creature and God is…

infinite.

 

[zyzz]

Do you consider that to be an adequate answer, zy?

Of course I do. Natural disasters happen. Diseases occur. And all of them kill indiscriminately. If all the disasters and diseases would strike down ONLY the sinners, if all the good, God-fearing people and their properties would be spared of the devastation, then we could start to wonder if “stuff simply happens, without rhyme or reason”… but not until then.

Do you think that is a better answer than the Catholic one?

Is there a “catholic” answer? I never heard of “one”. I only heard many different answers. Which one is (or are) adequate? .

I think that your answer would not satisfy a 10 yr old. Nor does it satisfy an adult.

I really don’t care about the philosophical prowess of 10 years olds. I am not interested in convincing 10 years old kids about complicated philosophical problems - because they are not qualified to participate in such discussions. Just like I would decline to argue with 10 years olds about complicated mathematical questions, since they lack the necessary background. But an **adult **is welcome to present a counter argument. If you are an adult, please present your argument.

Of course they can.

If so, then why don’t you present it? I am all ears.

You can’t think of a single good thing that comes from pain and suffering in this world?

Nope, I cannot imagine any good “things” which would **logically **require pain and suffering, which even God could not achieve without the said pain and suffering. Why don’t you present one?

Incidentally, even one good thing that comes from pain and suffering would refute your statement above.

If you could present ONE example, where the pain and suffering is a **logically necessary **prerequisite, then yes… you would “win”. But I am unable to imagine even one instance where God’s omnipotence would be “trumped” by the natural circumstances.

Again, this demonstrates an impoverished understanding of basic math.

Well, I am “only” a retired university math professor of several decades (among other achievement). So I will have to reject your accusation about my “impoverished” understanding of “basic math”.

I think, again, if you do the math you will see what a foolish comment this is.

So sorry, I am not interested in browsing your 34K+ posts. I am only interested in the few posts in this thread.

In every one of them you tried to smuggle in the response of 10 years old kids, which I am NOT interested in. Kids and their responses are irrelevant.

The difference between a kid and a parent is finite…and the difference between a human creature and God is…

infinite.

As soon as God will log on onto he system and present his argument, I will be glad to consider it. But so far it is only YOUR arguments are presented, and I am more than qualified to criticized YOUR arguments.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course I do.

Fair enough.

So then the atheistic paradigm has a woefully inadequate answer.

QED.

Is there a “catholic” answer? I never heard of “one”. I only heard many different answers. Which one is (or are) adequate? .

Really?

You come to a Catholic forum to talk here and aren’t familiar with any Catholic answers?

I suggest you do some research first, then come and post your refutations of the Catholic answers.

I really don’t care about the philosophical prowess of 10 years olds. I am not interested in convincing 10 years old kids about complicated philosophical problems - because they are not qualified to participate in such discussions.

You are correct.

Nor do I engage in deep philosophical conversations with most 10 year olds.

We are agreed here.

Nope, I cannot imagine any good “things” which would **logically **require pain and suffering, which even God could not achieve without the said pain and suffering. Why don’t you present one?

How about this…

Can you offer an example of how someone could be compassionate without there being pain or suffering?

Or how someone could be brave without there being adversity?

If you could present ONE example, where the pain and suffering is a **logically necessary **prerequisite, then yes… you would “win”. But I am unable to imagine even one instance where God’s omnipotence would be “trumped” by the natural circumstances.

See above.

Well, I am “only” a retired university math professor of several decades (among other achievement). So I will have to reject your accusation about my “impoverished” understanding of “basic math”.

You will have to offer evidence for your putative mathematical abilities first, zy.

Right now, I can only go by the evidence.

And from the evidence, my conclusion is…

there has been a woefully impoverished understanding of basic math here.

So sorry, I am not interested in browsing your 34K+ posts. I am only interested in the few posts in this thread.

It appears, then, that you have been proven wrong.

If you can show 1000 posts I’ve made here out of the 34,000 plus, then…

(and even then it would show that I’ve only had what percent of my posts about kids? Do the math and let me know, professor. )

In every one of them you tried to smuggle in the response of 10 years old kids, which I am NOT interested in. Kids and their responses are irrelevant.

Try to think in the abstract here, zy.

Apply some analogous thinking.

As soon as God will log on onto he system and present his argument, I will be glad to consider it. But so far it is only YOUR arguments are presented, and I am more than qualified to criticized YOUR arguments.

What a peculiar thing to post. Of course you are qualified to criticize my arguments. Has anyone here stated otherwise?

 

[zyzz]

So then the atheistic paradigm has a woefully inadequate answer.

I would be ever so very grateful if you would actually give a reason and not just a one-liner ex-cathedra statement. Is it too much to ask for? I said that for atheists there is no PROBLEM of evil. There is a lot of pain and suffering, for sure. But there is no philosophical or theological problem to solve. Only if one believes that there is a good, loving, caring AND omnipotent deity is there a “problem”. What is inadequate about this?

(By the way, if one would believe in a fully evil deity, then there would be a problem of “good”.)

You come to a Catholic forum to talk here and aren’t familiar with any Catholic answers?

You misunderstood. I am quite familiar with the NUMEROUS different attempts to resolve the problem of evil. I am simply curious, which one do YOU (personally) find adequate - and why?

Nor do I engage in deep philosophical conversations with most 10 year olds.

Excellent. So why do you keep pestering me with “how would I respond to a 10 years old”?

Can you offer an example of how someone could be compassionate without there being pain or suffering?

Or how someone could be brave without there being adversity?

Of course I can. God could create everyone to be compassionate and brave. Don’t forget, God is omnipotent.

This is just like the question of “health insurance”. One does not need “health insurance” as long as one is healthy. It is much better to “waste” money on unneeded insurance. But the best solution is to keep the money and not waste it on unnecessary insurance - because there is no sickness. It is far superior and much more “loving” to create an environment where everyone is compassionate, but lacks the opportunity to act on it. I would love to see the “frustration” of the do-gooders, who would love to find someone to care for, but there is no one who would need their help . (I am being facetious, of course.)

Likewise with being “brave”. It is much better to live peacefully, when there is no need to act brave. It would be so much better if there would be no need to jump in to stop a bullet, because there are no assassins. It would be much better, if there would be no need to throw oneself on a grenade to save someone, because there would be no grenades.

The point is that your examples already presume pain, suffering and adversity - as if they were a GIVEN, as if they were a logically necessary state of affairs. God’s omnipotence could eliminate all of that. And THIS is the problem of evil. Don’t ask me to resolve it for you. It is YOUR problem, not mine.

And when you try to resolve it, keep in mind: “according to the catholic teaching, God is omnipotent, God can do anything and everything, except logically contradictory states of affairs”. Make this your guiding line when you think about the “problem of evil”.