Water cannot be transformed into good wine

[hawkeye]

Nothing is impossible for God, we limit His power by the peanut size of some human beings brains…science is Gods plaything for mankind, theyre only scratching the surface of what the Almighty already knows…last response to this, have a good day.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Perhaps you disagree that there are stars.

It is fine to disagree that any conscience could be aligned to objective truth, or to disagree that the Church represents objective truth, or that there is such a thing as objective truth – but to say that the concept itself (that a conscience ought to be followed and that it ought to be formed correctly at the same time) is absurd seems a bit disingenuous. Unless by absurd one means “that which I disagree with or reject”.

The analogy manifestly applies to a certain kind of moral reasoning quite aptly – and which happens to be the kind the Church (and others) employ. It may not apply to every system of ethics – but that in itself doesn’t make it “absurd” but merely incompatible with those chosen ethical systems.

 

[Spock]

Perhaps you disagree that there are stars.

It is fine to disagree that any conscience could be aligned to objective truth, or to disagree that the Church represents objective truth, or that there is such a thing as objective truth – but to say that the concept itself (that a conscience ought to be followed and that it ought to be formed correctly at the same time) is absurd seems a bit disingenuous. Unless by absurd one means “that which I disagree with or reject”.

The analogy manifestly applies to a certain kind of moral reasoning quite aptly – and which happens to be the kind the Church (and others) employ. It may not apply to every system of ethics – but that in itself doesn’t make it “absurd” but merely incompatible with those chosen ethical systems.

So many possible levels of misunderstandings. First, I do not agree that there is something called “objective truth” in singular, though I agree that there are zillions of “objectively true propositions”.

I have no idea what a “well-formed” conscience means for you. It seems that it must conform to what the church says, and that is not an objective definition. What I consider absurd is that the church says that only a conscience which agrees with the church’s opinion is a “well-formed” conscience. Just like I consider it absurd that you can buy a car of any color, as long as it is black. Do you see the difference?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Spock:

What I consider absurd is that the church says that only a conscience which agrees with the church’s opinion is a “well-formed” conscience. Just like I consider it absurd that you can buy a car of any color, as long as it is black. Do you see the difference?

Yes, I see a difference. That is precisely my point.

The latter notion is rightly called absurd (and in fact intentionally meant to be absurd) because it contradicts itself.

The prior notion isn’t rightly called absurd – it doesn’t seem to contradict itself. It seems to make sense. It seems understandable and reasonable. It may be *disagreeable. *One might object to its premises. But absurd? I don’t see any reason to call it so. It is quite different than “any color so long as its black”.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Having enjoyed the presence of insects and animals Ive noticed that they are obviously perfectly behaved critters.(by and large) They basically accept their difficult lives and sing in the tree’s…Therefore I submit to my mind that these little critters are not rejected in their little personality and all comprise the necessary end in their respective manner, the product of the this massive undertaking called creation.

I’m trying to understand this. What would a critter do that could constitute rejecting its difficult life?

 

[Spock]

The latter notion is rightly called absurd (and in fact intentionally meant to be absurd) because it contradicts itself.

There is no contradiction at all in either one. Both of them seem to offer a “choice” and in reality neither of them does. They are both absurd for the very same reason.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

You objected because

Spock:

One’s own conscience must be the guiding line - but only if it happens to agree with what the Church says.

What choice was implied then withheld? You said that one’s own conscience must be the guiding line – there isn’t a choice in that. Perhaps you mean you have a choice on how to form your conscience? Well you do – you can form it correctly or incorrectly. And then you must follow it, for good or ill.

You ought not act against your own conscience. Nor against objective moral truth. These are not incompatible notions.

Perhaps you are under a mistaken notion that by saying that one ought to conform their conscience to what the Church says it means one cannot act according to one’s conscience if it disagrees with the Church. It doesn’t. It means that were one to follow a conscience at odds with true moral principles you would be making a mistake. Just as a sailor who follows a broken compass makes a mistake. Best is to align your compass with the stars.

And calibrate it often.

I think you are objecting the idea that the Church is saying “You can choose to do anything you want so long as you choose to do this” (a’ la Henry Ford). What the Church is actually saying is more along the lines of “You should only do what you understand to be good (most, if not all, agree), and here is what is truly good (many, but not all, agree).” Follow your compass, and calibrate your compass to the stars.

 

[Spock]

You ought not act against your own conscience. Nor against objective moral truth. These are not incompatible notions.

I accept the concept of objective morality, but do NOT accept an unchanging, absolute morality, and I suspect you use the phrase “objective” as a synonym for “absolute”. If I am mistaken I apologize.

Perhaps you are under a mistaken notion that by saying that one ought to conform their conscience to what the Church says it means one cannot act according to one’s conscience if it disagrees with the Church. It doesn’t.

Ok, hold it right there. This whole exchange started with the following assertion:

Pieman said: Come ON Spock, you know the Church teaches you aren’t in a state of mortal sin if you don’t KNOW the sin is mortal when you commit it.

My reply was: I was told, but I deny that having sex without the intent to procreate (and attempting to prevent it) is a mortal sin. Is it or is it not? Do I “know” it when I was told, but I reject it? That is the question here.

Pieman replied: If you know what the Church teaches, but reject it, it is a mortal sin (unless you repent). There are some exceptions - such as you living in a vastly different culture - but I doubt you personally qualify for any of them.

And I replied: How cute. Of course it leads to another problem. According to yet another teaching of the Church, one’s own conscience must be the guiding line - but only if it happens to agree with what the Church says. Just like Henry Ford, who assured that the customer can get a car of ANY color, provided he wants a black car. And you are surprised that I discard the teaching of the Church as absurd? Either my conscience “counts” even if it disagrees with the Church, or does not. Can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

Whom do I believe, Pieman, or you? My conscience says that having sex for purely pleasure is normal and not “sinful” (cannot be sinful in my eyes, since I deny the concept of sin).

It means that were one to follow a conscience at odds with true moral principles you would be making a mistake. Just as a sailor who follows a broken compass makes a mistake. Best is to align your compass with the stars.

And calibrate it often.

I think you are objecting the idea that the Church is saying “You can choose to do anything you want so long as you choose to do this” (a’ la Henry Ford). What the Church is actually saying is more along the lines of “You should only do what you understand to be good (most, if not all, agree), and here is what is truly good (many, but not all, agree).” Follow your compass, and calibrate your compass to the stars.If you know what the Church teaches, but reject it, it is a mortal sin (unless you repent). There are some exceptions - such as you living in a vastly different culture - but I doubt you personally qualify for any of them.

 

[Spock]

You ought not act against your own conscience. Nor against objective moral truth. These are not incompatible notions.

I accept the concept of objective morality, but do NOT accept an unchanging, absolute morality, and I suspect you use the phrase “objective” as a synonym for “absolute”. If I am mistaken I apologize. Please clarify and then I will be in the position to answer.

Perhaps you are under a mistaken notion that by saying that one ought to conform their conscience to what the Church says it means one cannot act according to one’s conscience if it disagrees with the Church. It doesn’t.

Ok, hold it right there. You pointed excatly to the problem. Let’s recal the pertinent posts. This whole exchange started with the following assertion:

Pieman said: Come ON Spock, you know the Church teaches you aren’t in a state of mortal sin if you don’t KNOW the sin is mortal when you commit it. Post 197

My reply was: I was told, but I deny that having sex without the intent to procreate (and attempting to prevent it) is a mortal sin. Is it or is it not? Do I “know” it when I was told, but I reject it? That is the question here. Post 199

Pieman replied: If you know what the Church teaches, but reject it, it is a mortal sin (unless you repent). There are some exceptions - such as you living in a vastly different culture - but I doubt you personally qualify for any of them. Post 204

And I replied: How cute. Of course it leads to another problem. According to yet another teaching of the Church, one’s own conscience must be the guiding line - but only if it happens to agree with what the Church says. Just like Henry Ford, who assured that the customer can get a car of ANY color, provided he wants a black car. And you are surprised that I discard the teaching of the Church as absurd? Either my conscience “counts” even if it disagrees with the Church, or does not. Can’t have your cake and eat it, too. Post 230

Whom do I believe, Pieman, or you? My conscience says that having sex for purely pleasure is normal and not “sinful” (cannot be sinful in my eyes, since I deny the concept of sin). Of course, your position is more palatable.

It means that were one to follow a conscience at odds with true moral principles you would be making a mistake.

You say that it is just a mistake and not a mortal sin. So, whom do I believe? You two say two contradictory things.

I think you are objecting the idea that the Church is saying “You can choose to do anything you want so long as you choose to do this” (a’ la Henry Ford). What the Church is actually saying is more along the lines of “You should only do what you understand to be good (most, if not all, agree), and here is what is truly good (many, but not all, agree).” Follow your compass, and calibrate your compass to the stars.

That is fine. But my “stars” are not your stars. Mine do not come from “revelation”, they do not come from some “authority”, they come from rational contemplation based upon a fully secular worldview.

 

[Spock]

What choice was implied then withheld? You said that one’s own conscience must be the guiding line – there isn’t a choice in that.

Sorry, I overlooked this part. The choice is to follow my conscience, or follow what the church teaches - since they are at odds. The church asserts that I should follow my conscience, as long as it dictates what the church says. The lack of choice is obvious.

Perhaps you mean you have a choice on how to form your conscience? Well you do – you can form it correctly or incorrectly. And then you must follow it, for good or ill.

No, that is not what I meant. And besides, according to the church the “well-formed” conscience automatically agrees with the church, otherwise it would be an “ill-formed” conscience. There are millions of Catholics who follow their own conscience when they practice active birth control, contraception, who endorse abortion and same-sex marriage. What does the Church say about them? Do they make a “mistake”, or do they commit “mortal” sins all the time? Is their position different from mine, because they are Catholics and I am an atheist? Do I get more lenience than they?

You see, these are difficult questions, and much as I respect you, you cannot speak for the church. You give me your opinion, which is fine, as long as we both are aware of this fact. The true problem is that the Church is silent. It does not come clean in the case of these problems. The Church should come and address all these questions in an authoritative manner. Of course its authority would mean nothing ot me, but at least it would help Pieman and you, so you would not be confused about these questions, and would not give contradictory answers.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The choice is to follow my conscience, or follow what the church teaches - since they are at odds. The church asserts that I should follow my conscience, as long as it dictates what the church says. The lack of choice is obvious.

Hi,

It’s possible, I think, that there may be a slight divergence between what you think the Church teaches and what it does teach.

Here’s the Catechism:

1. Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

and

1. A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

I think your statement that “The church asserts that I should follow my conscience, as long as it dictates what the church says.” could be reformed into “The Church asserts that I may act according to my certain conscience, and that it should reflect true moral principles”.

There is no question about not following one’s certain conscience – we can always choose to act and follow our certain conscience. In fact, the Church teaches that we have a responsibility to resolve a doubtful conscience before acting.

But a conscience can be certain and erroneous.

I think many, many ethical systems follow the same schema – and that many (most?) reasonable persons agree with this schema (a conscience may be objectively correct or incorrect, subjectively certain or doubtful) and the resulting responsibility to act on a certain conscience and to conform one’s conscience to reality. After all, a conscience does not manufacture reality. The differences that arise between ethical systems is what constitutes the reality to which a conscience ought to conform.

VC

 

[Spock]

Here’s the Catechism:
and I think your statement that “The church asserts that I should follow my conscience, as long as it dictates what the church says.” could be reformed into “The Church asserts that I may act according to my certain conscience, and that it should reflect true moral principles”.

It does not really help. We simply pushed the problem one step back. The “true moral principles” became the new point of contention. What the church says is the “true moral principle” may very well differ from what I consider the “true moral principle” - and in the case of sexuality they do differ, and they cannot be reconciled. And the real problem is still ahead. If it is my sincere conviction that church is wrong and as such I act according to my conscience, can I be in the state of “mortal sin”? Or am I simply mistaken? That is where there should be some explicit utterance from the church, and to my best knowledge, there is only silence. Please, concentrate on this.

 

[Pieman333272]

How cute. Of course it leads to another problem. According to yet another teaching of the Church, one’s own conscience must be the guiding line - but only if it happens to agree with what the Church says. Just like Henry Ford, who assured that the customer can get a car of ANY color, provided he wants a black car. And you are surprised that I discard the teaching of the Church as absurd? Either my conscience “counts” even if it disagrees with the Church, or does not. Can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

Or, maybe your “conscience” is being blocked by an unconscious desire for something else, and your “conscience” never contradicts the Church in the first place.

A merciful sentence means that the punishment is less than deserved.

Really? Where do you get this from? Also, from a Christian standpoint, one deserves more than the action itself for being unrepentant and the circumstances of doing it.

A sentence can either be just or merciful - but can NEVER be both. At best you could say that God is sometimes just and other times merciful - which is not what “perfect” justice and mercy means.

Considering your dubious definition of merciful as well as the fact that sin is more than just the action, I don’t think it follows.

Because you have a positive assertion.

Really? It’s not a positive assertion to say that event X is mutually exclusive with God being Omnibenevolent, omnipotent, etc…? Why’s that?

Because the skeptic does not have any assertions.

Really? Here are some lines by various skeptics, paraphrased, that are, to say the least, assertions:

“Jesus didn’t exist!”
“Miracles are impossible” (he presumably meant philosophically impossible, which IS an assertion. If he meant scientifically impossible, it would be an axiom but rather pointless)
“God is incompatible with the world/event x/fact y”
“Omnipotence is impossible”

I seriously didn’t make any of these up.

And you are mistaken. For the skeptic it is sufficient to show ONE instance where the applied method could be “improved” upon, where the pain could be lessened just a teeny-weeny little bit.

While it is enough, in theory, for the PoE to show that ONE example could be better (which, by the way, you STILL haven’t done), I would only need to refute (as in, prove that God DID do the best thing by not intervening) the ones where you provided a hypothetical example where he could have made it better.

It is your resposibility to provide an answer.

An answer to what? Your ad-homenim? I did, buddy, I called you out on the lack of substance.

Cool. Show me the result of your omniscience. Be specifc and consider ALL things. I can hardly wait.

No need for snark. There are a few “umbrella issues” which cover a large percentage of possible “fixes” on God’s part. Examples are free will and early/unjust condemnation. To say the least, I’ve asked atheists multiple times for a way to solve the “guy raping a 3-year-old” problem without violating free will or dishing out punishment unjustly. None received.

A deduction needs a starting point. Mine is: “benevolence cannot allow even one instance of unnecessary suffering, if the being has the power to prevent it - all else being equal.” And all the sufferings of all the animals due to some natural disaster fall into this category.

How about “unnecessary and **unjustified **suffering”?

Another cop-out. Even insects feel pain. And they don’t like it. Try to hold a burning match close to an insect and see if it “likes” the experience.

That’s not real pain, at best that’s just a natural reaction to excessive heat. Please cite a journal or article which clearly states “simple insects feel pain”. Since everything else was a naked assertion and just you throwing out what you didn’t like (surprise surprise ), I left it out.
insects.about.com/od/insects101/f/Do-Insects-Feel-Pain.htm

I specifically use the animals as examples, because according to the church they do not have “immortal souls”, and as such there is no “afterlife” for them - so you cannot say that “maybe” they will be compensated in heaven.

Let’s see some lingering issues with the example you give:

1. Many animals cannot feel pain or have proper awareness of any other issue
2. Death may still be a form of rest for animals even if they don’t go to heaven
3. Many animals which CAN feel pain and awareness also have free will, which would be violated by them being “saved” from the fire
4. Dying, sometimes through brutal ways, is simply part of living in the wild. God wouldn’t want to disrupt nature - it’s all very well-balanced

 

[Spock]

Really? Where do you get this from? Also, from a Christian standpoint, one deserves more than the action itself for being unrepentant and the circumstances of doing it.

Incorrect. I explicitly said that all the circumstances (both the mitigating and the aggravating) must be taken into account. It would be nice if you considered exactly what I said, not just what you would like it to be. To mete out a punishment which is precisely commensurate to the deed is called a just sentence. We speak of “mercy” when the judge (for whatever reason) gives out a sentence which is lower than “just”. If the proper, just punishment would be three slaps on the wrist, and the judge only administers two slaps - that is “mercy” and as such “unjust”. If you don’t understand that simple fact, you are far too irrational.

While it is enough, in theory, for the PoE to show that ONE example could be better (which, by the way, you STILL haven’t done), I would only need to refute (as in, prove that God DID do the best thing by not intervening) the ones where you provided a hypothetical example where he could have made it better.

That certainly would be a promising start, but not sufficient. If you wish to show God’s omnibenevolence, you need to show that is every case, God used an optimal method. Tall order. But I would be quite happy if you could show the “greater good” coming out of the Holocaust, and prove that that “nebulous greater good” would not have materialized if just ONE person could have escaped his fate.

No need for snark. There are a few “umbrella issues” which cover a large percentage of possible “fixes” on God’s part. Examples are free will and early/unjust condemnation. To say the least, I’ve asked atheists multiple times for a way to solve the “guy raping a 3-year-old” problem without violating free will or dishing out punishment unjustly. None received.

Well, this needs a little extra work. You are mixing two different methods of defense.

One is the usual “greater good” defense. In this one the apologist says that in every instance of pain there is a more-than-compensating “greater good”, which properly justifies the pain. In this defense the apologist MUST show two things: 1) there is a greater good, which is the logical corollary of the pain, and 2) that the pain cannot be lessened, without forfeiting the “greater” good. There are other minor points, too, but I will stay with the main line. In this line of defense every instance of pain MUST be justified by showing that there is a compensating factor and that the suffering is not excessive.

It is important to note that the pain cannot be justified by some “unrelated good”, which is not logically dependent on the pain. To wit, the usual nonsense, that there is a lot of unnecessary pain here, but God “MAY” bring the victim into heaven, where he will be amply “compensated” is nonsense. If the “reward” is not logically contingent upon the pain, then the pain remains unjustified.

The other method (used by Plantinga at al.) is different (though not better). It starts with the assumption that “free will” is of utmost value, and poor Gawd must compromise and allow the existence of gratuitous (unnecessary and unjustifiable suffering) simply because he is powerless to prevent it. There are several problems with this approach. First, it can be proven that there is a possible world, with unlimited free will, and without any suffering at all. That already demolishes this defense.

But there is another way. The assumption that free will is all-important is just an unsubstantiated and very stupid assumption. Going back your question of the person raping a 3-year old, it is obvious that curtailing the free will of the perpetrator is the proper thing to do. To be explict: “to HELL with the free will of the criminals”. That is precisely what the whole justice system is about, trying to prevent the next crime by putting the perps into prison. The “free-will” defense is even more ridiculous than the “greater good”.

How about “unnecessary and **unjustified **suffering”?

That would be fine by me.

That’s not real pain, at best that’s just a natural reaction to excessive heat.

Pure, stinking baloney. I would love to meet you, and burn you. When you start to scream, I would tell you that you don’t feel pain, you just exhibit a natural reaction to excessive heat. Similarly a toddler does not feel pain, what she exhibits is a natrual reaction to some stimulus. After all, you cannot PROVE that you feel pain, you just exhibit a reactions which we equate with pain, from our subjective experience. Yes, the animals feel pain. No, they don’t like it. Yes, a loving and caring God MUST stop that pain - otherwise he is NOT loving and caring.

Let’s see some lingering issues with the example you give:

1. Many animals cannot feel pain or have proper awareness of any other issue
2. Death may still be a form of rest for animals even if they don’t go to heaven
3. Many animals which CAN feel pain and awareness also have free will, which would be violated by them being “saved” from the fire
4. Dying, sometimes through brutal ways, is simply part of living in the wild. God wouldn’t want to disrupt nature - it’s all very well-balanced

1. Baloney.
2. Death is not the issue here, the painful method of death is the problem.
3. Free will is not a value.
4. How quaint of God… not interfering with the natural order (which he created). Guess what, buddy? Dogma #70: **God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.) ** Since God is an active participant, he might as well use his powers to lessen and eliminate the unnecessary and unjustifiable pain.

 

[ManOnFire]

Originally Posted by ManOnFire
My point is that if science is forever impotent to find the answer to why we exist, then why worry about the exact science behind changing water into wine? Since it’s physically impossible to change water into wine, then either Jesus was a con artist, or it was a miracle. Science is forever impotent to prove either. The existence of the universe either has no reason for it’s existence, or it was a miracle. Science is forever impotent to prove either. It’s logical to believe that a creatorless universe SHOULD have a scientific explanation for it’s existence, but it never will, since absolute nothing can’t naturally evolve into the first something without a supernatural event. So science is wrong “somewhere” in this argument due to the paradox of the creation of a creatorless existence. Since logic dictates that some supernatural event had to happen, then “miracles” are still on the table of “possible” since science is wrong “somewhere.”

greylorn,

you claimed that my last sentence would be correct if I omitted the word supernatural. Why? As a deist who believes that at least one supernatural event occurred (since it’s scientificially impossible for the universe to magically evolve from a creatorless nothing), how can you claim that the creation of the universe is a valid supernatural event but water into wine is not? Science can’t prove either. You weren’t present for either. What compelling reason do you have to believe in one supernatural event but not the other?

Care to answer?

 

[Pieman333272]

Incorrect. I explicitly said that all the circumstances (both the mitigating and the aggravating) must be taken into account. It would be nice if you considered exactly what I said, not just what you would like it to be…

Looking back, I do now see I misinterpreted you. However, in that case it is just your opinion. How do you know what actually happens isn’t merciful AND just? Justice would be any kind of deserved punishment. You’re just reading your desires into God’s actions. Also, the definition of merciful you gave almost always refers to a judge who gives jail over the death penalty. As it is debated if the death penalty is overkill or not, if the former is correct, or even, in some cases (not all) when it isn’t, the judge would effectively be both merciful and just.

That certainly would be a promising start, but…

Until you give any reason to assume God’s stalled action or lack of action was not ideal, I do not have to defend anything.

But I would be quite happy if you could show the “greater good” coming out of the Holocaust, and prove that that “nebulous greater good” would not have materialized if just ONE person could have escaped his fate.

How about I simply offer justification? Simply put, I believe the vast majority of the people who died in the holocaust were justified in salvation, that is, going to heaven. I also know a few less significant defenses (not mine) for a greater good from a political standpoint, but since this is a touchy subject and I can see the whole thread getting sidetracked by this, may I ask to take it to another thread?

Well, this needs a little extra work. You are mixing two different methods of defense.

Tons of apologists do that. Using 2 methods together doesn’t discredit me.

To wit, the usual nonsense, that there is a lot of unnecessary pain here, but God “MAY” bring the victim into heaven, where he will be amply “compensated” is nonsense. If the “reward” is not logically contingent upon the pain, then the pain remains unjustified.

Actually, it is the Church’s teaching that keeping faith through suffering can offer one a better experience of heaven. On the same note, doing worse (or a larger amount of) sins will get one a worse experience in hell.

It starts with the assumption that “free will” is of utmost value, and poor Gawd must compromise and allow the existence of gratuitous (unnecessary and unjustifiable suffering) simply because he is powerless to prevent it.

I don’t subscribe to the “powerless” part - God could violate free will - he merely chooses not to. I also object to the “unjustifiable” part as you were blatantly ignorant of the “degrees of Heaven” doctrine when you wrote this. Allowing the suffering to happen in the present world will prevent the evil of violating human free will, but that doesn’t rule out letting justice happen in the afterlife.

First, it can be proven that there is a possible world, with unlimited free will, and without any suffering at all. That already demolishes this defense.

Do it.

The assumption that free will is all-important is just an unsubstantiated and very stupid assumption. Going back your question of the person raping a 3-year old, it is obvious that curtailing the free will of the perpetrator is the proper thing to do. To be explict: “to HELL with the free will of the criminals”. That is precisely what the whole justice system is about, trying to prevent the next crime by putting the perps into prison. The “free-will” defense is even more ridiculous than the “greater good”.

OH LOOK AT ME I’M SPOCK AND I’M GONNA PRETEND TO HAVE AN ACTUAL OBJECTION!!!

I mean, seriously, your “justice system” objection has no parallel to God and the rest is just you angrily ranting.

That would be fine by me.

Cool. Do it.

Pure, stinking baloney. I would love to meet you, and burn you. When you start to scream, I would tell you that you don’t feel pain, you just exhibit a natural reaction to excessive heat. Similarly a toddler does not feel pain, what she exhibits is a natrual reaction to some stimulus. After all, you cannot PROVE that you feel pain, you just exhibit a reactions which we equate with pain, from our subjective experience. Yes, the animals feel pain. No, they don’t like it. Yes, a loving and caring God MUST stop that pain - otherwise he is NOT loving and caring.

1. Baloney.

Did you even read my link? It made clear the difference between mammalian (specifically human) suffering and insect “suffering”, not only based on nervous stimuli but on emotion and knowledge.

1. Death is not the issue here, the painful method of death is the problem.
2. Free will is not a value.

Why? Throwing out problems you don’t like again?

1. How quaint of God… not interfering with the natural order (which he created). Guess what, buddy? Dogma #70: **God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.) ** Since God is an active participant, he might as well use his powers to lessen and eliminate the unnecessary and unjustifiable pain.

Umm… no. What that doctrine means is basically that the way nature works is in accordance to God’s will, saying nothing more than exactly my point - God has no reason to break the natural way things work.

 

[wheels10]

1. Free will is not a value.

The importance of free will:

1 Corinthians 13:4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8Love never fails.

Without free will it is not possible to Love.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Not true. Both justice and mercy are very simple and fully secular concepts. They are not “imperfect” in any way. Their application might be imperfect with a human justice (because we lack the omniscience to know all the details), but the principle is perfect. There is no separate “human” justice and “divine” justice.

We speak of a just sentence when the judge takes all the circumstances into consideration (both the mitigating and the aggravations ones), and then delivers a sentence which is precisely commensurate to the deed. If the sentence is less than deserved then there was some “mercy” applied - which is unjust, and if the sentence is too harsh, it is unjust again. As such these two categories are mutually exclusive. If you cannot see this, then you are totally irrational, and as such I am not intersted in your comments.

No separate human and divine justice?

PROVE IT.

And ad hominems aren’t exactly rational arguments on your part. . .

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So many possible levels of misunderstandings. First, I do not agree that there is something called “objective truth” in singular, though I agree that there are zillions of “objectively true propositions”.

I have no idea what a “well-formed” conscience means for you. It seems that it must conform to what the church says, and that is not an objective definition. What I consider absurd is that the church says that only a conscience which agrees with the church’s opinion is a “well-formed” conscience. Just like I consider it absurd that you can buy a car of any color, as long as it is black. Do you see the difference?

That’s because you’re looking at everything backwards, Spock my friend.

How about this? Suppose, just suppose mind you, that what the Church teaches is truth. We’ll take just one statement. . .God is One Being in Three Divine Persons. OK?

Just SUPPOSE for a moment that this is true.

Just SUPPOSE that God has revealed this truth to certain people who then went out and first spoke and taught this truth orally, and later wrote it down.

Suppose that year after year, century after century, people who believe in this God keep on working together, proclaiming what God has revealed as truth. They started in, say AD 33. Kept it up in AD 133, AD 233, AD 333, AD 433, etc. etc. etc. and all the years between until it is now AD 2011 and people who believe in this God are STILL repeating those same old truths which God gave to them nearly 2000 years ago. It’s still the same truth because truth doesn’t change. Truth isn’t one thing to one person and something completely different to another.

SUPPOSE God proclaimed He is One Being in Three Divine Persons and the people who believed in Him, throughout the years, sometimes had people who started to disagree. Some people said, No, He’s one Being alright, but in one person, the other two aren’t divine. Or He’s two beings, or three beings. Now, is that supposed to turn into TRUTH to the ones who want to believe it, and is the original statement from God supposed to somehow become wrong? No.

You see, Spock, the Church doesn’t go around making up doctrine and dogma and new teachings about God. It keeps proclaiming THE SAME TRUTHS that God proclaimed.

Instead of moaning that “for the Church to ask that the well-informed conscience align itself with Church teachings” you could substitute the perfectly EQUAL phrase that “the well informed conscience should align itself with GOD’s teachings --that is, with Truth”.

The Church only PROCLAIMS the Truth–she doesn’t INVENT it.

Sheesh, Spock. If I went around saying that I refused to believe in the law of gravity, wouldn’t you think I was foolish? Gravity exists. Denying it is irrational. It’s a truth.

Denying ANY truth is foolish and irrational.

 

[StrawberryJam]

That’s because you’re looking at everything backwards, Spock my friend.

How about this? Suppose, just suppose mind you, that what the Church teaches is truth. We’ll take just one statement. . .God is One Being in Three Divine Persons. OK?

Just SUPPOSE for a moment that this is true.

Just SUPPOSE that God has revealed this truth to certain people who then went out and first spoke and taught this truth orally, and later wrote it down.

Suppose that year after year, century after century, people who believe in this God keep on working together, proclaiming what God has revealed as truth. They started in, say AD 33. Kept it up in AD 133, AD 233, AD 333, AD 433, etc. etc. etc. and all the years between until it is now AD 2011 and people who believe in this God are STILL repeating those same old truths which God gave to them nearly 2000 years ago. It’s still the same truth because truth doesn’t change. Truth isn’t one thing to one person and something completely different to another.

SUPPOSE God proclaimed He is One Being in Three Divine Persons and the people who believed in Him, throughout the years, sometimes had people who started to disagree. Some people said, No, He’s one Being alright, but in one person, the other two aren’t divine. Or He’s two beings, or three beings. Now, is that supposed to turn into TRUTH to the ones who want to believe it, and is the original statement from God supposed to somehow become wrong? No.

You see, Spock, the Church doesn’t go around making up doctrine and dogma and new teachings about God. It keeps proclaiming THE SAME TRUTHS that God proclaimed.

Instead of moaning that “for the Church to ask that the well-informed conscience align itself with Church teachings” you could substitute the perfectly EQUAL phrase that “the well informed conscience should align itself with GOD’s teachings --that is, with Truth”.

The Church only PROCLAIMS the Truth–she doesn’t INVENT it.

Sheesh, Spock. If I went around saying that I refused to believe in the law of gravity, wouldn’t you think I was foolish? Gravity exists. Denying it is irrational. It’s a truth.

Denying ANY truth is foolish and irrational.

Okay. God exists because it’s an idea that has been around for nearly two thousand years. I mean eternity. I mean that is how long you can trace back, um I give up.
Your God that is.
To deny that is foolish and irrational.

Did it get that right? Is that your defense?