What does God "want"?

[fhansen]

Not one of them actually deals with the problem at hand - punishing someone for their thoughts.

The thoughts are simply recognized as the precursors to bad acts. This is why, for example, a person is held less accountable for, say, causing an accidental death. And this is why, in moral teachings, such things as knowledge, intention, and deliberateness can modify culpability. IOW, it’s *never *all about the act alone. The bible tells us that God judges by the heart rather than by appearances. A person can be a bad apple, of ill will, with or without committing a bad act even if it’s unlikely that they’d never commit one.

 

[goout]

No, I am talking about anybody and everybody. I am talking about a principle, which says: “if you (anyone!) encounter a possible action, which you can prevent and do NOT prevent it, then you either approve of that action or do not disapprove of it”. That is all. God does not get any special consideration. I know you want to give a special whitewashing to God, but you don’t get it.

I do get it. You don’t.
That’s not God that you are describing above. You are making your own god to your own liking and imposing your conditions on an omnipotent. being.

It’s like dishing up a bowl of sticks and demanding it taste like strawberries.

As is always the question,
why are you raging at God if you don’t believe in him?
And why are you asking Catholics to address a god that has nothing do with the real God?
Atheists should be able to answer your question well, since they believe similarly that God has no extraordinary attributes, since atheists don’t believe God even exists.

 

[goout]

So let me try to syllogize this:

P:God allows something he doesn’t want,
C:Therefore, God is an idiot.

Okay, per the basic rules of rhetoric here, you seem to be missing a premise. So you don’t actually have an argument yet; just some inane declaration.

Are you assuming a hidden premise of “Only idiots allow things they don’t want”?
If so, let’s reform:

P:God allows something he doesn’t want,
P:Only idiots allow things they don’t want
C:Therefore, God is an idiot.

So let’s look at the soundness of premise #2. In order the reject it, we need to identify one case where it isn’t true.

I don’t think that would be very difficult. A few popped into my skull as I was typing this…

Curious, I didn’t see this post addressed. Perhaps an oversight. Seems like a straightforward refutation of the illogic.

 

[goout]

What God wants (what God is) is loving relationship.

The problem here is not one of philosophy, it is with an immature sense of what love is.

Love exists only in free will. That is a profoundly simply idea, and so it can be very hard to accept.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The thoughts are simply recognized as the precursors to bad acts. This is why, for example, a person is held less accountable for, say, causing an accidental death. And this is why, in moral teachings, such things as knowledge, intention, and deliberateness can modify culpability. IOW, it’s *never *all about the act alone. The bible tells us that God judges by the heart rather than by appearances.

You still don’t get it. The “bad” thoughts do NOT necessarily lead to bad acts. But they are considered “evil” even they just engage in idle fantasizing.

A person can be a bad apple, of ill will, with or without committing a bad act even if it’s unlikely that they’d never commit one.

And this is where you leave the realm of rational consideration.

 

[STT]

So let me try to syllogize this:

P:God allows something he doesn’t want,
C:Therefore, God is an idiot.

Okay, per the basic rules of rhetoric here, you seem to be missing a premise. So you don’t actually have an argument yet; just some inane declaration.

Are you assuming a hidden premise of “Only idiots allow things they don’t want”?
If so, let’s reform:

P:God allows something he doesn’t want,
P:Only idiots allow things they don’t want
C:Therefore, God is an idiot.

So let’s look at the soundness of premise #2. In order the reject it, we need to identify one case where it isn’t true.

I don’t think that would be very difficult. A few popped into my skull as I was typing this…

You couldn’t discard premise #2 by assuming that there could exist one case where the premise is not true unless you are talking about super-idiot.

 

[Vonsalza]

You couldn’t discard premise #2 by assuming that there could exist one case where the premise is not true unless you are talking about super-idiot.

The only thing one needs to “wound” a premise is only one exception to it.

Then the premise is revealed as lacking soundness, ergo the conclusion inherits a lack of soundness.

We need only one example of a person rationally allowing something they don’t want.

Not hard to do. “Parents” come to mind…

 

[fhansen]

You still don’t get it. The “bad” thoughts do NOT necessarily lead to bad acts. But they are considered “evil” even they just engage in idle fantasizing.

No, for reconciliation/confession a person is urged to examine their consciences. Only if and when they’ve identified their thoughts as whatever: mean, vicious, greedy, lustful, bitter, etc. should they recognize the need to want to change.

And this is where you leave the realm of rational consideration.

It’s not at all irrational to understand that, for example, a paralyzed person who’d kill everyone in sight if physically able is still* not *a shining example of who we’d want our kids to grow up to be even though the person commits no bad act-because they’re unable. And to believe that a person’s acts have nothing to do with their thoughts is irrational.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The only thing one needs to “wound” a premise is only one exception to it.

Then the premise is revealed as lacking soundness, ergo the conclusion inherits a lack of soundness.

We need only one example of a person rationally allowing something they don’t want.

Not hard to do. “Parents” come to mind…

Any parent who allows his children to play with loaded guns is either an idiot or irresponsible. We are not talking about running round and “risking” to bruise the knees of the kids. The parents would actually want to have their children to have minor bruises, in order to teach them a lesson. But any parent, who allows his children to play next to a crevasse, and risk that the kids will fall to their death is an irresponsible parent.

The premise stands. If you allow something that you don’t want to happen you are either an idiot or irresponsible. So you failed to find even one counter example.

 

[Vonsalza]

Any parent who allows his children to play with loaded guns…

Rather extreme and absurd answer…

A dichotomy where an individual must pick between the lesser of two evils completely and unquestionably wounds the premise. Neither choice is desirable, but your so-labeled “idiot” must pick between them.

As a parent, you don’t want to cripple your kids by over-sheltering. But you also want to limit their exposure to dangerous temptations. Any “idiot” (again, your chosen term) who has raised a teenager knows intimately what I’m talking about.
Do you let them go to the party? :juggle:

So no. The weak, nonsensical premise of “Only idiots permit things they don’t want” does not stand absolutely. Unquestionably so. It breaks through the literally millions of situations where the optimal choice is only “the least undesired”.

 

[STT]

The only thing one needs to “wound” a premise is only one exception to it.

Then the premise is revealed as lacking soundness, ergo the conclusion inherits a lack of soundness.

We need only one example of a person rationally allowing something they don’t want.

Not hard to do. “Parents” come to mind…

That is only true if you define idiot as a person who always allows thing which they don’t want. What I call super-idiot.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

That is only true if you define idiot as a person who always allows thing which they don’t want. What I call super-idiot.

Vons does not understand the difference between “not wanting” and “not caring about”.

 

[fhansen]

That is only true if you define idiot as a person who always allows thing which they don’t want. What I call super-idiot.

Yes, and in the Christian world view evil will only be allowed the freedom to exist/express itself for a* time.*

 

[Vonsalza]

That is only true if you define idiot as a person who always allows thing which they don’t want. What I call super-idiot.

You need only one exception. Just one.

To break an absolute, you don’t need to prove the anti-absolute. You only have to show one particular to the contrary.

When it is found, you must reform your premise in order to obtain the soundness you seek.

 

[Vonsalza]

If you’d like to try and save Vera from his shoddy argument, your expansion of his absolute may preserve soundness.

But then the validity of the argument’s form is destroyed.

P:God allows something he doesn’t want,
P:Only idiots allow things they don’t want
C:Therefore, God is an idiot.

-becomes-

P:God allows something he doesn’t want,
P:Only idiots and non-idiots allow things they don’t want
C:Therefore, God is an idiot.

Invalid.

No charge.